6 ms·

> "But they're wrong!" I'm pro-free speech, but this is a pretty disingenuous take on the other side. Pretty much without fail, the argument to restrict speec

> "But they're wrong!" I'm pro-free speech, but this is a pretty disingenuous take on the other side. Pretty much without fail, the argument to restrict speech is not merely, "but they're wrong!", it's some variant of, "but they're harmful! Their speech is hurting people!" And the truth is, quite often they're right. Not in the sense of "people's feelings are hurt by bad speech", but in the sense of, "this speech openly displayed encourages X, which is associated with actual, tangible harms to people". E.g. maybe that one racist dude isn't himself inciting anyone to violence through his screeds, but he's encouraging sentiment that does lead to real world violence and other harms. One of the more understandable restrictions is the ban on Nazi imagery in Germany. Yes, it's a violation of free speech, but given their history one can see why they would consider this a special case.

throwawaygh 6y ago
I'm also pro free speech and I also think this "intellectual humility" argument is a sort of a bad reason to be pro free speech. Man might be a reasoning animal, but his construction of belief is often not rooted in a rational search for truth. Man might be a reasoning animal, but the words he chooses to speak are often motivated by the wielding of political power rather than an attempt at expressing his actual underlying beliefs. Or, in modern vernacular, trolls exist and trolling is often quite effective. A good justification of free speech needs to start with realistic assumptions about how speech is used. That typically means abandoning the underlying assumption that the end goal of free speech is to enable a search for the truth. In fact, I really believe that once you start talking about the goal of free speech as a way of enabling search for the truth, censorship becomes a lot easier to justify.
- haberman 6y ago
  > A good justification of free speech needs to start with realistic assumptions about how speech is used. This must be accompanied by a realistic assumption of how power is used. Wielding of political power (particularly tyrannical power) is nearly always accompanied by suppression of speech that expresses dissent. Demagoguery may pollute a search for the truth, but nothing cements misinformation like a climate where people are prevented from saying true things.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    Yes, this starts to move toward what I would consider better justifications for free speech. Free speech is fundamentally about the machinations of power. Truth and sound reasoning are not unimportant per se, but they're certainly more instrumental than fundamental when it comes to the purpose of free speech.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    > people are prevented from saying true things. But nobody can guarantee that most things people say are indeed true. So the "true things" limitation needs to be lifted, else it suppresses free speech all the same ("everybody knows Earth is flat, and humans were created less than 7000 years ago; please shut up and stop spreading disinformation").
    - haberman 6y ago
      I wasn't meaning to suggest that only provably true speech should be protected. Certainly for libel/slander/defamation you have to prove that a statement was untrue to get a judgment against it.
BurningFrog 6y ago
You can always construct a credible argument for how any statement is "encouraging sentiment that does lead to real world violence and other harms". So with that "exception", you can ban absolutely anything.
- krapp 6y ago
  >You can always construct a credible argument for how any statement is "encouraging sentiment that does lead to real world violence and other harms". No, you can't. Human beings don't process language at such a low level that any statement which parses as grammatically valid is considered equally valid to all others in all possible dimensions, interpretations and contexts. While It may technically be possible to make an argument that any arbitrary statement causes real world harm and violence, not all such statements would be considered equally credible. The slippery slope you're describing here doesn't exist.
  - lefrenchy 6y ago
    Agreed, that slippery slope argument is so fallacious. I'm a free speech advocate, but let's not pretend that banning Nazi imagery in Germany is some sort of dangerous precedent, it encompasses so much historical context that it's asinine to use it as justification for a slippery slope argument.
    - at_a_remove 6y ago
      One would think so, but then the continual accusations of someone being an "actual Nazi" get thrown about almost constantly these days.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    I routinely see arguments of the type "Argument X is likely to increase prejudice against Trans/BIPOC/Undocumented people, which will lead to more of them being murdered" used against completely mainstream conservative arguments. Just a few weeks ago a NYT op ed by senator Tom Cotton caused a staff revolt at the paper which got the editorial page editor fired, and a main argument was that publishing it threatened the lives of NYT employees.
Natsu 6y ago
If you go back to Popper's paradox of tolerance, it was predicated on protecting oneself from those who used "fists or pistols" rather than words to argue.
ping_pong 6y ago
"People being hurt" is never a reason to stop something. If we took that route on everything, then everything would be banned because in some time or place, everyone has the capability of being hurt. Back in the 90s and early 2000s, people would censor things "because of the children". Nowadays, people censor things because "it's going to hurt me". I believe in absolute free speech, even if it's wrong and it makes me nauseous hearing it. I believe that the truth and reason will convince the majority. You can't protect everyone, and you can't convince everyone. If you try to protect everyone, it's a slippery slope to fascism which is what we are seeing right now.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  Sure it is. It is a question of degree, but "people are being hurt" is 100% why we have all sorts of laws ranging from preventing dumping waste in rivers to false advertising. In this case, a lot of people believe that people are being hurt extremely badly for centuries by racist systems and that some kinds of speech contribute directly to supporting those racist systems. "We can't protect people without turning fascist" is a really rough take.
  - ping_pong 6y ago
    I was talking about when it comes to speech and ideas. Not crimes. Don't be disingenous. Ideas that crossover to discrimination or fraud are actions that are criminal and we have laws against this. People who discriminate against others can be charged or sued, which is perfectly okay. But if someone quotes someone who asks the question "why do people not talk about black-on-black crime?" and then their entire livelihood is at risk just for asking a question, that is fascism and censorship of ideas. This is what Matt Tabbiti talks about in his article https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i.... The problem is that "banning every thought or idea that hurts people" it has crossed over to just simple thoughts and discussions, which is wrong. People need to be tougher. If you're "hurt" by an idea, then you are fragile. That's the whole point about talking, discussing, arguing and ultimately agreeing or disagreeing.

throwawaygh 6y ago

I'm also pro free speech and I also think this "intellectual humility" argument is a sort of a bad reason to be pro free speech. Man might be a reasoning animal, but his construction of belief is often not rooted in a rational search for truth. Man might be a reasoning animal, but the words he chooses to speak are often motivated by the wielding of political power rather than an attempt at expressing his actual underlying beliefs. Or, in modern vernacular, trolls exist and trolling is often quite effective. A good justification of free speech needs to start with realistic assumptions about how speech is used. That typically means abandoning the underlying assumption that the end goal of free speech is to enable a search for the truth. In fact, I really believe that once you start talking about the goal of free speech as a way of enabling search for the truth, censorship becomes a lot easier to justify.

haberman 6y ago
> A good justification of free speech needs to start with realistic assumptions about how speech is used. This must be accompanied by a realistic assumption of how power is used. Wielding of political power (particularly tyrannical power) is nearly always accompanied by suppression of speech that expresses dissent. Demagoguery may pollute a search for the truth, but nothing cements misinformation like a climate where people are prevented from saying true things.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  Yes, this starts to move toward what I would consider better justifications for free speech. Free speech is fundamentally about the machinations of power. Truth and sound reasoning are not unimportant per se, but they're certainly more instrumental than fundamental when it comes to the purpose of free speech.
- nine_k 6y ago
  > people are prevented from saying true things. But nobody can guarantee that most things people say are indeed true. So the "true things" limitation needs to be lifted, else it suppresses free speech all the same ("everybody knows Earth is flat, and humans were created less than 7000 years ago; please shut up and stop spreading disinformation").
  - haberman 6y ago
    I wasn't meaning to suggest that only provably true speech should be protected. Certainly for libel/slander/defamation you have to prove that a statement was untrue to get a judgment against it.

BurningFrog 6y ago

You can always construct a credible argument for how any statement is "encouraging sentiment that does lead to real world violence and other harms". So with that "exception", you can ban absolutely anything.

krapp 6y ago
>You can always construct a credible argument for how any statement is "encouraging sentiment that does lead to real world violence and other harms". No, you can't. Human beings don't process language at such a low level that any statement which parses as grammatically valid is considered equally valid to all others in all possible dimensions, interpretations and contexts. While It may technically be possible to make an argument that any arbitrary statement causes real world harm and violence, not all such statements would be considered equally credible. The slippery slope you're describing here doesn't exist.
- lefrenchy 6y ago
  Agreed, that slippery slope argument is so fallacious. I'm a free speech advocate, but let's not pretend that banning Nazi imagery in Germany is some sort of dangerous precedent, it encompasses so much historical context that it's asinine to use it as justification for a slippery slope argument.
  - at_a_remove 6y ago
    One would think so, but then the continual accusations of someone being an "actual Nazi" get thrown about almost constantly these days.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  I routinely see arguments of the type "Argument X is likely to increase prejudice against Trans/BIPOC/Undocumented people, which will lead to more of them being murdered" used against completely mainstream conservative arguments. Just a few weeks ago a NYT op ed by senator Tom Cotton caused a staff revolt at the paper which got the editorial page editor fired, and a main argument was that publishing it threatened the lives of NYT employees.

Natsu 6y ago

If you go back to Popper's paradox of tolerance, it was predicated on protecting oneself from those who used "fists or pistols" rather than words to argue.

ping_pong 6y ago

"People being hurt" is never a reason to stop something. If we took that route on everything, then everything would be banned because in some time or place, everyone has the capability of being hurt. Back in the 90s and early 2000s, people would censor things "because of the children". Nowadays, people censor things because "it's going to hurt me". I believe in absolute free speech, even if it's wrong and it makes me nauseous hearing it. I believe that the truth and reason will convince the majority. You can't protect everyone, and you can't convince everyone. If you try to protect everyone, it's a slippery slope to fascism which is what we are seeing right now.

UncleMeat 6y ago
Sure it is. It is a question of degree, but "people are being hurt" is 100% why we have all sorts of laws ranging from preventing dumping waste in rivers to false advertising. In this case, a lot of people believe that people are being hurt extremely badly for centuries by racist systems and that some kinds of speech contribute directly to supporting those racist systems. "We can't protect people without turning fascist" is a really rough take.
- ping_pong 6y ago
  I was talking about when it comes to speech and ideas. Not crimes. Don't be disingenous. Ideas that crossover to discrimination or fraud are actions that are criminal and we have laws against this. People who discriminate against others can be charged or sued, which is perfectly okay. But if someone quotes someone who asks the question "why do people not talk about black-on-black crime?" and then their entire livelihood is at risk just for asking a question, that is fascism and censorship of ideas. This is what Matt Tabbiti talks about in his article https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i.... The problem is that "banning every thought or idea that hurts people" it has crossed over to just simple thoughts and discussions, which is wrong. People need to be tougher. If you're "hurt" by an idea, then you are fragile. That's the whole point about talking, discussing, arguing and ultimately agreeing or disagreeing.