3 ms·

> but then proceeding barely talk about what was presented in the show, and instead attacking the presentation (harpsichord music?), the listener demographic, '

• Barrin92 5y ago
  >for example he presents a detailed and informative critique of the show’s poor understanding of Brandenburg vs Ohio. I don't think he is clear on this at all. On the one hand he uses an absolutist reading of the case to justify his pretty scathing attack on NPR: "This was the essence of the ACLU’s argument, and it’s the same one made by people like Hugo Black and Benjamin Hooks and congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, who said, “It is technically impossible to write an anti-speech code that cannot be twisted against speech nobody means to bar. It has been tried and tried and tried.” On the other hand, he seems to contradict that point at the end: "Yes, speech can be harmful, which is why journalists like me have always welcomed libel and incitement laws and myriad other restrictions, and why new rules will probably have to be concocted for some of the unique problems of the Internet age" He seems to be mostly attacking NPR because he has an axe to grind with the media rather than talking about the issue where it's not clear to what degree his own position differs from, or what is fundamentally wrong with it. >Who gets to decide what makes the discourse healthy? Authority. The same institutions that get to decide anything else. What I'm arguing is that, if you are okay with say, the police limiting freedom of association in the public space to ensure the safety of a community, you ought to be okay with limits on freedom of speech for that same reason. There's nothing mystical about it, nothing extra, nothing that warrants dogmatic defense. The reason why people hesitate with this is, as I said in the first post, that regulating speech amounts to acknowledging that this sort of rationalist individualism is a myth. It's an attack on ideology in a way that many other limitations of freedom are not.
  • nobodyandproud 5y ago
    > On the other hand, he seems to contradict that point at the end: "Yes, speech can be harmful, which is why journalists like me have always welcomed libel and incitement laws and myriad other restrictions, and why new rules will probably have to be concocted for some of the unique problems of the Internet age" I don’t think this is a contradiction, but see below. >>Who gets to decide what makes the discourse healthy? >Authority. The same institutions that get to decide anything else. What I'm arguing is that, if you are okay with say, the police limiting freedom of association in the public space to ensure the safety of a community, you ought to be okay with limits on freedom of speech for that same reason. There's nothing mystical about it, nothing extra, nothing that warrants dogmatic defense. The reason why people hesitate with this is, as I said in the first post, that regulating speech amounts to acknowledging that this sort of rationalist individualism is a myth. I think this conclusion is flawed. Free speech isn’t held as valuable for its own sake, but because the suppression idea exchange; lack of discourse on unpopular topics; and generally taking an unpopular position; all put the society at risk of becoming stunted or extremely oppressive. So authority can decide some speech is harmful and offers no real benefit. However, this no way implies that society absolutely knows what sorts of speech are actually beneficial.
  • zepto 5y ago
    > Authority. The same institutions that get to decide anything else. What I'm arguing is that, if you are okay with say, the police limiting freedom of association in the public space to ensure the safety of a community, you ought to be okay with limits on freedom of speech for that same reason. That doesn’t follow unless you believe in authoritarian dictatorship. If you don’t, then the authority to temporarily limit freedom of association must be accountable to the people. In order to hold authority to account, it must be possible to speak in ways that authority would wish to silence. This is why freedom of speech is important.