6 ms·

>It's not government censorship, but it's still censorship. No, it's free speech, not censorship. Freedom of association, choosing NOT to say something, to NOT

by xoa 5y ago

>It's not government censorship, but it's still censorship. No, it's free speech, not censorship. Freedom of association, choosing NOT to say something, to NOT spend your own (including your organization's own) private resources supporting something, and advocating others don't either, is itself integral to Free Speech. You can't support a specific stance without NOT supporting all the ones opposed to it. And the idea isn't just to howl into the wind, it's to convince the rest of us hooting apes about it too! Free Speech is inherently a social endeavor to convince other minds which will result in their altering their behavior (including how they allocate their personal resources and power). You don't need it alone on an island. >Freedom of speech as a concept isn't just limited to the first amendment. Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". The point of free speech is to keeping the seeking of truth and debates around values to the social and economic circles vs those of force. Because we simply cannot trust coercive force to not solidify things into very bad positions that then stick across broad swaths of the population. There has to be room for people to advocate against even broad consensus, if they believe it enough. But within those spheres it's open season, a constant ever shifting dynamic back and forth that never ends. Indeed making sure "it never ends" is the essence of free speech. And just because even broad consensus can sometimes be wrong doesn't mean it's not often right. The people arguing against it may well be horrible people. Them being shunned, argued back against, and denied other people's support is Free Speech working 100% as intended. If they truly believe it they will just have to keep at it, and it may well take decades to shift society's overall views. They may fail, and it may be expensive. That's how it is. The point is that force can't be used to completely crush all potential to change minds.

rhino369 5y ago
>Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". Freedom of speech is a principle--not the bare minimum allowable under the first amendment. You don't agree with the principle of freedom of speech if you support shunning from debate anyone who holds an opinion you disagree with. That said, you don't have to agree with the principle of free speech. And the freedom of speech / association gives you the right to shun people. But your behavior is contrary to the principle of freedom of speech.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  This isn't true because shunning opinions is its own kind of speech. I think it is better captured as "freedom of association" but these are two sides of the same coin. People who see themselves as like free speech maximalists, beyond just being against the limitation of speech by government force, always seem to ignore this part.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    I literally explained how its speech but against the principle of free speech--and you just cherry picked around the explanation. Hardly ignoring it. Statement and actions that are against freedom of speech are still allowed under freedom of speech. That's not some GOTCHA against the freedom of speech. Young should be allowed to do what he's doing. But he should fully expect to be called a censoring blacklister.
    - sanderjd 5y ago
      I didn't cherry pick. What you're saying here just doesn't really make sense. It isn't "against freedom of speech" to exercise your own freedom of association.
      - rhino369 5y ago
        Obviously you can speak against freedom of speech. The freedom of speech would allow that speech (and nobody is saying Young should be prevented from what he is doing). But you'd still be advocating censorship. You can join a political group advocating for censorship. That's attempted censorship even if its allowed under freedom of speech. So yes, you can exercise your freedom of speech to speak against freedom of speech. There is no contradiction.
        sanderjd 5y ago
        Yes, you can speak against freedom of speech, that just isn't what's going on here. Saying "I don't want to be associated with a company that is associated with this person" is not "speaking against free speech". Saying "this person should be kept from speaking anywhere" would be speaking against free speech, but that's not what's going on here.
rhino369 5y ago
>No, it's free speech, not censorship. There is no contraction. A call for censorship is allowed under freedom of speech. I would never force spotify to platform anyone they don't want to. But I will criticize those who demand others blacklist. Answer this: Was the Hollywood self-enforced blacklist of communists censorship?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tomp 5y ago
> Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". Fortunately Neil Young lacks the power to enforce his view, but make no doubt, his view is censorship.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  Neil Young can't censor media he doesn't control. Spotify could choose to censor Rogan, either in response to what Neil Young said (which note: he is also free to speak) or just on their own. And that's fine, it's their choice who to associate with and who not to. Note that they definitely already do censor in this way by choosing what podcasts to host and advertise on their product.
- xoa 5y ago
  As sibling comment says, without force behind it it's not in fact censorship. It's free speech. He doesn't want to support certain speech and is taking action accordingly, and he doesn't want others to either and is saying so and why. Others may choose to agree or not and take action accordingly. He can then react to that. And on and on throughout society. That entire dynamic is the essence of free speech, not censorship.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  A view can't be censorship. Censorship is the compulsory suppression of speech, and arguably the compulsion has to be done by a government (if it's not done by a government, then it's not compulsory). Censorship is an act, not an opinion.
  - tomp 5y ago
    No, censorship is the intent to prevent someone from speaking. Whether you succeed or not depends on other things (in particular, an individual’s power). All else is a red herring. As the saying goes, ”In the Soviet Union, we have freedom of speech. But in the US, you have freedom after* speech.”
    - denton-scratch 5y ago

by xoa 5y ago

rhino369 5y ago

>Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". Freedom of speech is a principle--not the bare minimum allowable under the first amendment. You don't agree with the principle of freedom of speech if you support shunning from debate anyone who holds an opinion you disagree with. That said, you don't have to agree with the principle of free speech. And the freedom of speech / association gives you the right to shun people. But your behavior is contrary to the principle of freedom of speech.

sanderjd 5y ago
This isn't true because shunning opinions is its own kind of speech. I think it is better captured as "freedom of association" but these are two sides of the same coin. People who see themselves as like free speech maximalists, beyond just being against the limitation of speech by government force, always seem to ignore this part.
- rhino369 5y ago
  I literally explained how its speech but against the principle of free speech--and you just cherry picked around the explanation. Hardly ignoring it. Statement and actions that are against freedom of speech are still allowed under freedom of speech. That's not some GOTCHA against the freedom of speech. Young should be allowed to do what he's doing. But he should fully expect to be called a censoring blacklister.
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    I didn't cherry pick. What you're saying here just doesn't really make sense. It isn't "against freedom of speech" to exercise your own freedom of association.
    - rhino369 5y ago
      Obviously you can speak against freedom of speech. The freedom of speech would allow that speech (and nobody is saying Young should be prevented from what he is doing). But you'd still be advocating censorship. You can join a political group advocating for censorship. That's attempted censorship even if its allowed under freedom of speech. So yes, you can exercise your freedom of speech to speak against freedom of speech. There is no contradiction.
      - sanderjd 5y ago
        Yes, you can speak against freedom of speech, that just isn't what's going on here. Saying "I don't want to be associated with a company that is associated with this person" is not "speaking against free speech". Saying "this person should be kept from speaking anywhere" would be speaking against free speech, but that's not what's going on here.

rhino369 5y ago

>No, it's free speech, not censorship. There is no contraction. A call for censorship is allowed under freedom of speech. I would never force spotify to platform anyone they don't want to. But I will criticize those who demand others blacklist. Answer this: Was the Hollywood self-enforced blacklist of communists censorship?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tomp 5y ago

> Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". Fortunately Neil Young lacks the power to enforce his view, but make no doubt, his view is censorship.

sanderjd 5y ago
Neil Young can't censor media he doesn't control. Spotify could choose to censor Rogan, either in response to what Neil Young said (which note: he is also free to speak) or just on their own. And that's fine, it's their choice who to associate with and who not to. Note that they definitely already do censor in this way by choosing what podcasts to host and advertise on their product.
xoa 5y ago
As sibling comment says, without force behind it it's not in fact censorship. It's free speech. He doesn't want to support certain speech and is taking action accordingly, and he doesn't want others to either and is saying so and why. Others may choose to agree or not and take action accordingly. He can then react to that. And on and on throughout society. That entire dynamic is the essence of free speech, not censorship.
denton-scratch 5y ago
A view can't be censorship. Censorship is the compulsory suppression of speech, and arguably the compulsion has to be done by a government (if it's not done by a government, then it's not compulsory). Censorship is an act, not an opinion.
- tomp 5y ago
  No, censorship is the intent to prevent someone from speaking. Whether you succeed or not depends on other things (in particular, an individual’s power). All else is a red herring. As the saying goes, ”In the Soviet Union, we have freedom of speech. But in the US, you have freedom after* speech.”
  - denton-scratch 5y ago