3 ms·

How strongly does this hold in cases where the speech is actually effective? I'm genuinely interested in a discussion without taking a side, because I feel like

How strongly does this hold in cases where the speech is actually effective? I'm genuinely interested in a discussion without taking a side, because I feel like when people advocate for free speech, they are mainly thinking about unpopular unconvincing speech. Say, someone with a new brand of Nazi-ism is actually converting most of the people they talk to, using a combination of half-truths? Or even what if they are converting people by using celebrity endorsements and charismatic language? So no misinformation, but rather salient anecdotes, facts, and science? What if someone's speech is effective at making people afraid of exercising opposing speech? What if someone's speech convinces people to attack the capitol? Maybe they don't plan the attack itself, and it's merely implied that the state of the world is completely unfair in a way that only a revolution and changing of constitutional rights, could a better world be restored?

caslon 5y ago
Firm believer that private companies should be able to censor whatever they want here! > What if someone's speech is effective at making people afraid of exercising opposing speech? What if someone's speech convinces people to attack the capitol? Maybe they don't plan the attack itself, and it's merely implied that the state of the world is completely unfair in a way that only a revolution and changing of constitutional rights, could a better world be restored? The government should not be censoring this. Private companies, as always, should feel free to censor what they want, regardless of positions.
- overeater 5y ago
  Thanks for that thought. So what if we're back pre-WWII, and people were on the public streets giving speeches about joining the Nazi party? You'd support their right to spread their message, knowing what would happen? And I'm really trying to get at the point that this speech is actually effective. Not sure why people are downvoting, because I don't think this has been discussed before.
  - ryanschneider 5y ago
    Painfully, yes, being pro-Nazi in the run up to WW2 was entirely legal: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323... As much as I deplore their views I don’t think they should be legally barred from expressing them. Of course MSG has every right to decline hosting the above event, but the government shouldn’t be the arbiter of who can say what when in public.
  - bobsmooth 5y ago
    The same freedom that allowed the Nazi party to spread their message allowed LGB groups to spread theirs.
  - caslon 5y ago
    Yeah, absolutely. Even nazis deserve free speech. If it's effective, it's effective. If the Panthers were given actual free speech during the 60s, the world would have been an infinitely better place. If labor activists were given free speech rather than being habitually and ritualistically slaughtered by local and federal governments leading up to the 1930s the United States would be a drastically better place and it's likely that Germany would not have turned out so poorly in the first place as a side result. It doesn't matter whether the speech is effective or not. The root of your problem is that what has happened traditionally is that governments will censor left-leaning views while leaving the right free. The problem, then, is not that the right is not being censored, but that the left is.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > Private companies, as always, should feel free to censor what they want, regardless of positions. And what about when the government threatens private companies with new regulations or other actions if they don't suppress certain types of legal speech? Is there a point at which extralegal government pressure to suppress speech violates the first amendment? What about when companies "voluntarily" decide to supress anything that disagrees with the offical stance of the government and thus grants the government indirect control over that entire category of speech? Giving companies a complete free pass for censorship creates a huge backdoor that allows government censorship thrive with plausible deniability.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  > The government should not be censoring this. Private companies, as always, should feel free to censor what they want, regardless of positions. They aren't merely censoring, they are also libeling them by attaching a misinformation/disinformation type of label, or adding their own speech to it.

caslon 5y ago

Firm believer that private companies should be able to censor whatever they want here! > What if someone's speech is effective at making people afraid of exercising opposing speech? What if someone's speech convinces people to attack the capitol? Maybe they don't plan the attack itself, and it's merely implied that the state of the world is completely unfair in a way that only a revolution and changing of constitutional rights, could a better world be restored? The government should not be censoring this. Private companies, as always, should feel free to censor what they want, regardless of positions.

overeater 5y ago
Thanks for that thought. So what if we're back pre-WWII, and people were on the public streets giving speeches about joining the Nazi party? You'd support their right to spread their message, knowing what would happen? And I'm really trying to get at the point that this speech is actually effective. Not sure why people are downvoting, because I don't think this has been discussed before.
- ryanschneider 5y ago
  Painfully, yes, being pro-Nazi in the run up to WW2 was entirely legal: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323... As much as I deplore their views I don’t think they should be legally barred from expressing them. Of course MSG has every right to decline hosting the above event, but the government shouldn’t be the arbiter of who can say what when in public.
- bobsmooth 5y ago
  The same freedom that allowed the Nazi party to spread their message allowed LGB groups to spread theirs.
- caslon 5y ago
  Yeah, absolutely. Even nazis deserve free speech. If it's effective, it's effective. If the Panthers were given actual free speech during the 60s, the world would have been an infinitely better place. If labor activists were given free speech rather than being habitually and ritualistically slaughtered by local and federal governments leading up to the 1930s the United States would be a drastically better place and it's likely that Germany would not have turned out so poorly in the first place as a side result. It doesn't matter whether the speech is effective or not. The root of your problem is that what has happened traditionally is that governments will censor left-leaning views while leaving the right free. The problem, then, is not that the right is not being censored, but that the left is.
shkkmo 5y ago
> Private companies, as always, should feel free to censor what they want, regardless of positions. And what about when the government threatens private companies with new regulations or other actions if they don't suppress certain types of legal speech? Is there a point at which extralegal government pressure to suppress speech violates the first amendment? What about when companies "voluntarily" decide to supress anything that disagrees with the offical stance of the government and thus grants the government indirect control over that entire category of speech? Giving companies a complete free pass for censorship creates a huge backdoor that allows government censorship thrive with plausible deniability.
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> The government should not be censoring this. Private companies, as always, should feel free to censor what they want, regardless of positions. They aren't merely censoring, they are also libeling them by attaching a misinformation/disinformation type of label, or adding their own speech to it.