4 ms·

Free speech includes hate speech. > since there are laws against hate speech Not in the United States. See e.g. this unanimous high court decision https://www

Free speech includes hate speech. > since there are laws against hate speech Not in the United States. See e.g. this unanimous high court decision https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... I understand not everybody is fully supportive of liberal ideas like free speech. But there shouldn't be any confusion about what it means. Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I understand not everybody is fully supportive of liberal ideas like free speech. But there shouldn't be any confusion about what it means. Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech. One of the disputes that exist within the group supporting the liberal idea of free speech is it's boundary; there is general agreement that some range of speech that is both false and harmful is excluded, but the boundary of the kind and mechanism of harm that qualifies is disputed. > Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech. It's both false and in many contexts quite arguably harmful; whether it (in any particular context) involves the kind of harm that take it out of the realm of free speech is very much a dispute within the liberal, pro-free-speech community.
- will4274 6y ago
  This may feel like a no true scotsman, but it really isn't - those that oppose free speech are not true liberals. The heart of liberalism is individual freedom, responsibility, and culpability. True liberals believe that speech that does not directly evoke violence (such as Holocaust denial) is not violent. If somebody hears that speech and decides to become violent, that's on them. Believing that we need to restrict what is said in the town square because people will get bad ideas, believing that people are not free but just a confluence of the ideas around them, believing that people need to be led by an authority - these are the classic arguments against liberalism. You're trying to say that liberals are reciting anti-liberal talking points within their community regarding whether this kind of free speech is good. I think it's far more likely that these people are not really liberals, and just consider themselves to be liberals because it's the most popular political ideology of the day. We should not call those that recite anti-liberal talking points "liberals" - to do so is to rob the word of any meaning at all.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > True liberals believe that speech that does not directly evoke violence (such as Holocaust denial) is not violent. True liberals still frequently oppose defamation and sometimes other harmful false speech on grounds other than evoking violence.
disown 6y ago
> Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech. Not only is it an example, it's the best example. Free speech rights exist to protect the most offensive speech. It doesn't exist to protect popular benign speech. This is what so many people here, mostly foreigners without a doubt, don't understand. If you find something offensive or hateful, that's what free speech exists to protect. If it doesn't, free speech rights are worthless.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I understand not everybody is fully supportive of liberal ideas like free speech. But there shouldn't be any confusion about what it means. Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech. One of the disputes that exist within the group supporting the liberal idea of free speech is it's boundary; there is general agreement that some range of speech that is both false and harmful is excluded, but the boundary of the kind and mechanism of harm that qualifies is disputed. > Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech. It's both false and in many contexts quite arguably harmful; whether it (in any particular context) involves the kind of harm that take it out of the realm of free speech is very much a dispute within the liberal, pro-free-speech community.

will4274 6y ago
This may feel like a no true scotsman, but it really isn't - those that oppose free speech are not true liberals. The heart of liberalism is individual freedom, responsibility, and culpability. True liberals believe that speech that does not directly evoke violence (such as Holocaust denial) is not violent. If somebody hears that speech and decides to become violent, that's on them. Believing that we need to restrict what is said in the town square because people will get bad ideas, believing that people are not free but just a confluence of the ideas around them, believing that people need to be led by an authority - these are the classic arguments against liberalism. You're trying to say that liberals are reciting anti-liberal talking points within their community regarding whether this kind of free speech is good. I think it's far more likely that these people are not really liberals, and just consider themselves to be liberals because it's the most popular political ideology of the day. We should not call those that recite anti-liberal talking points "liberals" - to do so is to rob the word of any meaning at all.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > True liberals believe that speech that does not directly evoke violence (such as Holocaust denial) is not violent. True liberals still frequently oppose defamation and sometimes other harmful false speech on grounds other than evoking violence.

disown 6y ago

> Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech. Not only is it an example, it's the best example. Free speech rights exist to protect the most offensive speech. It doesn't exist to protect popular benign speech. This is what so many people here, mostly foreigners without a doubt, don't understand. If you find something offensive or hateful, that's what free speech exists to protect. If it doesn't, free speech rights are worthless.