5 ms·
Conservatives increasingly emphasize freedom of speech, but are their arguments genuine? 'Though the attachment of some conservatives to freedom of speech is g
by ContrarianBrit 5y ago
Conservatives increasingly emphasize freedom of speech, but are their arguments genuine?
'Though the attachment of some conservatives to freedom of speech is genuine, often reflecting Burkean elements of conservatism, I worry that conservative support for freedom of speech has weak foundations, many conservatives wielding the principle as a weapon against outgroups.'
- h2odragon 5y agoI don't see how supporting freedom of speech can be a "weapon against outgroups". Perhaps he refers to incidents where censorship was sold under the wrong label, "War is Peace" bullshit has a long, bipartisan history after all.
- ThrowawayR2 5y agoThe support of freedom of speech by conservatives is both selective, largely limited to issues they feel oppressed on, and temporary, likely to be dropped as soon as they have the upper hand. Liberalism has freedom of speech as a core principle but liberals are now treated as hostile not only by conservatives but also the illiberal left.
- ContrarianBrit 5y agoAgreed - traditional liberalism is being squeezed and it's a tremendous challenge for liberal democracy.
- PaulHoule 5y agoConservatives have embraced a campaign against "cancel culture" because it's one of the few things they offer that sells. However they are hot to ban "critical race theory" even though they struggle to define it.
- sneak 5y agoCancel culture itself, paradoxically, being exercise of free expression (vocal disapproval of socially repugnant things), suggests that perhaps claiming persecution is an authoritarian, anti-free-speech position. Ultimately most people are anti-free expression of some kind. Very few are actually ideologically opposed to censorship (public or private) of things they find unconscionable.
- PaulHoule 5y agoFree-expression cultism expands like a gas. It's one thing to have a constitutional amendment that forbids jailing somebody because the government doesn't like what they say. It's another thing to say that somebody has to provide you with a free printing press, that people have to read it, that communities can't protect themselves from harmful communications, etc. Where does it stop? Several times a week I flag a discussion on HN where somebody leads with how grievously wounded they feel because somebody downvoted their post. Free speech fetishism turns into a sense of entitlement that people are forced to not just read their dreck but we can't express disapproval of it. When are we going to be forced to grin and clap like idiots to appease their narcissism?
- sneak 5y agoI think it is now safe to assume knowledge of xkcd 1357 at this point. Private censorship is still censorship and it is still powerful, otherwise Google and Facebook wouldn't wield it as often as they do (often at the explicit legal behest of the states in which they operate).
- nopenopenopeno 5y agoOf course you’re right that conservatives can’t define ‘critical race theory’. Almost nobody can, but regardless Freedom of speech and public school curriculum constitute entirely different political questions.
- ContrarianBrit 5y agoYes, the legal restrictions against critical race theory are very hypocritical
- shrimp_emoji 5y agoThe overdogs always censor, because they can, and the underdogs always fight for freedom of speech, because they must. I don't think their colors matter.
- ContrarianBrit 5y agoCompletely agree