5 ms·

People tend to conflate freedom from persecution due to speech with freedom to say whatever, wherever. They are not the same.

vxNsr 6y ago
Oddly, until recently they were. It only became different recently and obv xkcd popularized the idea, but if freedom of speech isn’t associated with freedom from persecution it’s not really free speech. Everyone in the world has the right to free speech because they can literally talk and say whatever they want, but if the society that speech is spoken in doesn’t agree to allow that speech to be spoken freely (as in beer) it’s not a truly progressive society. Apparently the brits have been struggling with this for years[0] [0] https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/index.html#fn:1 https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...
- krapp 6y ago
  >but if freedom of speech isn’t associated with freedom from persecution it’s not really free speech. Given that every government in history which has recognized the concept of "free speech", including the United States, has regulated and even outlawed some forms of speech, and given that "consequence" is a natural, emergent property of societies and the fact that humans are social, emotional animals who don't process speech as mere passive data, one must come to the conclusion that free speech has never existed at any point in space or time. That being the case, one wonders why everyone is so concerned now about something that, clearly, humanity has never needed up until this point?
  - T-hawk 6y ago
    If you continue being okay with every loss of speech, then the only endpoint will be to have no speech at all.
    - krapp 6y ago
      When did I claim to be okay with every loss of speech? Every business and website since time immemorial has had the ability to choose with whom they do business, and what goods to stock and what not, and every publisher has had the right to choose which work to publish and which not. Despite common arguments, sites like Twitter are not the public commons, nor do they hold a monopoly on human communication, nor do they control public discourse. Even Benjamin Franklin sometimes turned away people who wanted to publish slanderous material in his newspaper. Freedom of speech doesn't obligate all platforms to carry your speech - it never has. Twitter being able to moderate content and ban accounts - even the personal accounts of Presidents of the United States - does not violate freedom of speech.
      - vxNsr 6y ago
        > Every business and website since time immemorial has had the ability to choose with whom they do business, and what goods to stock and what not, and every publisher has had the right to choose which work to publish and which not. This is false. As you said in your previous comment the government has always had a very heavy hand in regulating what people could and couldn't do, it's very much regulated who you can do business with and what you can stock and sell and to whom. This doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for a society that protects the rights of both the buyer and seller as much as possible. Your two comments contradict each other in such a stark way it quite frankly makes my head spin.
  - vxNsr 6y ago
    None of that really follows, the idea that because something hasn't existed until now proves it isn't necessary is again a reductive argument that simply doesn't make sense. There are many things that didn't exist and thus, were unnecessary for "modern" living and yet once they were invented and adopted it would be hard to go without them.
loveistheanswer 6y ago
You've stated what you think freedom of speech isn't, but can you actually define what you think freedom of speech is? It's funny how this mantra of "freedom of speech != freedom from consequences of speech" seemingly originated at precisely the same time that big tech corporations and social media mobs began punishing people en masse for lawful (but politically incorrect) speech. It seems like doublespeak really. I.e.: "Welcome, no tresspassing"
- weakfish 6y ago
  I'm on mobile so I can't provide sources too well, but it's fairly clear if you study the American Founding. Source: political science undergraduate Of course you are welcome to form your own interpretation, but I feel it is a fairly clear distinction. Happy to further this discussion when I'm at a computer with more access to info.
  - loveistheanswer 6y ago
    Indeed I have read through Farrand's records of the constitutional convention, I've read many of the founders personal writings (both federalists and anti federalists), I've read many works of prominent Enlightenment thinkers, and I've studied much of the history of the oppression and censorship of the Church which helped inspire the ideal of freedom of speech. Nowhere have I seen anything resembling "freedom of speech != freedom from consequences", except from the Church. After all, heretics and blasphemers were indeed free to say what they wanted to say (they had larynxes, after all), but they were not free from the consequences of their speech. Please do tell me what you think freedom of speech is, in your own words, when you are at a keyboard. In my own words, freedom of speech is an ideal, like the ideal "that all men are created equal". This ideal seeks to liberate human kind from being systematically punished for expressing offensive ideas, because ever so many of the greatest human revelations were profoundly offensive to society at large at their inception. "I cannot contemplate human affairs, without laughing or crying. I choose to laugh. When People talk of the Freedom of Writing Speaking or thinking, I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists: but I hope it will exist, But it must be hundreds of years after you and I Shall write and Speak no more." -John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1817 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6790 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6790

vxNsr 6y ago

Oddly, until recently they were. It only became different recently and obv xkcd popularized the idea, but if freedom of speech isn’t associated with freedom from persecution it’s not really free speech. Everyone in the world has the right to free speech because they can literally talk and say whatever they want, but if the society that speech is spoken in doesn’t agree to allow that speech to be spoken freely (as in beer) it’s not a truly progressive society. Apparently the brits have been struggling with this for years[0] [0] https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/index.html#fn:1 https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...

krapp 6y ago
>but if freedom of speech isn’t associated with freedom from persecution it’s not really free speech. Given that every government in history which has recognized the concept of "free speech", including the United States, has regulated and even outlawed some forms of speech, and given that "consequence" is a natural, emergent property of societies and the fact that humans are social, emotional animals who don't process speech as mere passive data, one must come to the conclusion that free speech has never existed at any point in space or time. That being the case, one wonders why everyone is so concerned now about something that, clearly, humanity has never needed up until this point?
- T-hawk 6y ago
  If you continue being okay with every loss of speech, then the only endpoint will be to have no speech at all.
  - krapp 6y ago
    When did I claim to be okay with every loss of speech? Every business and website since time immemorial has had the ability to choose with whom they do business, and what goods to stock and what not, and every publisher has had the right to choose which work to publish and which not. Despite common arguments, sites like Twitter are not the public commons, nor do they hold a monopoly on human communication, nor do they control public discourse. Even Benjamin Franklin sometimes turned away people who wanted to publish slanderous material in his newspaper. Freedom of speech doesn't obligate all platforms to carry your speech - it never has. Twitter being able to moderate content and ban accounts - even the personal accounts of Presidents of the United States - does not violate freedom of speech.
    - vxNsr 6y ago
      > Every business and website since time immemorial has had the ability to choose with whom they do business, and what goods to stock and what not, and every publisher has had the right to choose which work to publish and which not. This is false. As you said in your previous comment the government has always had a very heavy hand in regulating what people could and couldn't do, it's very much regulated who you can do business with and what you can stock and sell and to whom. This doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for a society that protects the rights of both the buyer and seller as much as possible. Your two comments contradict each other in such a stark way it quite frankly makes my head spin.
- vxNsr 6y ago
  None of that really follows, the idea that because something hasn't existed until now proves it isn't necessary is again a reductive argument that simply doesn't make sense. There are many things that didn't exist and thus, were unnecessary for "modern" living and yet once they were invented and adopted it would be hard to go without them.

loveistheanswer 6y ago

You've stated what you think freedom of speech isn't, but can you actually define what you think freedom of speech is? It's funny how this mantra of "freedom of speech != freedom from consequences of speech" seemingly originated at precisely the same time that big tech corporations and social media mobs began punishing people en masse for lawful (but politically incorrect) speech. It seems like doublespeak really. I.e.: "Welcome, no tresspassing"

weakfish 6y ago
I'm on mobile so I can't provide sources too well, but it's fairly clear if you study the American Founding. Source: political science undergraduate Of course you are welcome to form your own interpretation, but I feel it is a fairly clear distinction. Happy to further this discussion when I'm at a computer with more access to info.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  Indeed I have read through Farrand's records of the constitutional convention, I've read many of the founders personal writings (both federalists and anti federalists), I've read many works of prominent Enlightenment thinkers, and I've studied much of the history of the oppression and censorship of the Church which helped inspire the ideal of freedom of speech. Nowhere have I seen anything resembling "freedom of speech != freedom from consequences", except from the Church. After all, heretics and blasphemers were indeed free to say what they wanted to say (they had larynxes, after all), but they were not free from the consequences of their speech. Please do tell me what you think freedom of speech is, in your own words, when you are at a keyboard. In my own words, freedom of speech is an ideal, like the ideal "that all men are created equal". This ideal seeks to liberate human kind from being systematically punished for expressing offensive ideas, because ever so many of the greatest human revelations were profoundly offensive to society at large at their inception. "I cannot contemplate human affairs, without laughing or crying. I choose to laugh. When People talk of the Freedom of Writing Speaking or thinking, I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists: but I hope it will exist, But it must be hundreds of years after you and I Shall write and Speak no more." -John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1817 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6790 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6790