4 ms·

>One other thing that's new, in America, is the idea that speech is less important than people's feelings. Lenny Bruce was convicted of obscenity less than 60 y

>One other thing that's new, in America, is the idea that speech is less important than people's feelings. Lenny Bruce was convicted of obscenity less than 60 years ago. The civil liberties around speech went through a series of challenges and expansions very recently. The ACLU used to defend nazis. Now they prefer not to, to the chagrin or dismay of more traditional civil libertarians.

noduerme 5y ago
The one thing that's remained constant from times when civil rights activists were imprisoned for "offending" people to now when right wingers are canceled for offending people seems to be that the bulk of the population is incapable of, or unwilling to, set the principle of speech over their own feelings about that speech. I think it's because most people just can't imagine themselves being on the wrong end of a censorship regime (civil, corporate, or otherwise). This is why the ACLU was so important; that was the entire point of it. It was started by a Jew. I'm a Jew, and I contributed to it. Not because I like nazis or think for a moment that they'd give me the same chance to speak. But because inevitably, narrowing of speech will come for those who believe themselves immune. We will have a far-right government again, and whatever liberties we allow to erode now because it suits us will be used against us. Only the very young and those with very short memories think that silencing opinions they don't like is a winning strategy in the long run.
- iosono88 5y ago
- Animats 5y ago
  But because inevitably, narrowing of speech will come for those who believe themselves immune. Exactly.
- Latty 5y ago
  You are equating government imprisonment with public cancellation here because they both have a chilling effect, but we very quickly run into the paradox of tolerance: do you restrict the expression of "cancelling" to protect other speech? Those Nazis you use an example of abhorrent speech that must be allowed were calling for communists to be rounded up and killed for their views. Surely that is partaking in cancellation? Who cancels the cancellers?
  - whiddershins 5y ago
    Explicit threats, defamation, calls to violence, harassment, inciting riots, fighting words … these have a legal precedent for the reason that cause and effect are traceable. By the same token, ‘cancellation’ if it leads to loss of livelihood etc. is questionable. Being offended or hurt by someone’s words are much harder to quantify.
    - Latty 5y ago
      So freedom of speech should be limited if you could cause someone to lose their job? So I go to a shop, and the employee calls me a piece of shit, I could be arrested for telling their boss that they were rude?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - noduerme 5y ago
    Who cancels the cancellers of the cancellers? You've hit the nail on the head: Cancellation is not a viable means of stopping criminal calls to violence, and it's pretty much useless as a rhetorical tool. For the former we have a legal system which should be shored up rather than undermined by vigilantism; for the latter we have a democratic political system which, ditto, should be treated with respect rather than undermined by stooping to the same dirty tricks one's political enemies pulled. Which is probably why cancellation usually appears like virtue signalling, since it serves little purpose in either stopping violence or improving the system, let alone convincing anyone but potentially violent imbeciles in one's own camp to holler and mob up on a target of rage for the benefit of whoever controls the mob. It has nothing to do with justice. No matter how shitty a human the target of it is. It's always just a really transparent attempt for someone to collect "likes". Who gets "likes" for calling for civil debate rather than attacking the group's enemies? No one. Anyone who dares to would be cancelled too. That should tell you all you need to know about the nature of intolerance toward intolerance. It's categorically intolerant as well, and it is no longer on the right side of anything.
- cgrealy 5y ago
  > narrowing of speech will come for those who believe themselves immune. True, but on other hand, history has shown us the Paradox of Tolerance. "Liberals" have learned this lesson. When I was growing up, people who I would consider socially liberal generally supported the "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" position. These days, the same people are less confident. I'm one of them. I want a free and open society where people can discuss ideas and those ideas are weighed on their merits and the ridiculous ones (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) are laughed at. But that's not what's happened. The Overton Window in the US has dramatically shifted. I don't know how to fix this. I don't even know that there is a fix for this. But I can certainly understand the mindset that says "maybe we don't need to defend nazis?"
  - galaxyLogic 5y ago
    Of course we don't have to defend Nazis but we can defend free speech. We should attack Nazis' inhumane poisonous speech and misinformation. And especially we shouldn't amplify it. Twitter should not amplify the spread of fascist ideology in the name of "fairness". They should ban it. People still have their freedom of speech but Twitter has the right to not propagate hate and lies.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > I want a free and open society where people can discuss ideas and those ideas are weighed on their merits and the ridiculous ones (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) are laughed at. > But that's not what's happened. The Overton Window in the US has dramatically shifted. Any evidence for this? To me it seems like things went in the right direction and never really stopped. That things are getting worse and therefore we need to police the people harder is just a lie, don't listen to them. Example, a little over a decade ago the general consensus was that gay marriage shouldn't be legal, in what way was the overton window of gay rights better back then? Authoritarians always try to convince you that evil is growing so they need more powers, but they are wrong regardless if they are right wing or left wing authoritarians. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
    - 5y ago

noduerme 5y ago

The one thing that's remained constant from times when civil rights activists were imprisoned for "offending" people to now when right wingers are canceled for offending people seems to be that the bulk of the population is incapable of, or unwilling to, set the principle of speech over their own feelings about that speech. I think it's because most people just can't imagine themselves being on the wrong end of a censorship regime (civil, corporate, or otherwise). This is why the ACLU was so important; that was the entire point of it. It was started by a Jew. I'm a Jew, and I contributed to it. Not because I like nazis or think for a moment that they'd give me the same chance to speak. But because inevitably, narrowing of speech will come for those who believe themselves immune. We will have a far-right government again, and whatever liberties we allow to erode now because it suits us will be used against us. Only the very young and those with very short memories think that silencing opinions they don't like is a winning strategy in the long run.

iosono88 5y ago
Animats 5y ago
But because inevitably, narrowing of speech will come for those who believe themselves immune. Exactly.
Latty 5y ago
You are equating government imprisonment with public cancellation here because they both have a chilling effect, but we very quickly run into the paradox of tolerance: do you restrict the expression of "cancelling" to protect other speech? Those Nazis you use an example of abhorrent speech that must be allowed were calling for communists to be rounded up and killed for their views. Surely that is partaking in cancellation? Who cancels the cancellers?
- whiddershins 5y ago
  Explicit threats, defamation, calls to violence, harassment, inciting riots, fighting words … these have a legal precedent for the reason that cause and effect are traceable. By the same token, ‘cancellation’ if it leads to loss of livelihood etc. is questionable. Being offended or hurt by someone’s words are much harder to quantify.
  - Latty 5y ago
    So freedom of speech should be limited if you could cause someone to lose their job? So I go to a shop, and the employee calls me a piece of shit, I could be arrested for telling their boss that they were rude?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- noduerme 5y ago
  Who cancels the cancellers of the cancellers? You've hit the nail on the head: Cancellation is not a viable means of stopping criminal calls to violence, and it's pretty much useless as a rhetorical tool. For the former we have a legal system which should be shored up rather than undermined by vigilantism; for the latter we have a democratic political system which, ditto, should be treated with respect rather than undermined by stooping to the same dirty tricks one's political enemies pulled. Which is probably why cancellation usually appears like virtue signalling, since it serves little purpose in either stopping violence or improving the system, let alone convincing anyone but potentially violent imbeciles in one's own camp to holler and mob up on a target of rage for the benefit of whoever controls the mob. It has nothing to do with justice. No matter how shitty a human the target of it is. It's always just a really transparent attempt for someone to collect "likes". Who gets "likes" for calling for civil debate rather than attacking the group's enemies? No one. Anyone who dares to would be cancelled too. That should tell you all you need to know about the nature of intolerance toward intolerance. It's categorically intolerant as well, and it is no longer on the right side of anything.
cgrealy 5y ago
> narrowing of speech will come for those who believe themselves immune. True, but on other hand, history has shown us the Paradox of Tolerance. "Liberals" have learned this lesson. When I was growing up, people who I would consider socially liberal generally supported the "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" position. These days, the same people are less confident. I'm one of them. I want a free and open society where people can discuss ideas and those ideas are weighed on their merits and the ridiculous ones (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) are laughed at. But that's not what's happened. The Overton Window in the US has dramatically shifted. I don't know how to fix this. I don't even know that there is a fix for this. But I can certainly understand the mindset that says "maybe we don't need to defend nazis?"
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  Of course we don't have to defend Nazis but we can defend free speech. We should attack Nazis' inhumane poisonous speech and misinformation. And especially we shouldn't amplify it. Twitter should not amplify the spread of fascist ideology in the name of "fairness". They should ban it. People still have their freedom of speech but Twitter has the right to not propagate hate and lies.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > I want a free and open society where people can discuss ideas and those ideas are weighed on their merits and the ridiculous ones (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) are laughed at. > But that's not what's happened. The Overton Window in the US has dramatically shifted. Any evidence for this? To me it seems like things went in the right direction and never really stopped. That things are getting worse and therefore we need to police the people harder is just a lie, don't listen to them. Example, a little over a decade ago the general consensus was that gay marriage shouldn't be legal, in what way was the overton window of gay rights better back then? Authoritarians always try to convince you that evil is growing so they need more powers, but they are wrong regardless if they are right wing or left wing authoritarians. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
  - 5y ago