22 ms·

I think this is an important part: "Fortunately in western countries the suppression of heresies is nothing like as bad as it used to be. Though the window of

I think this is an important part: "Fortunately in western countries the suppression of heresies is nothing like as bad as it used to be. Though the window of opinions you can express publicly has narrowed in the last decade, it's still much wider than it was a few hundred years ago. The problem is the derivative. Up till about 1985 the window had been growing ever wider. Anyone looking into the future in 1985 would have expected freedom of expression to continue to increase. Instead it has decreased." Many people proclaim that "free speech is dead" and all of that, but it's still at an all-time high if you zoom out a bit. You don't even need to go back a few hundred years; look at the number of people persecuted by the government (both through the courts and outside of it) for things like blasphemy, subversion, civil rights, sexual deviancy (homosexuality, among other things), etc. just a few decades ago. In the US burning the flag was illegal in many states until the late 80s when the SCOTUS declared it was legal under the 1st (and only by a 5-4 majority). Yes, there are some developments I am not especially pleased with either, but it's also important to remember the historical context. Anyway, I liked this piece of nuance.

morelisp 5y ago
- Beltalowda 5y ago
  I don't see how someone's year of birth is related, or important? If anything, I find it valuable to see perspectives that fall outside of my own experience. I was born in 1985. I don't remember what the world was like in 1985, or 1975, but I'm eager to learn about it to see what we've gained since then, or maybe lost, to better guide the path we should take in the future.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    > I don't see how someone's year of birth is related, or important? It's related because people are incredibly biased toward liking things "as they were" when growing up. I'd be more impressed by accounts of people growing up in a time before the one they are praising.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      Personally, as someone who came of age during the Bush administration and the War on Terror, all of these cancel culture wars bore me because it’s all I’ve ever known. Since 2003 or so, I’ve never not seen American politics and civil society as a hyper-partisan wonderland of information bubbles and people shouting heresy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30210730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30210730
      - dTal 5y ago
        Indeed; those complaining most loudly today about "cancel culture" were the first in line to "cancel" the Dixie Chicks all the way back in 2003.
- alanlammiman 5y ago
  Regardless of whether one agrees, I had to smile at this, because it is simply a more formal way of saying 'OK, boomer'
  - alanlammiman 5y ago
    800+ comments on an article about cancel culture and this is the one that gets negative points. Well, ok boomers! LOL :)
throwmeariver1 5y ago
The problem with the whole free speech is dead argument is that it gets tangled into plain stupid lies. Flatearth, holocaust denial...
- randrews 5y ago
  Conflating a valid point with a bunch of total-nonsense points in order to discredit it is an effective strategy.
ricardo81 5y ago
True enough, recently my Scottish Parliament pardoned those condemned of witchcraft (and fwiw a lot of Scottish ex pats formed the US constitution) I think a lot of the issue revolves around us celebrating our differences rather than trying to polarise them. But clearly scientific evidence (ie lack of witchcraft) also play a part. The vibe I get from the post is just that, being OK with people having a different point of view without having an adverse reaction. Maybe another component to it is the black box algorithms of major platforms that may magnify differences of opinion or 'filter bubbles' as it were.
mjburgess 5y ago
The 90s was a strange ideological moment -- the eastern religion failed, so the western religion admitted pluralism within its own denominations. It was an interregnum in which the liberal democratic order was unchallenged. It is, today, challenged from all sides. What PG et al. call "free speech" was just the peace of a political moment. In every other era "free speech" is a demand with costs; we should expect that to be the default.
UnpossibleJim 5y ago
I think the problem with this argument is the free speech "is at an all time high if you zoom out a bit". This is much like the argument, "gun violence is at an all time low if you zoom out a bit" argument. Both of these statements are true in the macro, but if you look at the trends, they point to a very disturbing line. The call for the restriction of free speech on the right(1) and the left (2) have increased in very different ways and seem to be increasing, both legislatively and socially. The same can be said of gun violence. We reached an all time low in 2018 (I believe - it might have been 2017) but have been trending upwards ever since. Most (reasonable) people agree that an effort should be made to curb gun violence, even if they can't agree on the best route to get there. The attack on free speech, however seems to have cheering sections from all sides. As far as the government is concerned, sanctions on the first amendment would be a boon, but the groundswell from the populace in the form of right and left "cancelation" (or whatever BS term you wish to call it) hasn't been seen since McCarthy. Given the rise in the public square with social media, and you have national feeding frenzies with public "witch trials" to take our minds off of inflation, oil prices, pollution and multiple global conflicts of questionable national interest. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-free-speech-is-under-attack-in-the-u-s/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-free-speech-is-under-attack... https://thehill.com/opinion/education/566119-for-the-left-a-wake-up-call-on-free-speech/ https://thehill.com/opinion/education/566119-for-the-left-a-...
- ScarletEmerald 5y ago
  - Beltalowda 5y ago
    Another thing that muddies the discussion is the confusion between the legal protection of free speech and the ethical value of free speech. "Free speech" does not equal "freedom from being criticized" or "right to an audience". Me making fun of your argument or calling your argument stupid and x-ist is me exercising my free speech just as much as you are exercising yours in making you argument in the first place. But that being said, I would argue that going on campaigns to get someone fired from their job or preventing people from making their argument in the first place and the like is against free speech the ethical value, even if not against the legal principle. A lot of times what people are really talking of when they express concerns about "free speech" is the ethical value. This is frequently countered with an argument about the legal protection, but that's kind of missing the point IMHO.
nonrandomstring 5y ago
The speed with which society is moving is also a factor. Tacitus or Voltaire are variously credited with the notion that in any epoch, to know who is in power, ask who you may not criticise. I think Graham is slightly missing the point about our period. It's not that heresy is on the up, so much as it's on the move. Outrage is a homeless beast. We're in an Orwellian age where it changes with the seasons, so what is heresy in one place and time is a tepid platitude only next door the following week. Also it is no longer power that metes out punishment, but the fanboi acolytes or loyal minor apparatchik. It would have once been "dangerous" (at least in a fairly pedestrian job) to say that Google is a crappy old search engine, Facebook is a threat to democracy and Microsoft are corrupt criminals. Today it's practically de rigueur to cock a snook at jaded icons. It's practically a credential.
- Angostura 5y ago
  > Tacitus or Voltaire are variously credited with the notion that in any epoch, to know who is in power, ask who you may not criticise. That’s an interesting, because I suppose at the moment that group would include all through have been historically or currently disadvantaged or discriminated against. Today’s axiom, at least in liberal countries is ‘you can punch up, but not down’ somewhat different in totalitarian regimes.
- dibujante 5y ago
  They're credited with it but that quotation is actually from neo-Nazi Kevin Alfred Strom and has been repeatedly laundered through social media to seem like respectable intellectual rigor, instead of an attempt to legitimize the kinds of completely insane conspiracy ideology that is present on social media today.
- eternalban 5y ago
  > Outrage is a homeless beast. Well said and true. > it is no longer power that metes out punishment, but the fanboi acolytes or loyal minor apparatchik. Pretty sure this modality of power has been with us since ancient days. (The beast may be homeless but there is always a beast master.)
- kbenson 5y ago
analog31 5y ago
Indeed, and the very concept of "heresy" has changed over the centuries, to the point where the analogy to Newton is probably meaningless. "Heresy" was considered to be an immediate mortal threat to the eternal life of the soul. It was not just a disagreement with social customs. It was the spiritual equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, or driving a truck into a crowd.
- ambrozk 5y ago
  Are you telling us that it was literally violence?
  - naniwaduni 5y ago
    When you believe in an eternal soul that can be harmed, there are harms that are worse than violence.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
amalcon 5y ago
I like to point out the Sedition Act of 1918 here. About 100 years ago, a law that literally made it a crime to criticize the government was not only enacted, but upheld by the courts. Can you even imagine that today? What people are finally noticing now is that non-government entities can also have negative impacts on free speech. They're not noticing because it just started -- e.g. lots of folks lost their jobs for vocally opposing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000's -- but because they're on the receiving end for once. This could be a good thing in the end, by leading us to a more complete model of civil discourse, but it's going to be painful for a while before that even has a chance to happen.
- infiniteL0Op 5y ago
  Ask Thai citizens if they can imagine that. Or Russians. In democracies, society has moved a bit into a direction where many harmless things said will trigger an upset in some very uptight people. It's enforced socially rather than by the government. Back when you could not say things openly against governments, at least you could speak your mind on anything else. Today, you can say whatever you want against the government, they are so far detached they don't care. Free speech is a stupid political term, it has never truly existed an never will.
  - voakbasda 5y ago
    Freedom of speech is a principle that transcends political policies. In theory, it is a clear and unambiguous concept; in practice, governments ruin it with nearly arbitrary rules that run counter to that fundamental principle.
    - incompatible 5y ago
      There are plenty of exceptions to freedom of speech in countries I'm familiar with. Things like advocacy of terrorism, hate speech, threats, disturbing the peace, obscenity in public, blasphemy, pornography of certain kinds, providing financial advice without a license, leaking secrets, copyright. Edit: fraud, incitement. Who knows how many others?
Ma8ee 5y ago
In 1985 you could say “homosexuality is a disease and all gay should be locked up” and you wouldn’t have to be too worried about your employment. Today you can say “I’m gay” and don’t have to worry about being fired for it. I like today’s freedom of expression better.
- gedy 5y ago
  People like to bully on the outgroups, now as then. Same as ever.
  - _clhx 5y ago
    You do see the difference between saying gay people should die and being gay right? Lol
    - gedy 5y ago
      Of course, I'm commenting that "<some outgroup> needs to DIE" is always bad.
      - Ma8ee 5y ago
        Nah, "all Nazis need to die" isn't so bad (with the conventional western definition of Nazis of course, not the one that is used by Russia today).
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    I like to see it like we went from bulling minorities to shunning assholes. It’s a bit concerning that you don’t see the difference.
goto11 5y ago
Censorship is much more visible in modern social media because it happens after the publishing. Somebody publishes something, and then the platform reviews the material and decides to block it. In print media the filtering happened before material was published. Newspapers only print a tiny fraction of the "letters to the editor" they receive, but it doesn't feel like censorship.
chmod600 5y ago
Interestingly, there were 3 justices that were around for both the flag burning case and Citizen's United (money-is-speech case): Scalia, Kennedy, and Stevens. Scalia and Kennedy were in the majority (broad speech rights) in both cases and Stevens was in the minority (narrower speech rights) in both cases. So, I guess (loosely speaking) if fire is speech, then money is speech too.
fsckboy 5y ago
you quote him: Anyone looking into the future in 1985 would have expected freedom of expression to continue to increase. Instead it has decreased. and you state: Many people proclaim that "free speech is dead" and all of that, but it's still at an all-time high if you zoom out a bit. It can't decrease and remain at an all time high. You are disagreeing with him, not finding a nuance.
- Doxin 5y ago
  It can be decreasing currently, and yet increasing recently. Those aren't contradictory.

morelisp 5y ago

Beltalowda 5y ago
I don't see how someone's year of birth is related, or important? If anything, I find it valuable to see perspectives that fall outside of my own experience. I was born in 1985. I don't remember what the world was like in 1985, or 1975, but I'm eager to learn about it to see what we've gained since then, or maybe lost, to better guide the path we should take in the future.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  > I don't see how someone's year of birth is related, or important? It's related because people are incredibly biased toward liking things "as they were" when growing up. I'd be more impressed by accounts of people growing up in a time before the one they are praising.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Personally, as someone who came of age during the Bush administration and the War on Terror, all of these cancel culture wars bore me because it’s all I’ve ever known. Since 2003 or so, I’ve never not seen American politics and civil society as a hyper-partisan wonderland of information bubbles and people shouting heresy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30210730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30210730
    - dTal 5y ago
      Indeed; those complaining most loudly today about "cancel culture" were the first in line to "cancel" the Dixie Chicks all the way back in 2003.
alanlammiman 5y ago
Regardless of whether one agrees, I had to smile at this, because it is simply a more formal way of saying 'OK, boomer'
- alanlammiman 5y ago
  800+ comments on an article about cancel culture and this is the one that gets negative points. Well, ok boomers! LOL :)

throwmeariver1 5y ago

The problem with the whole free speech is dead argument is that it gets tangled into plain stupid lies. Flatearth, holocaust denial...

randrews 5y ago
Conflating a valid point with a bunch of total-nonsense points in order to discredit it is an effective strategy.

ricardo81 5y ago

True enough, recently my Scottish Parliament pardoned those condemned of witchcraft (and fwiw a lot of Scottish ex pats formed the US constitution) I think a lot of the issue revolves around us celebrating our differences rather than trying to polarise them. But clearly scientific evidence (ie lack of witchcraft) also play a part. The vibe I get from the post is just that, being OK with people having a different point of view without having an adverse reaction. Maybe another component to it is the black box algorithms of major platforms that may magnify differences of opinion or 'filter bubbles' as it were.

mjburgess 5y ago

The 90s was a strange ideological moment -- the eastern religion failed, so the western religion admitted pluralism within its own denominations. It was an interregnum in which the liberal democratic order was unchallenged. It is, today, challenged from all sides. What PG et al. call "free speech" was just the peace of a political moment. In every other era "free speech" is a demand with costs; we should expect that to be the default.

UnpossibleJim 5y ago

I think the problem with this argument is the free speech "is at an all time high if you zoom out a bit". This is much like the argument, "gun violence is at an all time low if you zoom out a bit" argument. Both of these statements are true in the macro, but if you look at the trends, they point to a very disturbing line. The call for the restriction of free speech on the right(1) and the left (2) have increased in very different ways and seem to be increasing, both legislatively and socially. The same can be said of gun violence. We reached an all time low in 2018 (I believe - it might have been 2017) but have been trending upwards ever since. Most (reasonable) people agree that an effort should be made to curb gun violence, even if they can't agree on the best route to get there. The attack on free speech, however seems to have cheering sections from all sides. As far as the government is concerned, sanctions on the first amendment would be a boon, but the groundswell from the populace in the form of right and left "cancelation" (or whatever BS term you wish to call it) hasn't been seen since McCarthy. Given the rise in the public square with social media, and you have national feeding frenzies with public "witch trials" to take our minds off of inflation, oil prices, pollution and multiple global conflicts of questionable national interest. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-free-speech-is-under-attack-in-the-u-s/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-free-speech-is-under-attack... https://thehill.com/opinion/education/566119-for-the-left-a-wake-up-call-on-free-speech/ https://thehill.com/opinion/education/566119-for-the-left-a-...

ScarletEmerald 5y ago
- Beltalowda 5y ago
  Another thing that muddies the discussion is the confusion between the legal protection of free speech and the ethical value of free speech. "Free speech" does not equal "freedom from being criticized" or "right to an audience". Me making fun of your argument or calling your argument stupid and x-ist is me exercising my free speech just as much as you are exercising yours in making you argument in the first place. But that being said, I would argue that going on campaigns to get someone fired from their job or preventing people from making their argument in the first place and the like is against free speech the ethical value, even if not against the legal principle. A lot of times what people are really talking of when they express concerns about "free speech" is the ethical value. This is frequently countered with an argument about the legal protection, but that's kind of missing the point IMHO.

nonrandomstring 5y ago

The speed with which society is moving is also a factor. Tacitus or Voltaire are variously credited with the notion that in any epoch, to know who is in power, ask who you may not criticise. I think Graham is slightly missing the point about our period. It's not that heresy is on the up, so much as it's on the move. Outrage is a homeless beast. We're in an Orwellian age where it changes with the seasons, so what is heresy in one place and time is a tepid platitude only next door the following week. Also it is no longer power that metes out punishment, but the fanboi acolytes or loyal minor apparatchik. It would have once been "dangerous" (at least in a fairly pedestrian job) to say that Google is a crappy old search engine, Facebook is a threat to democracy and Microsoft are corrupt criminals. Today it's practically de rigueur to cock a snook at jaded icons. It's practically a credential.

Angostura 5y ago
> Tacitus or Voltaire are variously credited with the notion that in any epoch, to know who is in power, ask who you may not criticise. That’s an interesting, because I suppose at the moment that group would include all through have been historically or currently disadvantaged or discriminated against. Today’s axiom, at least in liberal countries is ‘you can punch up, but not down’ somewhat different in totalitarian regimes.
dibujante 5y ago
They're credited with it but that quotation is actually from neo-Nazi Kevin Alfred Strom and has been repeatedly laundered through social media to seem like respectable intellectual rigor, instead of an attempt to legitimize the kinds of completely insane conspiracy ideology that is present on social media today.
eternalban 5y ago
> Outrage is a homeless beast. Well said and true. > it is no longer power that metes out punishment, but the fanboi acolytes or loyal minor apparatchik. Pretty sure this modality of power has been with us since ancient days. (The beast may be homeless but there is always a beast master.)
kbenson 5y ago

analog31 5y ago

Indeed, and the very concept of "heresy" has changed over the centuries, to the point where the analogy to Newton is probably meaningless. "Heresy" was considered to be an immediate mortal threat to the eternal life of the soul. It was not just a disagreement with social customs. It was the spiritual equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, or driving a truck into a crowd.

ambrozk 5y ago
Are you telling us that it was literally violence?
- naniwaduni 5y ago
  When you believe in an eternal soul that can be harmed, there are harms that are worse than violence.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

amalcon 5y ago

I like to point out the Sedition Act of 1918 here. About 100 years ago, a law that literally made it a crime to criticize the government was not only enacted, but upheld by the courts. Can you even imagine that today? What people are finally noticing now is that non-government entities can also have negative impacts on free speech. They're not noticing because it just started -- e.g. lots of folks lost their jobs for vocally opposing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000's -- but because they're on the receiving end for once. This could be a good thing in the end, by leading us to a more complete model of civil discourse, but it's going to be painful for a while before that even has a chance to happen.

infiniteL0Op 5y ago
Ask Thai citizens if they can imagine that. Or Russians. In democracies, society has moved a bit into a direction where many harmless things said will trigger an upset in some very uptight people. It's enforced socially rather than by the government. Back when you could not say things openly against governments, at least you could speak your mind on anything else. Today, you can say whatever you want against the government, they are so far detached they don't care. Free speech is a stupid political term, it has never truly existed an never will.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  Freedom of speech is a principle that transcends political policies. In theory, it is a clear and unambiguous concept; in practice, governments ruin it with nearly arbitrary rules that run counter to that fundamental principle.
  - incompatible 5y ago
    There are plenty of exceptions to freedom of speech in countries I'm familiar with. Things like advocacy of terrorism, hate speech, threats, disturbing the peace, obscenity in public, blasphemy, pornography of certain kinds, providing financial advice without a license, leaking secrets, copyright. Edit: fraud, incitement. Who knows how many others?

Ma8ee 5y ago

In 1985 you could say “homosexuality is a disease and all gay should be locked up” and you wouldn’t have to be too worried about your employment. Today you can say “I’m gay” and don’t have to worry about being fired for it. I like today’s freedom of expression better.

gedy 5y ago
People like to bully on the outgroups, now as then. Same as ever.
- _clhx 5y ago
  You do see the difference between saying gay people should die and being gay right? Lol
  - gedy 5y ago
    Of course, I'm commenting that "<some outgroup> needs to DIE" is always bad.
    - Ma8ee 5y ago
      Nah, "all Nazis need to die" isn't so bad (with the conventional western definition of Nazis of course, not the one that is used by Russia today).
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  I like to see it like we went from bulling minorities to shunning assholes. It’s a bit concerning that you don’t see the difference.

goto11 5y ago

Censorship is much more visible in modern social media because it happens after the publishing. Somebody publishes something, and then the platform reviews the material and decides to block it. In print media the filtering happened before material was published. Newspapers only print a tiny fraction of the "letters to the editor" they receive, but it doesn't feel like censorship.

chmod600 5y ago

Interestingly, there were 3 justices that were around for both the flag burning case and Citizen's United (money-is-speech case): Scalia, Kennedy, and Stevens. Scalia and Kennedy were in the majority (broad speech rights) in both cases and Stevens was in the minority (narrower speech rights) in both cases. So, I guess (loosely speaking) if fire is speech, then money is speech too.

fsckboy 5y ago

you quote him: Anyone looking into the future in 1985 would have expected freedom of expression to continue to increase. Instead it has decreased. and you state: Many people proclaim that "free speech is dead" and all of that, but it's still at an all-time high if you zoom out a bit. It can't decrease and remain at an all time high. You are disagreeing with him, not finding a nuance.

Doxin 5y ago
It can be decreasing currently, and yet increasing recently. Those aren't contradictory.