4 ms·

Princetonians for Free Speech

43 points by undefined1 6y ago

gedy 6y ago
I really wonder what happened. I'm old enough to remember how freedom of speech was used to defend saying things the majority of society did not support (mostly left leaning topics, but also things like rap music lyrics). Was that really supportive of "freedom of speech"? Or was that just used as a justification because they thought they were correct, but would have suppressed "wrong" speech they didn't believe in either? The current times strike me how the support for free speech has withered in its former bastions.
- glenda 6y ago
  Another issue I’ve noticed is that many people have taken freedom of speech to mean “everyone needs to listen to what I say”
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    Or even "everyone has a right to a bank account". Obviously freedom of speech means banks have a right to close your accounts if they don't like your politics and think no one will stand up for you.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      No, freedom of speech obviously means that banks will not close your bank account to punish you for your speech.
    - jfengel 6y ago
      That's more "freedom of association" than "freedom of speech". And yes, there are laws specifically governing legal and illegal discrimination in banking: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0347-your-equal-credit-opportunity-rights https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0347-your-equal-credit... Political affiliation is not a covered group, but I have no idea how the case law has been interpreted. It may be that a lot of political groups touch enough on a protected group that it would be forbidden to discriminate. I'm sure there are other laws that allow (and maybe even require) discrimination against violent groups. But that's definitely out of my depth.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- godshatter 6y ago
  I wonder this as well. I think it's tied into a lack of nuance that has arisen as a result of the polarization of viewpoints in the last decade or so. The intention is good, I think. Basically, what we're saying is obviously correct and what they're saying is obviously incorrect, maybe we should stop them from saying obviously incorrect things. The problem with that is that the world isn't so black and white. You need to hear all sides if you want to look at things critically. Doing that will also help one group to at least understand where another group is coming from, or at the very least what prompted them to adopt some seemingly indefensible ideas. You can't get there, though, if you don't allow their ideas to be heard and debated. That will keep the door open for both sides to be able to talk to each other. I have no ideas at all on how to make that actually happen, though. I say this as someone who doesn't identify strongly with either of the major "sides" in the current U.S. political climate.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
awillen 6y ago
I think at this point we need to stop talking about free speech and start talking about "free speech that is not clearly false and does not harrass or attempt to incite violence." We've never had unfettered right to free speech in America - as everyone knows, you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. The idea that you should be able to freely spread harmful lies (masks don't work, Covid is a hoax, etc.) is what's the problem. The right takes the phrase "free speech" and purposely misuses it (I mean the smart ones do, since they understand that all speech is not free, free speech comes from the government and not corporations, etc. - the dumb ones just take cues from the misleading use of the phrase by the smart ones). When they can't spread lies or cause harm or say whatever they want on Facebook/Twitter/etc., they cry free speech, even though they know the speech they're referring to isn't Constitutionally protected. It's the same thing that they do with Black Lives Matter/all lives matter. They willfully misinterpret BLM to mean "Black lives matter and other lives do not" where it clearly means "We treat other lives like they matter, and we should also recognize that Black lives matter and treat them the same way." It's just tough when a huge part of the country has no compunctions against dishonesty, voter suppression, etc. if it helps them get or maintain power.
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  Because then you end up with a ministry of truth that has to determine what speech is "clearly false". E.g one could make the argument that "nuclear power is unsafe" is "clearly false" given the facts based on deaths per watt-hour generated. You've already highlighted examples where partisanship breaks this down, in the case of BLM. What happens under this setup when, say, a Republican president wins under an extremely narrow margin and subsequently suppresses discussion of electoral fraud? If in 2000 the government cracked down on people claiming Florida was fraudulently tipped towards Bush, would you support such a system? Also, harassment is already prohibited. People mistake what harassment really is (people receiving speech they didn't consent to receive), with other people saying things they don't like between each other. For instance a university administrator claimed students bad-mouthing her on YikYak was harassment. It's not, since this professor could simply not use YikYak. Harassment protects against things people say to you, but not what people say about you between each other.
- 6y ago
mrbadideas 6y ago
Free speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences.

43 points by undefined1 6y ago

gedy 6y ago

I really wonder what happened. I'm old enough to remember how freedom of speech was used to defend saying things the majority of society did not support (mostly left leaning topics, but also things like rap music lyrics). Was that really supportive of "freedom of speech"? Or was that just used as a justification because they thought they were correct, but would have suppressed "wrong" speech they didn't believe in either? The current times strike me how the support for free speech has withered in its former bastions.

glenda 6y ago
Another issue I’ve noticed is that many people have taken freedom of speech to mean “everyone needs to listen to what I say”
- etrabroline 6y ago
  Or even "everyone has a right to a bank account". Obviously freedom of speech means banks have a right to close your accounts if they don't like your politics and think no one will stand up for you.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    No, freedom of speech obviously means that banks will not close your bank account to punish you for your speech.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    That's more "freedom of association" than "freedom of speech". And yes, there are laws specifically governing legal and illegal discrimination in banking: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0347-your-equal-credit-opportunity-rights https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0347-your-equal-credit... Political affiliation is not a covered group, but I have no idea how the case law has been interpreted. It may be that a lot of political groups touch enough on a protected group that it would be forbidden to discriminate. I'm sure there are other laws that allow (and maybe even require) discrimination against violent groups. But that's definitely out of my depth.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
godshatter 6y ago
I wonder this as well. I think it's tied into a lack of nuance that has arisen as a result of the polarization of viewpoints in the last decade or so. The intention is good, I think. Basically, what we're saying is obviously correct and what they're saying is obviously incorrect, maybe we should stop them from saying obviously incorrect things. The problem with that is that the world isn't so black and white. You need to hear all sides if you want to look at things critically. Doing that will also help one group to at least understand where another group is coming from, or at the very least what prompted them to adopt some seemingly indefensible ideas. You can't get there, though, if you don't allow their ideas to be heard and debated. That will keep the door open for both sides to be able to talk to each other. I have no ideas at all on how to make that actually happen, though. I say this as someone who doesn't identify strongly with either of the major "sides" in the current U.S. political climate.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

awillen 6y ago

I think at this point we need to stop talking about free speech and start talking about "free speech that is not clearly false and does not harrass or attempt to incite violence." We've never had unfettered right to free speech in America - as everyone knows, you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. The idea that you should be able to freely spread harmful lies (masks don't work, Covid is a hoax, etc.) is what's the problem. The right takes the phrase "free speech" and purposely misuses it (I mean the smart ones do, since they understand that all speech is not free, free speech comes from the government and not corporations, etc. - the dumb ones just take cues from the misleading use of the phrase by the smart ones). When they can't spread lies or cause harm or say whatever they want on Facebook/Twitter/etc., they cry free speech, even though they know the speech they're referring to isn't Constitutionally protected. It's the same thing that they do with Black Lives Matter/all lives matter. They willfully misinterpret BLM to mean "Black lives matter and other lives do not" where it clearly means "We treat other lives like they matter, and we should also recognize that Black lives matter and treat them the same way." It's just tough when a huge part of the country has no compunctions against dishonesty, voter suppression, etc. if it helps them get or maintain power.

sir_bearington 6y ago
Because then you end up with a ministry of truth that has to determine what speech is "clearly false". E.g one could make the argument that "nuclear power is unsafe" is "clearly false" given the facts based on deaths per watt-hour generated. You've already highlighted examples where partisanship breaks this down, in the case of BLM. What happens under this setup when, say, a Republican president wins under an extremely narrow margin and subsequently suppresses discussion of electoral fraud? If in 2000 the government cracked down on people claiming Florida was fraudulently tipped towards Bush, would you support such a system? Also, harassment is already prohibited. People mistake what harassment really is (people receiving speech they didn't consent to receive), with other people saying things they don't like between each other. For instance a university administrator claimed students bad-mouthing her on YikYak was harassment. It's not, since this professor could simply not use YikYak. Harassment protects against things people say to you, but not what people say about you between each other.
6y ago

mrbadideas 6y ago

Free speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences.