10 ms·

I have a foreign wife and it really drives home one truth: America is a very nuanced place. We have this idea of almost unlimited free speech. Which sounds grea

by issa 5y ago

I have a foreign wife and it really drives home one truth: America is a very nuanced place. We have this idea of almost unlimited free speech. Which sounds great, but in practice, it is not really true. Because ultimately, Americans do not have equal rights. We see this over and over in different aspects of society. The Frederick Douglas example from Boston in the article is a great example of why free speech is good. But the truth is it is the same kind of people who are always preventing free speech in meaningful ways. If your takeaway from the speech is that "all kinds of speech need to be heard", you might be philosophically correct. But, again, in practice, the people in power do not allow free speech. And this is fundamentally different from most examples of cancel culture.

bushbaba 5y ago
We should remember that the term free speech was coined many hundreds of years ago. During that timeframe, talking against the current ruler could lead to one’s death.
- 6510 5y ago
  What you say still has consequences. Those might not be ideal at any time. The question is if you should be allowed to say it. If the line would be drawn there we must then discuss what you are allowed to think.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    The problem today is that when what one says doesn’t have the desired consequences of some group, they then attempt to change the rules and stifle speech. This is why the line, which I acknowledge there is a legal line of free speech, should be clearly enumerated (which it is). And any company moving the line should be held accountable.
pyuser583 5y ago
I’m a bit confused. Is your wife from a more less equal/free place than America?
- issa 5y ago
  My wife is from Germany. My point isn't really about how "free" Germany is compared to the US (that is an entirely different debate). It is about America and how nuanced things are. It's very difficult to explain a different country's history and sense of self and how that influences daily life.
- dustymcp 5y ago
  Most places according to incarceration rate is more free than USA
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Why is this a metric we should use to understand if a place is “free”?
    - issa 5y ago
      It seems like a pretty good one. To truly answer the large question you need to answer smaller ones like "do citizens have opportunities aside from crime"? That seems relevant to how "free" a country is.
raxxorrax 5y ago
I doubt you will find any example where minorities suffered from too much free speech. The truth it that there are always some people who pretend to know better and put pressure on officials. These people are not friendly to any minority and should be disregarded. The people in power currently try everything to restrict speech, but it is also welcomed by a certain sheltered demographic whose worst part of the day is that they have to read an offensive internet comment that doesn't agree with their world view.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  >I doubt you will find any example where minorities suffered from too much free speech. people of minority X are subhumans and should not be allowed the same rights as the rest of us! Yes, minorities did not suffer from having free speech; they did suffer from others having it.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    My ethnicity is often called subhuman on the internet. I don't mind it because those that utter such statements are punished enough with being themselves that I don't feel it a necessity to even react to it. I also don't have to read it. I don't believe their position is popular in a way that it is in any way relevant. It doesn't phase me as much as others speaking in my stead or far worse, alleging a indemonstrable hatred or bias towards other ethnicities. People I like very much have been accused of hating me because some didn't like their politics. That is way more offensive to me than the usual vulgar bloke that tries to get a reaction for his self-confidence.
  - Jtype 5y ago
    Whose speech do you think would have been censored though, the majority or the minority. Minority groups are always the ones who suffer from restrictions on speech. Supporting speech censorship will always lead to restrictions on minority groups, not the majority. I feel that there is confusion in this topic because there are so many people who think they are fighting hate-speech against minorities. Since it then feels morally superior to suppress speech that they don't agree with they think it's in the best interest of the minority. However the arguments and policies that are established to suppress free speech will inevitably lead to restricting the speech of minority groups. This is simply because the majority at any given point in time will only suppress the non-majority opinions. You see that now, none of these groups trying to restrict speech are trying to restrict popular speech that they agree with, only the minority opinions. The majority will always have the freedom of their speech.
keithnz 5y ago
liberty and free speech tends to overly concern Americans when they have more pressing and bigger problems. The big mistake with the title is "way back to cultural health", stop looking backwards. If you do want to look back to the idea that founded your republic, look back and see a whole bunch of people trying to look forward. Do that. Fix your system of government, a two party system is bad for you, you've become religious about your politics and it has divided you along lines that don't make sense. You need much more varied representation so that free speech can manifest in political force, to represent the vast differences between the millions and millions of you. Just makes no sense that a 2 party system can represent that diversity.
- 6510 5y ago
  Most have had the joy of building or organizing a thing and seeing their effort unfold. Some have enjoyed the same joy creating things with others. If there are nation wide efforts to accomplish something and people get to work at it themselves and marvel at the fruits of their labor the natural question is: What shall we build next? If a nation is overly focused on the self over the collective those efforts will decline and the question what to build next is drowned in the noise. The new man, who talks in text over the internet, is rendered without the context a face to face conversation offers. Take how one can ask people to do something for you. 30 years ago I would frequently ask people to do things that took hours. I would buy something to drink, cook a meal, take them out for drinks or dinner or do something for them later. When I got online it took me quite some time to realize you cant ask random strangers for more than a few sentences worth of assistance or worse, they would get furious if I send them a pm. Marveling at our collective accomplishments is now even further away. I'm not even going to ask anymore what we can do together to turn the tide or progress in some other way. I'm no longer going to offend anyone with the idea that if they are the one who can do something they are also responsible for the outcome. This clip from coneheads was brilliant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6ANOBnwpSA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6ANOBnwpSA This is who we are now.
- janto 5y ago
  Without their First Amendment rights, it is unlikely that Americans would even figure out if many parties might be a good idea. They'd also be unable to bring those into existence without it: freedom of expression, assembly, and the right to petition are the primary mechanism towards presenting a better future to others. Americans should be super concerned about attempts at eroding dialog between its citizens. The government, corporations and activists have done everything they can to create a forced discourse.
YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
I listened to a video from a guy who is most probably a white nationalist and most probably a fascist in the UK quite a while ago. While I find his view abhorrent he understands the free-speech debate better than anyone else. To paraphrase him: > Those who cry about free speech are weak, they don't have political power. Those that are strong (those in power) will censor. His view of free speech is that whichever group doesn't have power and being censored will claim to want free speech. When they get power (culturally or politically) they will then start to censor. I happen to think his framing of it is the most correct. I've personally seen happen over the years.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  - YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
    He says exactly what he would do. I am under no illusions of what these people are like (my step brother is affiliated with such groups). That does not mean his analysis of the free speech debate is incorrect If you are alluding to restricting people's speech of views that are unpopular. Those powers will be used against the general population when it becomes politically expedient or will be abused by the authorities. This week a man was found guilty in Scotland of "grossly offensive" tweet. What is and what isn't grossly offensive has no objective standard. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-convicted-posting-grossly-offensive-26102351 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-convicted-posting-... Potential sentencing could mean that he could be jail for 6 months. Being in jail for 6 months for posting something that is inflammatory (and has no call to violence) is ridiculous. This is the result of not protecting free speech rights for people that have abhorrent views. Fairly normal people that say stupid things are criminalised.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      - 5y ago
sleepingadmin 5y ago
>But, again, in practice, the people in power do not allow free speech. And this is fundamentally different from most examples of cancel culture. Here in Canada we actually removed freedom of speech. Hate speech laws are tremendously vague and are really not used to prevent anything bad. Sure the Westboro baptists have their 'god hates canada' stuff but realistically speaking it's never used to prevent anyone who is promoting genocide. Literally not once. Instead the hate crime laws have 99% of the time been used against political opponents. This has created an environment where every single right-wing leader has been labelled a white supremacist. Not because they are in fact white supremacists but because this would put them at odds with hate speech laws and can then be silenced. Just look at this trucker convoy. The media smeared them as white supremacists and fringe minority. This weekend there was solidarity protests and they were labelled 'nation wide insurrection' and 'occupation'. Ottawa declared a state of emergency and has started arresting and ticketing peaceful protestors. This is the justification for Gofundme to seize the donations and disperse the money to charities of their choosing. In reality many truckers are Indian and certainly not white supremacist. https://twitter.com/QTRBlackGarrett/status/1487620835363983363 https://twitter.com/QTRBlackGarrett/status/14876208353639833... https://twitter.com/vonbrauckmann/status/1487614201845600257 https://twitter.com/vonbrauckmann/status/1487614201845600257 My favourite: https://rumble.com/vu5aom-two-indian-freedom-protestors-have-a-special-message-for-justin-trudeau..html https://rumble.com/vu5aom-two-indian-freedom-protestors-have... Those Indian men are the white supremacists! Yet there were pictures of nazi flags right? Yet here we are unable to determine who that was. It seems like this flag was counter protesters trying to label these Indian truckers as white supremacists. This is why freedom of speech is important. When you create exceptions, political opponents use these to silence politics.
- glial 5y ago
  > It seems like this flag was counter protesters trying to label these Indian truckers as white supremacists. That's quite a claim to make w/out providing evidence.
  - sleepingadmin 5y ago
    >That's quite a claim to make w/out providing evidence. There's literally 3 links providing evidence in my post. Furthermore, the onus is on the claimant. The claim being made that these Indian truckers are white supramacists and nazis; or that their friends and fellow protestors are nazis? That literally doesnt make any sense. Sorry but the yellow journalism or, might i even say it, the propaganda asserting these protestors are nazis is a failed narrative.

by issa 5y ago

bushbaba 5y ago

We should remember that the term free speech was coined many hundreds of years ago. During that timeframe, talking against the current ruler could lead to one’s death.

6510 5y ago
What you say still has consequences. Those might not be ideal at any time. The question is if you should be allowed to say it. If the line would be drawn there we must then discuss what you are allowed to think.
- tekknik 5y ago
  The problem today is that when what one says doesn’t have the desired consequences of some group, they then attempt to change the rules and stifle speech. This is why the line, which I acknowledge there is a legal line of free speech, should be clearly enumerated (which it is). And any company moving the line should be held accountable.

pyuser583 5y ago

I’m a bit confused. Is your wife from a more less equal/free place than America?

issa 5y ago
My wife is from Germany. My point isn't really about how "free" Germany is compared to the US (that is an entirely different debate). It is about America and how nuanced things are. It's very difficult to explain a different country's history and sense of self and how that influences daily life.
dustymcp 5y ago
Most places according to incarceration rate is more free than USA
- ericmay 5y ago
  Why is this a metric we should use to understand if a place is “free”?
  - issa 5y ago
    It seems like a pretty good one. To truly answer the large question you need to answer smaller ones like "do citizens have opportunities aside from crime"? That seems relevant to how "free" a country is.

raxxorrax 5y ago

I doubt you will find any example where minorities suffered from too much free speech. The truth it that there are always some people who pretend to know better and put pressure on officials. These people are not friendly to any minority and should be disregarded. The people in power currently try everything to restrict speech, but it is also welcomed by a certain sheltered demographic whose worst part of the day is that they have to read an offensive internet comment that doesn't agree with their world view.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>I doubt you will find any example where minorities suffered from too much free speech. people of minority X are subhumans and should not be allowed the same rights as the rest of us! Yes, minorities did not suffer from having free speech; they did suffer from others having it.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  My ethnicity is often called subhuman on the internet. I don't mind it because those that utter such statements are punished enough with being themselves that I don't feel it a necessity to even react to it. I also don't have to read it. I don't believe their position is popular in a way that it is in any way relevant. It doesn't phase me as much as others speaking in my stead or far worse, alleging a indemonstrable hatred or bias towards other ethnicities. People I like very much have been accused of hating me because some didn't like their politics. That is way more offensive to me than the usual vulgar bloke that tries to get a reaction for his self-confidence.
- Jtype 5y ago
  Whose speech do you think would have been censored though, the majority or the minority. Minority groups are always the ones who suffer from restrictions on speech. Supporting speech censorship will always lead to restrictions on minority groups, not the majority. I feel that there is confusion in this topic because there are so many people who think they are fighting hate-speech against minorities. Since it then feels morally superior to suppress speech that they don't agree with they think it's in the best interest of the minority. However the arguments and policies that are established to suppress free speech will inevitably lead to restricting the speech of minority groups. This is simply because the majority at any given point in time will only suppress the non-majority opinions. You see that now, none of these groups trying to restrict speech are trying to restrict popular speech that they agree with, only the minority opinions. The majority will always have the freedom of their speech.

keithnz 5y ago

liberty and free speech tends to overly concern Americans when they have more pressing and bigger problems. The big mistake with the title is "way back to cultural health", stop looking backwards. If you do want to look back to the idea that founded your republic, look back and see a whole bunch of people trying to look forward. Do that. Fix your system of government, a two party system is bad for you, you've become religious about your politics and it has divided you along lines that don't make sense. You need much more varied representation so that free speech can manifest in political force, to represent the vast differences between the millions and millions of you. Just makes no sense that a 2 party system can represent that diversity.

6510 5y ago
Most have had the joy of building or organizing a thing and seeing their effort unfold. Some have enjoyed the same joy creating things with others. If there are nation wide efforts to accomplish something and people get to work at it themselves and marvel at the fruits of their labor the natural question is: What shall we build next? If a nation is overly focused on the self over the collective those efforts will decline and the question what to build next is drowned in the noise. The new man, who talks in text over the internet, is rendered without the context a face to face conversation offers. Take how one can ask people to do something for you. 30 years ago I would frequently ask people to do things that took hours. I would buy something to drink, cook a meal, take them out for drinks or dinner or do something for them later. When I got online it took me quite some time to realize you cant ask random strangers for more than a few sentences worth of assistance or worse, they would get furious if I send them a pm. Marveling at our collective accomplishments is now even further away. I'm not even going to ask anymore what we can do together to turn the tide or progress in some other way. I'm no longer going to offend anyone with the idea that if they are the one who can do something they are also responsible for the outcome. This clip from coneheads was brilliant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6ANOBnwpSA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6ANOBnwpSA This is who we are now.
janto 5y ago
Without their First Amendment rights, it is unlikely that Americans would even figure out if many parties might be a good idea. They'd also be unable to bring those into existence without it: freedom of expression, assembly, and the right to petition are the primary mechanism towards presenting a better future to others. Americans should be super concerned about attempts at eroding dialog between its citizens. The government, corporations and activists have done everything they can to create a forced discourse.

YEwSdObPQT 5y ago

I listened to a video from a guy who is most probably a white nationalist and most probably a fascist in the UK quite a while ago. While I find his view abhorrent he understands the free-speech debate better than anyone else. To paraphrase him: > Those who cry about free speech are weak, they don't have political power. Those that are strong (those in power) will censor. His view of free speech is that whichever group doesn't have power and being censored will claim to want free speech. When they get power (culturally or politically) they will then start to censor. I happen to think his framing of it is the most correct. I've personally seen happen over the years.

jacquesm 5y ago
- YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
  He says exactly what he would do. I am under no illusions of what these people are like (my step brother is affiliated with such groups). That does not mean his analysis of the free speech debate is incorrect If you are alluding to restricting people's speech of views that are unpopular. Those powers will be used against the general population when it becomes politically expedient or will be abused by the authorities. This week a man was found guilty in Scotland of "grossly offensive" tweet. What is and what isn't grossly offensive has no objective standard. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-convicted-posting-grossly-offensive-26102351 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-convicted-posting-... Potential sentencing could mean that he could be jail for 6 months. Being in jail for 6 months for posting something that is inflammatory (and has no call to violence) is ridiculous. This is the result of not protecting free speech rights for people that have abhorrent views. Fairly normal people that say stupid things are criminalised.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    - 5y ago

sleepingadmin 5y ago

>But, again, in practice, the people in power do not allow free speech. And this is fundamentally different from most examples of cancel culture. Here in Canada we actually removed freedom of speech. Hate speech laws are tremendously vague and are really not used to prevent anything bad. Sure the Westboro baptists have their 'god hates canada' stuff but realistically speaking it's never used to prevent anyone who is promoting genocide. Literally not once. Instead the hate crime laws have 99% of the time been used against political opponents. This has created an environment where every single right-wing leader has been labelled a white supremacist. Not because they are in fact white supremacists but because this would put them at odds with hate speech laws and can then be silenced. Just look at this trucker convoy. The media smeared them as white supremacists and fringe minority. This weekend there was solidarity protests and they were labelled 'nation wide insurrection' and 'occupation'. Ottawa declared a state of emergency and has started arresting and ticketing peaceful protestors. This is the justification for Gofundme to seize the donations and disperse the money to charities of their choosing. In reality many truckers are Indian and certainly not white supremacist. https://twitter.com/QTRBlackGarrett/status/1487620835363983363 https://twitter.com/QTRBlackGarrett/status/14876208353639833... https://twitter.com/vonbrauckmann/status/1487614201845600257 https://twitter.com/vonbrauckmann/status/1487614201845600257 My favourite: https://rumble.com/vu5aom-two-indian-freedom-protestors-have-a-special-message-for-justin-trudeau..html https://rumble.com/vu5aom-two-indian-freedom-protestors-have... Those Indian men are the white supremacists! Yet there were pictures of nazi flags right? Yet here we are unable to determine who that was. It seems like this flag was counter protesters trying to label these Indian truckers as white supremacists. This is why freedom of speech is important. When you create exceptions, political opponents use these to silence politics.

glial 5y ago
> It seems like this flag was counter protesters trying to label these Indian truckers as white supremacists. That's quite a claim to make w/out providing evidence.
- sleepingadmin 5y ago
  >That's quite a claim to make w/out providing evidence. There's literally 3 links providing evidence in my post. Furthermore, the onus is on the claimant. The claim being made that these Indian truckers are white supramacists and nazis; or that their friends and fellow protestors are nazis? That literally doesnt make any sense. Sorry but the yellow journalism or, might i even say it, the propaganda asserting these protestors are nazis is a failed narrative.