4 ms·

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 (mostl

by 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]

by gedy 6y ago

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]