15 ms·

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

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.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > "right to an audience" If Alice wants to talk but Bob doesn't want to listen to her, then he indeed shouldn't have to. But if Alice wants to talk and Bob does want to listen to her, then they should be able to without Karen being able to stop them.
    - leaflets2 5y ago
      When Alice says "those who look like so:... are kidnapping your babies and control the banks and steal your salaries" and a year later 100 Bobs kill those that look like so? That's one consequence of totally free speech unfortunately
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    I think of the two sides as "pro-speech" and "anti-speech" dissent. I can disagree and oppose your opinions by exercising my own right to free speech. I can afford you your own pulpit, air time, and freedom to make your point, and then I can take mine and make my point as loudly as I can. I can schedule a march or rally the same day, across the street. This is what "pro-speech" dissent looks like. I can also disagree and oppose your opinion by removing your right to free speech. I can contact people who might give you a platform, and convince them not to do so. I can attempt to impose consequences for you legally, socially, or physically that discourage you from speaking. I can shout over you from across the street, to ensure people can't hear your speech. This is what "anti-speech" dissent looks like. And, IMHO, "pro-speech" is more important than almost* any consequence of speech. * The sole exceptions probably being speech that inspires imminent action to violate any person's individual rights (e.g. violence) or that has an imminent or fundamental threat to bring about a change in government to one which does not allow, support, and respect free speech.
    - philosopher1234 5y ago
      People do not evaluate speech based on its truth, they evaluate it based on its authority, which is a function of many things (including, in eg twitters case, popularity). Fighting battles over whos speech should be afforded the biggest stage makes a huge difference in debate.
- tristor 5y ago
  “Deplatforming” is anti-freedom. It violates the free speech of the speaker, it violates freedom of assembly for the listeners, and it violates freedom of association for all of the parties involved. Showing up to shout someone down who had people voluntarily show up to hear them speak because you feel like you are empowered to unilaterally decide and enforce through aggression who is “allowed” to speak in your city or on your campus, is inherently an act against freedom of speech. It’s also the ultimate act of “entitlement”, getting away with it is the ultimate act of “privilege” to be allowed to so utterly disrespect another person’s rights. There is no other way to color this and very little nuance here. “Platforms” in the virtual space have more leeway as they’re mostly privately owned and extended as a privilege of access, not a right. Shouting down speakers in public (or paid and invited) venues though is unequivocally against freedom of speech.
  - ss108 5y ago
    In making this argument, you should clarify that you think it's important to not limit "freedom of speech" to its legal definition. Currently, you only make an allusion to that distinction. To fully make your argument, you need to convince people that the overall philosophical point of "free speech" is worth societal value even beyond that which we have accorded it via law (assuming you're in the US). Coming from someone who doesn't agree with you, but who doesn't agree with your opponents either.
    - lukifer 5y ago
      The First Amendment doesn't grant a right to free speech as such; such a right is assumed to be pre-existing and inalienable (whether one roots such rights in religious belief or secular humanism). Rather: the First Amendment restricts what laws Congress may pass, which might infringe on that right.
      - ss108 5y ago
        The "right" only exists insofar as it is legally protected.
- tomp 5y ago
  For some weird reason, the same people can be OK with Cloudflare or Twitter banning someone for their political views, but wouldn't be OK with a bank or electricity provider banning someone for their political views.
  - drdec 5y ago
    An electrical provider is typically a government-granted monopoly, and given that, it is not unreasonable to extend the protection of speech against government action to the electrical provider. Banks are not however, and in fact, banks and the financial system do act against classes of people. Visa and Mastercard frequently pressure their customers in an effort to prevent sex work in the name of preventing sex trafficking. If their customers do not do enough they will cut them off. This most recently happened with OnlyFans. See also PornHub.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      You're right about banks in USA, but I think that this is wrong and indicates that the ability of these middlemen to prevent people from interacting in society (being able to pay one another is essentially part of freedom of association) needs to be restricted.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    In my mind there is a big difference between banning particular views versus banning someone for their particular views. Like, Cloudflare or Twitter should be free to choose what speech they publish and what they prohibit, but they (and banks and electricity providers) should not be banning someone because of who they are as a person or for their political views expressed elsewhere. Cloudflare should be free to ban Daily Stormer as they did, but if the same people from Daily Stormer were just running a cat picture site through Cloudflare (and publishing their neo-Nazi stuff elsewhere) then IMHO Cloudflare should not ban their cat picture site. To choose an extreme (but less-political?) example of paedophilia, it's obviously okay to ban distribution of child sexual abuse material, but IMHO someone who's just came out from prison after being convicted for child rape should not get automatically banned from platforms (or banks, or electricity providers) as a person despite being a paedophile child abuser, they should be able to participate in the society unless/until their ongoing acts become criminal and they get removed from the society by the courts. And if that's the case, then it also applies to the less extreme views.
- ambrozk 5y ago
  If there is a pulpit in the town square, then the 1st amendment says that a speaker *is* entitled to that pulpit. This is the essence of free speech, and always has been. The 1st amendment is very explicit about this: citizens have a right to assemble *in public* and air their opinions *publicly.* Cordoning off opinions and declaring them unfit for certain public squares is a classic form of censorship. Communists, Republicans, the KKK, NAMBLA, the NRA, GLAAD, Gay Geeks for Bernie and the ASPCA all have the right to march on the National Mall.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Exactly. IMHO, we just need to accept that "public" has extended and changed to encompass publicly-accessible, privately-owned platforms of a sufficient size.
    - otterley 5y ago
      That would violate the property and First Amendment rights of the private platform owners. You could, however, advocate for the creation of a publicly-owned Internet platform where all speech would be acceptable. Why don't you do that, instead?
      - ThrowawayR2 5y ago
        > "That would violate the property and First Amendment rights of the private platform owners. Much like the Fair Housing Act of 1968 restricts the Constitutional property rights of earlier bigots who didn't want to sell property to the "wrong" type of people, society by and large will likely be okay with violating the Constitutional property rights of the illiberal who don't want to allow the "wrong" type of people to use market-dominant services. Illiberalism is illiberalism, regardless of whether it comes from the right of the left.
        otterley 5y ago
        This comes across as a thinly-veiled opinion that property owners should be allowed not to sell to a buyer solely because they are Black. That's what you mean, right? You might as well say it straightforwardly instead of attempting to hide behind a veil of logical equivalence.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  It’s interesting how “I support rights of private companies but only when they do something totalitarian” has become such a common position in the US.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    I'm confused by what you are saying here. Corporations have always been totalitarian in their decision making. How often have you heard from your boss "this isn't a democracy" when they make a decision that's unpopular among the employees? The more interesting dynamic to me is the free-market, anti-regulation, low-corporate-tax capitalist politicians arguing we should create regulations to make the market less free.
    - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
      > I'm confused by what you are saying here. Corporations have always been totalitarian in their decision making. How often have you heard from your boss "this isn't a democracy" when they make a decision that's unpopular among the employees? I am saying that people who are seemingly opposed to that stuff are the first to shout that Twitter is a private company and thus can manipulate its userbase however it wants. > The more interesting dynamic to me is the free-market, anti-regulation, low-corporate-tax capitalist politicians arguing we should create regulations to make the market less free. Yeah, and it’s good that people finally loosen up their radical stances and start to realize that the state isn’t the only source of oppression.
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        > I am saying that people who are seemingly opposed to that stuff are the first to shout that Twitter is a private company and thus can manipulate its userbase however it wants. One thing to consider is that this argument is being used rhetorically to force interlocutors into an uncomfortable position. If you are a famous politician who has been championing the unrestricted free reign of corporations to pollute, abuse employees, abuse customers, etc. for decades, but now all of a sudden you're upset about certain decisions those companies make regarding their own products, people are going to throw that in your face. The argument will continue to be made until those arguing for tighter controls over corporate free speech agree that corporate power in other areas must be checked as well. I'm all for greater oversight of Twitter that would lead to more free speech. But I'm not going to start arguing for it until there's a broader recognition that corporate power writ large needs to be reduced, not just at the corporations which make things politically uncomfortable for certain politicians. To me, it seems like some politicians would like to pass laws against e.g. Twitter specifically that would help them politically, but they would like to preserve corporate power in general where it benefits them. They want corporations to be people when it benefits them, but they don't want corporations to be people when it's politically inconvenient. That's not how this works. Until conservative attitudes about corporate power and corporate personhood shift generally, Twitter will retain the power they have now, since they are people according to conservatives.
Beltalowda 5y ago
It just puts things in perspective; I'm not saying it's not something to be worried about, but you can both worry about something while also keeping the historical perspective in mind. There is also a lot of hysteria going on; that Maus "controversy" which your CVS article cites (among others) is a good example. The concerns were over some nudity and profanity. You may think that's prudish or a bit childish, but fine, it's not really something especially unusual to be concerned about, or a very new "taboo" to be concerned about. It certainly wasn't an attempt at removing any education about the Holocaust from the curriculum, yet that it often how it was framed. With the author of Maus going so far to openly question whether these people might have neo-Nazi sympathies in an interview. That there are some instances of unfounded hysteria doesn't mean there are also things that are not; but again, it's good to keep some perspective.
- lukifer 5y ago
  The Maus case provides an interesting contrast: while I agree the reaction was somewhat disproportionate, a dissenting view was still permissible within the "social Overton window". You might get looked at askance for saying "I don't think Maus is appropriate for schools", but you'd be unlikely to be ostracized or fired. The same can't be said for some other expressions of heterodoxy/heresy, past or present.
- watwut 5y ago
  > The concerns were over some nudity and profanity No, they were not. The only nudity in it were mouses. It was not erotic. It did not included ressembleable human parts. This was not about prudity, it was about excuse. It was not childish, it was cynical. > It certainly wasn't an attempt at removing any education about the Holocaust from the curriculum, yet that it often how it was framed. The thing about Maus is that it makes you feel bad. It is made from point of view of victim. It is not even idealizing the victims, it does not require the victim to be that great perfect person so that you feel bad about him. Maus also does not end with happy end where they lived happily ever after. It shows long term damage. > With the author of Maus going so far to openly question whether these people might have neo-Nazi sympathies in an interview. Did you considered looking at who those people specifically are and what other things they said or done? Or did you just rejected what he said, because it would feel bad for you if he actually was right?
twofornone 5y ago
These claims that the "don't say gay" legislation stifles free speech are dishonest. These are teachers, agents of the state, in a professional setting, not private citizens expressing opinions off the clock. If I'm paying taxes for public education then I should have a say in what gets taught, and that includes culture.
- NoraCodes 5y ago
  Now, wait a second - either it's bad that people get fired for expressing opinions, as Graham states in the essay, or it's not and people _should_ get fired for expressing opinions that you don't like. I don't think you can have it both ways. It's not even as if there's a conflict of interest here, as in the case of public officials being banned from certain kinds of political speech; these teachers are not hurting anyone or disrupting any civil processes, so under what principle is it acceptable to deny them the same freedoms Graham argues for in the case of corporate employees?
  - rdiddly 5y ago
    According to the Florida bill, it's when the students are 3rd grade or lower. The bifurcation point between "OK to talk about" and "not OK to talk about" is between 3rd & 4th grade.
    - NoraCodes 5y ago
      For every issue? Or do you feel this should be different based on the subject matter at hand?
      - rdiddly 5y ago
        The bill is not about every issue and I'm not getting into what I feel. I don't live in Florida and basically am not paying attention.
        NoraCodes 5y ago
switchbak 5y ago
I think that's something that often gets overlooked in the frenzy to tribal defence: this is a sideshow to take the spotlight off of the real important issues of the day. If you really look at it, the left/right dichotomy in US politics seems designed (evolved?) to serve much the same purpose. When we all calm down on the partisanship, often it's amazing how much shared ground there really is.
- andrepd 5y ago
  It's not surprising. Divide and conquer is a millenia-old tactic. Efforts by the ruling class to pit the working classes against themselves have been noted in Western capitalist societies for at least 150 years.
jacquesm 5y ago
A bigger problem is that all of this is extremely local, typically affecting a small fraction of the world population, when for the majority the truth is very much different.
bendbro 5y ago
If I said: 1. "Fuck Jesus, fuck America, kill all men." 2. "Fuck BLM, fuck diversity." Which one do you think would get me cancelled? Conservatives have comically little social power. Further, you can basically say anything you want around them, while conversations with the average liberal are a careful affair. Perhaps though I am blind. Are there contemporary instances of conservative driven cancellations? The definition I like of cancellation is: removing privileges from a person when their qualities do not predict harmful use of those privileges. For example, in the CBS article you linked, with regard to the parents, schools, CRT issue: I acknowledge the parents are restricting speech, but I don't think it violates the spirit of free speech. Teachers can say whatever they like, and parents are free choose what their kids listen to. On the same note, I think it is fine for schools to be forced to omit creationism when discussing evolution. On defining cancellation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30770206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30770206 My personal axe to grind on left driven cancel culture: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25977399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25977399
- CJefferson 5y ago
  The problem with this kind of argument is that it's very hard to be sure you aren't trapped in your "bubble". Fox is comfortably the most popular cable news network in America -- and that lends it a lot of social power among people who get most of their news from cable. They don't care what idiots on Twitter are saying, except as filtered through the news they consume. I talk to conservatives who get furious at the suggestion that Joe Biden isn't a pedophile, or trans-women are women and not also pedophiles. However, this is my bubble --I don't know which is "real".
  - bendbro 5y ago
    > I talk to conservatives who get furious at the suggestion that Joe Biden isn't a pedophile, or trans-women are women and not also pedophiles Does their reaction have any odds of extending beyond your discussion with them into your friendship with them, other relationships, your job, or your public reputation? > The problem with this kind of argument is that it's very hard to be sure you aren't trapped in your "bubble" It definitely could be my bubble. A lot of the strength behind my opinion formed while living in Seattle and mingling with the locals. An anecdote: I once was at a friends birthday, and was seated next to a mutual friend I'd had for a year. She asked if I had been to the women's march, and I said "sorry no, I didn't have the time." She said "everybody has the time" and I said "I feel uncomfortable at marches." She said that's not a reason. I said "Okay, the real reason was I didn't have the hat." After that we were no longer friends. Interacting with the left in the southwest has been a significantly better experience.

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.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > "right to an audience" If Alice wants to talk but Bob doesn't want to listen to her, then he indeed shouldn't have to. But if Alice wants to talk and Bob does want to listen to her, then they should be able to without Karen being able to stop them.
  - leaflets2 5y ago
    When Alice says "those who look like so:... are kidnapping your babies and control the banks and steal your salaries" and a year later 100 Bobs kill those that look like so? That's one consequence of totally free speech unfortunately
- ethbr0 5y ago
  I think of the two sides as "pro-speech" and "anti-speech" dissent. I can disagree and oppose your opinions by exercising my own right to free speech. I can afford you your own pulpit, air time, and freedom to make your point, and then I can take mine and make my point as loudly as I can. I can schedule a march or rally the same day, across the street. This is what "pro-speech" dissent looks like. I can also disagree and oppose your opinion by removing your right to free speech. I can contact people who might give you a platform, and convince them not to do so. I can attempt to impose consequences for you legally, socially, or physically that discourage you from speaking. I can shout over you from across the street, to ensure people can't hear your speech. This is what "anti-speech" dissent looks like. And, IMHO, "pro-speech" is more important than almost* any consequence of speech. * The sole exceptions probably being speech that inspires imminent action to violate any person's individual rights (e.g. violence) or that has an imminent or fundamental threat to bring about a change in government to one which does not allow, support, and respect free speech.
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    People do not evaluate speech based on its truth, they evaluate it based on its authority, which is a function of many things (including, in eg twitters case, popularity). Fighting battles over whos speech should be afforded the biggest stage makes a huge difference in debate.
tristor 5y ago
“Deplatforming” is anti-freedom. It violates the free speech of the speaker, it violates freedom of assembly for the listeners, and it violates freedom of association for all of the parties involved. Showing up to shout someone down who had people voluntarily show up to hear them speak because you feel like you are empowered to unilaterally decide and enforce through aggression who is “allowed” to speak in your city or on your campus, is inherently an act against freedom of speech. It’s also the ultimate act of “entitlement”, getting away with it is the ultimate act of “privilege” to be allowed to so utterly disrespect another person’s rights. There is no other way to color this and very little nuance here. “Platforms” in the virtual space have more leeway as they’re mostly privately owned and extended as a privilege of access, not a right. Shouting down speakers in public (or paid and invited) venues though is unequivocally against freedom of speech.
- ss108 5y ago
  In making this argument, you should clarify that you think it's important to not limit "freedom of speech" to its legal definition. Currently, you only make an allusion to that distinction. To fully make your argument, you need to convince people that the overall philosophical point of "free speech" is worth societal value even beyond that which we have accorded it via law (assuming you're in the US). Coming from someone who doesn't agree with you, but who doesn't agree with your opponents either.
  - lukifer 5y ago
    The First Amendment doesn't grant a right to free speech as such; such a right is assumed to be pre-existing and inalienable (whether one roots such rights in religious belief or secular humanism). Rather: the First Amendment restricts what laws Congress may pass, which might infringe on that right.
    - ss108 5y ago
      The "right" only exists insofar as it is legally protected.
tomp 5y ago
For some weird reason, the same people can be OK with Cloudflare or Twitter banning someone for their political views, but wouldn't be OK with a bank or electricity provider banning someone for their political views.
- drdec 5y ago
  An electrical provider is typically a government-granted monopoly, and given that, it is not unreasonable to extend the protection of speech against government action to the electrical provider. Banks are not however, and in fact, banks and the financial system do act against classes of people. Visa and Mastercard frequently pressure their customers in an effort to prevent sex work in the name of preventing sex trafficking. If their customers do not do enough they will cut them off. This most recently happened with OnlyFans. See also PornHub.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    You're right about banks in USA, but I think that this is wrong and indicates that the ability of these middlemen to prevent people from interacting in society (being able to pay one another is essentially part of freedom of association) needs to be restricted.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  In my mind there is a big difference between banning particular views versus banning someone for their particular views. Like, Cloudflare or Twitter should be free to choose what speech they publish and what they prohibit, but they (and banks and electricity providers) should not be banning someone because of who they are as a person or for their political views expressed elsewhere. Cloudflare should be free to ban Daily Stormer as they did, but if the same people from Daily Stormer were just running a cat picture site through Cloudflare (and publishing their neo-Nazi stuff elsewhere) then IMHO Cloudflare should not ban their cat picture site. To choose an extreme (but less-political?) example of paedophilia, it's obviously okay to ban distribution of child sexual abuse material, but IMHO someone who's just came out from prison after being convicted for child rape should not get automatically banned from platforms (or banks, or electricity providers) as a person despite being a paedophile child abuser, they should be able to participate in the society unless/until their ongoing acts become criminal and they get removed from the society by the courts. And if that's the case, then it also applies to the less extreme views.
ambrozk 5y ago
If there is a pulpit in the town square, then the 1st amendment says that a speaker *is* entitled to that pulpit. This is the essence of free speech, and always has been. The 1st amendment is very explicit about this: citizens have a right to assemble *in public* and air their opinions *publicly.* Cordoning off opinions and declaring them unfit for certain public squares is a classic form of censorship. Communists, Republicans, the KKK, NAMBLA, the NRA, GLAAD, Gay Geeks for Bernie and the ASPCA all have the right to march on the National Mall.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Exactly. IMHO, we just need to accept that "public" has extended and changed to encompass publicly-accessible, privately-owned platforms of a sufficient size.
  - otterley 5y ago
    That would violate the property and First Amendment rights of the private platform owners. You could, however, advocate for the creation of a publicly-owned Internet platform where all speech would be acceptable. Why don't you do that, instead?
    - ThrowawayR2 5y ago
      > "That would violate the property and First Amendment rights of the private platform owners. Much like the Fair Housing Act of 1968 restricts the Constitutional property rights of earlier bigots who didn't want to sell property to the "wrong" type of people, society by and large will likely be okay with violating the Constitutional property rights of the illiberal who don't want to allow the "wrong" type of people to use market-dominant services. Illiberalism is illiberalism, regardless of whether it comes from the right of the left.
      - otterley 5y ago
        This comes across as a thinly-veiled opinion that property owners should be allowed not to sell to a buyer solely because they are Black. That's what you mean, right? You might as well say it straightforwardly instead of attempting to hide behind a veil of logical equivalence.
LudwigNagasena 5y ago
It’s interesting how “I support rights of private companies but only when they do something totalitarian” has become such a common position in the US.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  I'm confused by what you are saying here. Corporations have always been totalitarian in their decision making. How often have you heard from your boss "this isn't a democracy" when they make a decision that's unpopular among the employees? The more interesting dynamic to me is the free-market, anti-regulation, low-corporate-tax capitalist politicians arguing we should create regulations to make the market less free.
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    > I'm confused by what you are saying here. Corporations have always been totalitarian in their decision making. How often have you heard from your boss "this isn't a democracy" when they make a decision that's unpopular among the employees? I am saying that people who are seemingly opposed to that stuff are the first to shout that Twitter is a private company and thus can manipulate its userbase however it wants. > The more interesting dynamic to me is the free-market, anti-regulation, low-corporate-tax capitalist politicians arguing we should create regulations to make the market less free. Yeah, and it’s good that people finally loosen up their radical stances and start to realize that the state isn’t the only source of oppression.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      > I am saying that people who are seemingly opposed to that stuff are the first to shout that Twitter is a private company and thus can manipulate its userbase however it wants. One thing to consider is that this argument is being used rhetorically to force interlocutors into an uncomfortable position. If you are a famous politician who has been championing the unrestricted free reign of corporations to pollute, abuse employees, abuse customers, etc. for decades, but now all of a sudden you're upset about certain decisions those companies make regarding their own products, people are going to throw that in your face. The argument will continue to be made until those arguing for tighter controls over corporate free speech agree that corporate power in other areas must be checked as well. I'm all for greater oversight of Twitter that would lead to more free speech. But I'm not going to start arguing for it until there's a broader recognition that corporate power writ large needs to be reduced, not just at the corporations which make things politically uncomfortable for certain politicians. To me, it seems like some politicians would like to pass laws against e.g. Twitter specifically that would help them politically, but they would like to preserve corporate power in general where it benefits them. They want corporations to be people when it benefits them, but they don't want corporations to be people when it's politically inconvenient. That's not how this works. Until conservative attitudes about corporate power and corporate personhood shift generally, Twitter will retain the power they have now, since they are people according to conservatives.

Beltalowda 5y ago

It just puts things in perspective; I'm not saying it's not something to be worried about, but you can both worry about something while also keeping the historical perspective in mind. There is also a lot of hysteria going on; that Maus "controversy" which your CVS article cites (among others) is a good example. The concerns were over some nudity and profanity. You may think that's prudish or a bit childish, but fine, it's not really something especially unusual to be concerned about, or a very new "taboo" to be concerned about. It certainly wasn't an attempt at removing any education about the Holocaust from the curriculum, yet that it often how it was framed. With the author of Maus going so far to openly question whether these people might have neo-Nazi sympathies in an interview. That there are some instances of unfounded hysteria doesn't mean there are also things that are not; but again, it's good to keep some perspective.

lukifer 5y ago
The Maus case provides an interesting contrast: while I agree the reaction was somewhat disproportionate, a dissenting view was still permissible within the "social Overton window". You might get looked at askance for saying "I don't think Maus is appropriate for schools", but you'd be unlikely to be ostracized or fired. The same can't be said for some other expressions of heterodoxy/heresy, past or present.
watwut 5y ago
> The concerns were over some nudity and profanity No, they were not. The only nudity in it were mouses. It was not erotic. It did not included ressembleable human parts. This was not about prudity, it was about excuse. It was not childish, it was cynical. > It certainly wasn't an attempt at removing any education about the Holocaust from the curriculum, yet that it often how it was framed. The thing about Maus is that it makes you feel bad. It is made from point of view of victim. It is not even idealizing the victims, it does not require the victim to be that great perfect person so that you feel bad about him. Maus also does not end with happy end where they lived happily ever after. It shows long term damage. > With the author of Maus going so far to openly question whether these people might have neo-Nazi sympathies in an interview. Did you considered looking at who those people specifically are and what other things they said or done? Or did you just rejected what he said, because it would feel bad for you if he actually was right?

twofornone 5y ago

These claims that the "don't say gay" legislation stifles free speech are dishonest. These are teachers, agents of the state, in a professional setting, not private citizens expressing opinions off the clock. If I'm paying taxes for public education then I should have a say in what gets taught, and that includes culture.

NoraCodes 5y ago
Now, wait a second - either it's bad that people get fired for expressing opinions, as Graham states in the essay, or it's not and people _should_ get fired for expressing opinions that you don't like. I don't think you can have it both ways. It's not even as if there's a conflict of interest here, as in the case of public officials being banned from certain kinds of political speech; these teachers are not hurting anyone or disrupting any civil processes, so under what principle is it acceptable to deny them the same freedoms Graham argues for in the case of corporate employees?
- rdiddly 5y ago
  According to the Florida bill, it's when the students are 3rd grade or lower. The bifurcation point between "OK to talk about" and "not OK to talk about" is between 3rd & 4th grade.
  - NoraCodes 5y ago
    For every issue? Or do you feel this should be different based on the subject matter at hand?
    - rdiddly 5y ago
      The bill is not about every issue and I'm not getting into what I feel. I don't live in Florida and basically am not paying attention.
      - NoraCodes 5y ago

switchbak 5y ago

I think that's something that often gets overlooked in the frenzy to tribal defence: this is a sideshow to take the spotlight off of the real important issues of the day. If you really look at it, the left/right dichotomy in US politics seems designed (evolved?) to serve much the same purpose. When we all calm down on the partisanship, often it's amazing how much shared ground there really is.

andrepd 5y ago
It's not surprising. Divide and conquer is a millenia-old tactic. Efforts by the ruling class to pit the working classes against themselves have been noted in Western capitalist societies for at least 150 years.

jacquesm 5y ago

A bigger problem is that all of this is extremely local, typically affecting a small fraction of the world population, when for the majority the truth is very much different.

bendbro 5y ago

If I said: 1. "Fuck Jesus, fuck America, kill all men." 2. "Fuck BLM, fuck diversity." Which one do you think would get me cancelled? Conservatives have comically little social power. Further, you can basically say anything you want around them, while conversations with the average liberal are a careful affair. Perhaps though I am blind. Are there contemporary instances of conservative driven cancellations? The definition I like of cancellation is: removing privileges from a person when their qualities do not predict harmful use of those privileges. For example, in the CBS article you linked, with regard to the parents, schools, CRT issue: I acknowledge the parents are restricting speech, but I don't think it violates the spirit of free speech. Teachers can say whatever they like, and parents are free choose what their kids listen to. On the same note, I think it is fine for schools to be forced to omit creationism when discussing evolution. On defining cancellation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30770206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30770206 My personal axe to grind on left driven cancel culture: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25977399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25977399

CJefferson 5y ago
The problem with this kind of argument is that it's very hard to be sure you aren't trapped in your "bubble". Fox is comfortably the most popular cable news network in America -- and that lends it a lot of social power among people who get most of their news from cable. They don't care what idiots on Twitter are saying, except as filtered through the news they consume. I talk to conservatives who get furious at the suggestion that Joe Biden isn't a pedophile, or trans-women are women and not also pedophiles. However, this is my bubble --I don't know which is "real".
- bendbro 5y ago
  > I talk to conservatives who get furious at the suggestion that Joe Biden isn't a pedophile, or trans-women are women and not also pedophiles Does their reaction have any odds of extending beyond your discussion with them into your friendship with them, other relationships, your job, or your public reputation? > The problem with this kind of argument is that it's very hard to be sure you aren't trapped in your "bubble" It definitely could be my bubble. A lot of the strength behind my opinion formed while living in Seattle and mingling with the locals. An anecdote: I once was at a friends birthday, and was seated next to a mutual friend I'd had for a year. She asked if I had been to the women's march, and I said "sorry no, I didn't have the time." She said "everybody has the time" and I said "I feel uncomfortable at marches." She said that's not a reason. I said "Okay, the real reason was I didn't have the hat." After that we were no longer friends. Interacting with the left in the southwest has been a significantly better experience.