11 ms·
It seems to me like there are more forums for free speech now than ever before. When in our history has it been easier for the average citizen to find a platfor
by drewrv 5y ago
It seems to me like there are more forums for free speech now than ever before. When in our history has it been easier for the average citizen to find a platform to host their views?
- minikites 5y agoYou're right, because it's not about having a platform for speech, it's about escaping consequences for speech.
- mc32 5y agoWhat consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? What say aclu?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? None. For organizing a violent insurrection? Several.
- gruez 5y agoSites were being deplatformed before the "violent insurrection" though.
- mc32 5y agoIf there were people who organized a violent movement to overthrow the government, they should be prosecuted. Just like organizers who organized the burning of police stations should be investigated and prosecuted. However, I don't think we should prosecute people for having attended an event that got co-opted and where they had no intent on participating in an insurrection or burning police stations.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> I don't think we should prosecute people for having attended an event that got co-opted and where they had no intent on participating in an insurrection or burning police stations Totally agreed. Notably, nobody has suggested this. And nobody has, at least so far, been prosecuted for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago"wrong place" meaning "inside the capitol at all" but certainly non-violent: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2021/06/23/capitol-riot-sees-1st-sentence-given-indianas-anna-morgan-lloyd/5309991001/ https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2021/06/23/capitol...
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago“Wrong place” in my comment meant you were at the rally and went along with it. At the point you’re storming a federal building, you should know you’re breaking all manner of laws.
- slumdev 5y agoHow can you storm a building when the police are holding the door open for you and ushering you in?
- krapp 5y agoLike so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukU_aTzmF3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukU_aTzmF3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1pIkbPvI8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1pIkbPvI8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2npCYNnV18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2npCYNnV18
- slumdev 5y agoAnd you would use the actions of a few agents provocateurs to smear the rest of the peaceful protestors who were let in by police? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiF4EIReuY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiF4EIReuY4
- tomp 5y agoIt's similar to college rape accusations. If the accusation is true, then it's a crime and the punishment should be much more severe. If the accusation is false, then it's a non-issue (and clearly not a crime), and there should be no punishment. Big tech and universities do not have the skills, experience, resources or obligation to resolve the question of guilt clearly and fairly. Let's leave that to the courts.
- hellcow 5y agoIs this a serious comment? Of course there's consequences for your speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. If you're an outspoken Nazi, you have the right to your speech, but I have the right to not interact with you, and companies have the right not to serve you. Those are consequences of your speech. Freedom of speech means you won't be arrested for it, not that everyone needs to listen.
- gruez 5y ago>If you're an outspoken Nazi, you have the right to your speech, but I have the right to not interact with you, and companies have the right not to serve you. Those are consequences of your speech. So you'd be fine if amazon refused to serve you because you're a pro-union sympathizer, right?
- mc32 5y agoOh, no! No, that's different. That... that... Just do as I say, and we'll all be okay, I know the right path, follow me to perdition.
- mc32 5y agoThis is getting very Stalin-esque. Sure, you have many rights in the constitution, but if you actually exercise them then you suffer unwritten consequences. The Soviet constitution granted citizens more rights then the US constitution does us, but it was just worthless promises. I can't believe people don't see the similarity and are willingly going down this path. It's so blindingly obvious that it's the same tactic used in Stalinism, Maoism and McCarthyism but people gleefully want to wrap their arms around it.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- neurobashing 5y agowell for example there is no law against standing in a public square, be it physical or virtual, and screaming racial epithets. The government cannot forbid it, and within certain limitations (eg "disruption of the peace") they cannot stop someone from doing it with law or force. It is free and protected speech, albeit abhorrent. However there is no law against our hypothetical racist being uninvited from the opening of an art gallery whose first exhibition is the work of african-american artists. It is a private organization who does not want to associate with someone. Or to put it simply: it's OK to downvote someone. That's how communities work!
- mc32 5y agoI would agree with the above. I don't like radical anti-abortionists who camp out at abortion clinics, but I recognize we all have this right. I wish they would pursue their goals more civilly, they would likely get some sympathy if they were humane about it, for example.
- adamrezich 5y agowhat's more civil than peacefully protesting?
- krapp 5y agoRadical anti-abortionists also harass and intimidate people (while "peacefully" protesting,) bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors. That's probably what mc32 is referring to.
- adamrezich 5y agohow did you get "bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors" from "camp out at abortion clinics"?
- krapp 5y agoI got there from "radical anti-abortionists," and the context of the rest of the comment. edit: but apparently I misinterpreted the comment so mea culpa, my bar for "radical" is different than mc32's.
- Finnucane 5y agoDepends on what you are saying. If you make a credible threat against someone, you can be held criminally liable for that. If you libel someone, they can sue you. Free speech means that you have a right to say what you want and the government can't block you from doing so. There's a very high legal bar for prior restraint. After the fact there are circumstances in which you could be in legal trouble.
- ohgodplsno 5y agoFrom the state ? Most likely none, unless you are actively calling for harm, rebellion, terrorism, things like that. From individuals ? I would be more than happy to punch you for preaching nazi rethoric, for example, and so would thousands of us.
- mc32 5y agoI think we can all agree we vehemently disagree with people who threaten our existence. We still do not have a right to inflict physical violence upon those who are voicing their opinions, no matter how vile they are. Now, of course you may be rightfully upset and unwind, but that is not a protected right. If you disagree with the above, I'm afraid it's a misunderstanding of the intentions of the first amendment to the US constitution.
- ohgodplsno 5y agoThe first amendment to the US Constitution only applies to the US Government. The government cannot prevent you from spewing your bile. It in no way applies to interactions between individual citiizens. You a dreadfully mistaken if you think it's a free pass because "muh free speech". Additionally, hate speech is also violence, and you cannot hide behind free speech to say "but look, you're doing physical violence to me". So, yeah, beat up nazis.
- gruez 5y ago>From individuals ? I would be more than happy to punch you for preaching nazi rethoric, for example, and so would thousands of us. Isn't that literally terrorism? >The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create public fear through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
- ohgodplsno 5y agoNo, it's self defense. Especially not when the actual nazis are the ones committing acts of terrorism in your very own country.
- jcranmer 5y agoParallel to freedom of speech is freedom of association. The consequence to exercising your right to free speech is that other people might decide you're too horrible a person to work with. Consider this hypothetical situation. Imagine your favorite actor comes out with some really, really horrible political views, like women should be the chattel slaves of their male guardians. For a lot of people, even maybe you yourself, discovering this about a person is going to heavily color your views not only of him but of other things he does, and you're not going to enjoy seeing films he stars in any more. Since the film studios aren't idiots, he's going to be essentially blacklisted from any future roles. There's the consequences.
- mc32 5y agoThat's on the individual level and that's okay -that's our right as individuals. Institutionally it should be different. Otherwise we'll have to ban those actors who might be sympathetic to the communists. As an aside, most "creatives" have deep problems that would make them horrible people to participate in life with. Sure, I might completely disagree with Sean Connery's attitude toward women, for example, but that will not diminish my joy watching his movies. You have to separate the character from the actor and the art from the artist.
- commandlinefan 5y ago"I can guarantee freedom of speech. I cannot guarantee freedom after speech" -- Idi Amin (the murderous dictator)
- debacle 5y agoThis is a wonderful response to that line of thinking. Thank you. This appears to be the actual quote: "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech." But I can't find an official source.
- UncleMeat 5y agoWatch how swiftly the alt right retreats on their support for free speech should they ever dominate politics.
- Veen 5y agoAbout as quickly as progressives retreated from it once they had the power to get people they disagree with fired.
- arp242 5y agoThis, too, seems more free than every before. Not all that long ago you could be fined and imprisoned for things like blasphemy and obscenity, never mind the whole anti-communist "red scare" that lasted for a few decades. There are loads of examples from just a few decades ago that would be unthinkable today. I'm not saying things are perfect or that there aren't any problems, but I feel sometimes the historical perspective is a bit lost.
- gruez 5y ago>but I feel sometimes the historical perspective is a bit lost. How is the "historical perspective" relevant here? Are you just arguing "we actually have it pretty good right now compared to the past so we shouldn't feel so bad about freedom of speech slipping"?
- arp242 5y agoWhen it's presented as a near-existential threat then I think it's important to keep some perspective, and it clarifies that "free speech absolutism" has never been a particular common or popular stance.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- aww_dang 5y ago>When in our history... Before the masses were corralled into walled gardens. If a free and open Internet was a threat to gatekeepers, walled gardens are the solution. You can say anything you want on their platforms, as long as it adheres to the party's content guidelines. The gate-kept illusion of freedom is arguably more toxic, because it normalizes the curated garden of propagandized views. Yes, you have more options than broadcast TV, newspapers and radio. Especially if you espouse mainstream views which one would easily find on those sources. There was a time before eternal September, let's call it August. Google searches were populated by independently run forums and websites. Tech giants were not bent on imposing their political will. Individuals were getting the word out about Hans Blix on independent sites. One can only wonder how Twitter or Facebook's fact checkers would handle that today. "Experts confirm Saddam has WMD" In the august days before fact checkers and Facebook, users could still obtain free hosting. They could even post on forums without learning the basics of HTML. That's when the history of the Internet turned.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> Before the masses were corralled into walled gardens The total audience for the internet was far less in those days.
- aww_dang 5y agoAgreed, but that isn't a rationalization of the walled garden or proof that the Internet couldn't have continued to grow without the model imposed by "platforms". To the contrary, the Internet was still growing by leaps and bounds. I propose that the Internet had reached a point where vested interests needed to capture it to maintain control of the narrative.
- Workaccount2 5y agoIt's weird to think back to a decade or 15 years ago where it was shameful to be an "internet addict". Spending a lot of time online was generally frowned upon, and not something you would talk about. Now the entirety of society is an "internet addict". I'll admit the nerd inside me feels a bit vindicated, even if horrified overall with where the internet has taken us.
- piokoch 5y agoGood luck posting your doubts about Covid vaccination results on Twitter, FB or YT. You will not even notice how fast your wrongthinking will be detected and removed.
- devwastaken 5y agoTwitter, fb, and yt are the platforms for COVID misinformation. Contrary to popular belief this content rarely removed.
- rat87 5y agoSadly you are incorrect Dangerous antivax nonsense is not well moderated on many of those platforms, especially Facebook
- seattle_spring 5y agoIf this garbage was actually filtered and censored, then how is it still rammed down my throat at every turn?
- prvc 5y agoYesterday. After that, last week, easier; then last year, yet easier; 5 years ago, easier still, and so on. I will not speculate as to when the maximum was reached, but it was somewhere between the creation of the internet and the present.
- debacle 5y agoI would argue that the peak was on reddit, very briefly before the culmination of the Democrat primary in 2016. The descent was a panic response to two populists nearly winning the major party nominations in the US. We can likely reach pre-2016 levels of Internet freedom again. I'm not sure if Gab is a critical piece of that, but they seem to be doing mostly the right things right now (though I would like to see some sort of /r/all mechanism for popular activity, right now feeds appear to be completely self-curated).
- vangelis 5y agoDoubt. Good luck not getting instantly banned on Gab for left wing opinions.
- BeFlatXIII 5y agoOn Reddit, it would have been right before Gamergate became the political opinion spam that never went away. 2014 rather than 2016.
- debacle 5y agoI forgot about gamergate. You are probably right.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]