3 ms·

It's these types of absolutist statements that drive people away from activist causes. Even a staunch proponent of free speech might have some types of speech t

It's these types of absolutist statements that drive people away from activist causes. Even a staunch proponent of free speech might have some types of speech they object to; - Advertising dangerous and addictive substances, particularly to children [0] - Lying about the contents or efficacy of a commercial product, especially medicine or food [1] - Publishing private details about someone in an effort to inflict real world harm [2] - Publishing private work against the will of its creator, as might have happened with Sir Terry Pratchett's unfinished books after his death. [3] (I distinctly remember a commenter I had an argument with stating that after his death, his wishes in that regard were irrelevant compared to the living's desire to actually read said work. Fortunately, such callousness is not the norm) Collective free speech is an interesting idea, in any case. I'm always wary of the term "collective." It brings to mind collective justice. It's not unthinkably terrible, after all, to throw a single stone at a sinner. And if my neighbor has the right to, so do I. And his neighbor, and her neighbor, and soon enough the sinner is stoned to death and none of us are responsible. All each of us did was throw a single stone, after all. It's a strange dissonance to state that censorship is free speech. But that's what people seem to often mean when they talk about cancelling or deplatforming people. [0]: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/rules-regulations-and-guidance/family-smoking-prevention-and-tobacco-control-act-overview https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/rules-regulations-and-g... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-baby-milk-scandal-food-industry-standards https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-baby... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing [3]: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/30/terry-pratchett-unfinished-novels-destroyed-streamroller https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/30/terry-pratchet...

paulgb 4y ago
You have good one-sentence summaries of things that are reasonable exceptions/limitations to free speech. I’m struggling to come up with one that would prevent cancel culture without sounding like an unreasonable exception. For example, “saying someone should be fired based on a bad joke they made on the internet” doesn’t sound like it should be illegal, even though that being spoken en masse is tantamount to cancel culture.
TameAntelope 4y ago
I didn't say, "All speech should be free or none of it should be free", I said, "Both the repugnant ideas and the rejection of the repugnant ideas are expressions of free speech, and you either support both or none." Of course there's speech that should be limited. I'm just saying if you support repugnant speech, you either also support rejections of repugnant speech or you don't support free speech at all.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > I'm just saying if you support repugnant speech, you either also support rejections of repugnant speech or you don't support free speech at all. No, thats stupid. It is absolutely possible to both support free speech, and oppose "rejection" of repubnant speech, if by "rejection" we mean that I would oppose sending death threats to their friends and family, and oppose the "rejection" action of attempting to assault the repugnant free speech sayer. It is very silly to say that a free speech supporter has somehow underminded their ability to support the concept of free speech significantly, because they opposed assaulting, or sending death threats to the friends and family of a person who makes repugnant speech.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    What's stupid is not realizing that both are forms of free speech. You can "oppose" it, but trying to prevent it is an attack on the freedom of speech. Either you support free speech, and the right of the "angry mob" to be angry, or you don't support free speech. But the fact that you can't distinguish between the expression of an angry idea and a death threat disqualifies you from this conversation, though. Obviously that's different, and you know that isn't what anyone reasonable is suggesting.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > distinguish between the expression of an angry idea and a death threat So then you agree that a free speech supporter opposing death threats and harassment of people's friends and family of those who make offensive speech does not undermine their pro free speech opinions. Yeah that's my entire point. > the right of the "angry mob" to be angry What the free speech supporters oppose is this angry mob sending death threats and harassing the friends, family, and coworkers of people who have made offensive speech. So yes, people can both support free speech, and oppose the angry mob when they harass, dox, and threaten to kill people who say offensive things > that isn't what anyone reasonable is suggesting. "Canceling" someone very often involves sending death threats, doxxing, and harassing people's friends, family and coworkers, when the angry mob is involved. So yes, that happens, and is what the pro free speech supporters are opposing. But yes, I agree that the angry mob that harasses, doxes, and threatens people when it "cancels" someone is unreasonable, and is what the pro free speech people oppose.

paulgb 4y ago

You have good one-sentence summaries of things that are reasonable exceptions/limitations to free speech. I’m struggling to come up with one that would prevent cancel culture without sounding like an unreasonable exception. For example, “saying someone should be fired based on a bad joke they made on the internet” doesn’t sound like it should be illegal, even though that being spoken en masse is tantamount to cancel culture.

TameAntelope 4y ago

I didn't say, "All speech should be free or none of it should be free", I said, "Both the repugnant ideas and the rejection of the repugnant ideas are expressions of free speech, and you either support both or none." Of course there's speech that should be limited. I'm just saying if you support repugnant speech, you either also support rejections of repugnant speech or you don't support free speech at all.

stale2002 4y ago
> I'm just saying if you support repugnant speech, you either also support rejections of repugnant speech or you don't support free speech at all. No, thats stupid. It is absolutely possible to both support free speech, and oppose "rejection" of repubnant speech, if by "rejection" we mean that I would oppose sending death threats to their friends and family, and oppose the "rejection" action of attempting to assault the repugnant free speech sayer. It is very silly to say that a free speech supporter has somehow underminded their ability to support the concept of free speech significantly, because they opposed assaulting, or sending death threats to the friends and family of a person who makes repugnant speech.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  What's stupid is not realizing that both are forms of free speech. You can "oppose" it, but trying to prevent it is an attack on the freedom of speech. Either you support free speech, and the right of the "angry mob" to be angry, or you don't support free speech. But the fact that you can't distinguish between the expression of an angry idea and a death threat disqualifies you from this conversation, though. Obviously that's different, and you know that isn't what anyone reasonable is suggesting.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > distinguish between the expression of an angry idea and a death threat So then you agree that a free speech supporter opposing death threats and harassment of people's friends and family of those who make offensive speech does not undermine their pro free speech opinions. Yeah that's my entire point. > the right of the "angry mob" to be angry What the free speech supporters oppose is this angry mob sending death threats and harassing the friends, family, and coworkers of people who have made offensive speech. So yes, people can both support free speech, and oppose the angry mob when they harass, dox, and threaten to kill people who say offensive things > that isn't what anyone reasonable is suggesting. "Canceling" someone very often involves sending death threats, doxxing, and harassing people's friends, family and coworkers, when the angry mob is involved. So yes, that happens, and is what the pro free speech supporters are opposing. But yes, I agree that the angry mob that harasses, doxes, and threatens people when it "cancels" someone is unreasonable, and is what the pro free speech people oppose.