5 ms·

"The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech" There'

"The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech" There's a mirror image problem though: people in favor of regulations on speech have little reason to fear that their speech will be limited, at least in the short term. Regulators are politically-correct, so if you are politically-correct, what's the problem? (Obviously: bad things can become politically-correct, too.)

dnissley 4y ago
The example I always use here as someone who grew up in the 90s is that having an openly gay character on network tv used to be extremely controversial at best and politically untenable at worst.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Except the side who are "free speech absolutists" are worried about those gay characters kissing in "She-Ra" remake or various Disney+ cartoons where men kiss, and want that stuff censored off the airs. And then want to ban the book "Maus", etc. etc.
  - FormerBandmate 4y ago
    Maybe phony Republicans who don't actually believe what they say are. Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey are many things, but they are not that
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > Elon Musk So.... when will that guy start talking about the benefits of Free Speech in China? Particularly, the Shanghai factory that Elon Musk has been so proud of? https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-tesla-boss-praises-182248534.html https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-tesla-boss-... > Jack Dorsey Same same. Twitter bends its "free speech" in China so that it can operate in that country. Its all about the money to them, they'd rather get that Chinese-money than to piss off their new overlords and actually make a racket about free-speech issues over there.
      - ljw1001 4y ago
        It’s always about the money when we let billionaires decide how society should operate.
  - edanm 4y ago
    Not everything fits neatly into tribal politics, especially not tribal US politics specifically. Twitter, the internet, etc are all platforms that are open to places other than the States, I don't think it makes sense to link everything about its moderation to D vs. R politics. I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian / "classical liberal". I'm therefore something of a "free speech absolutist", have no issue with gay characters, and hate the idea of banning books. Not everyone who thinks differently than you do about free speech fits into a neat little caricature.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      I'm certainly not accusing you of being a hypocrite. Largely because I don't know you. I'm accusing my family, friends, coworkers, of being a hypocrite. Because I know them and have seen how their values have changed on this issue. They're for "free speech" and "against cancel culture" one day, and then for "banning LGBTQ+ cartoons from Netflix" the next day.
      - native_samples 4y ago
        Usually, speech to children is considered separately. I'd consider myself a libertarian free speech absolutist. I don't think anything should be banned from Netflix. I do think what teachers say in the classroom should be carefully controlled and parents should have a lot of control over what speech their children are exposed to more generally (e.g. filters on Netflix), because children almost by definition find it extremely difficult to separate truths from untruths and are much more impressionable than adults. Part of being a parent is deciding how to raise your kids and what beliefs to teach them. That's one reason totalitarian states always try so hard to indoctrinate children - it's easy, and they're a weak spot through which adults can be attacked in turn (see the sordid history of children being convinced to spy on their parents). A big part of the fights in the USA at the moment and in culture more generally are about this sort of underhanded tactic - where one ideology that's losing the battle of ideas tries to short circuit it by indoctrinating children. Arguably that's where CRT came from. It's not a coincidence it emerged from academia, a place filled with impressionable teenagers.
  - TMWNN 4y ago
    >And then want to ban the book "Maus", etc. etc. No. Maus was removed from an 8th grade curriculum list because of graphic depictions of sexuality/violence/language, but the school board sought alternative, age-appropriate works to teach about the Holocaust with (<https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2022/01/27/why-did-tennessee-school-board-remove-maus-art-spiegelman/9244295002/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2022/01/27/why-did-ten...>). To say that Maus is "banned", and not any and every other book the board decides to not include on its curriculum, is inaccurate.
  - PolygonSheep 4y ago
    > Except the side who are "free speech absolutists" are worried about those gay characters kissing in "She-Ra" remake or various Disney+ cartoons where men kiss, Does holding freedom of speech as an ideal mean you must never dislike anything or tell anyone else that you dislike it? Is Elon giving orders to Disney+ about what they can and can't show? Is he going to ban Disney from using Twitter now because two guys kissed in a cartoon? > and want that stuff censored off the airs. There is indeed censorship of broadcast media but it long predates Elon or Twitter and it's done by the FCC. > And then want to ban the book "Maus", etc. etc. Removing a book from the curriculum and replacing it with another book that teaches pretty much the same thing is hardly "banning" it. Did students face disciplinary action or criminal charges for possessing a copy of Maus on school grounds? Did parents who bought a copy for their kids get a visit from the sheriff? Was Amazon ordered to stop selling it? It's ridiculous. If you think about it almost all books are similarly "banned" as there are countless possible books you could have kids read and very limited time and space on the curriculum. We had the Pearson algebra textbook in high school so I guess that means the McGraw-Hill one was "banned".
nonameiguess 4y ago
Short-term isn't really that short. Witness all the tales of teachers not being able to admit to being gay in the 90s without risking getting fired, or don't ask, don't tell, which was only repealed roughly a decade ago. These speech restrictions were all being pushed by the American GOP, which is now reversing course less than a few years later as they find the cultural tides shifting away from moral majority, satanic panic type stuff that saw them banning 2 Live Crew and Judas Priest albums toward political correctness and now it's their speech being restricted. There is no good reason to think this is some permanent state of affairs and the tides won't shift back the other way again, or that it will take centuries or something. If history is any guide, it'll happen before current college students even hit middle age.
- bogantech 4y ago
  > don't ask, don't tell, which was only repealed roughly a decade ago. These speech restrictions were all being pushed by the American GOP Wasn't DADT instituted by the Clinton administration?
  - louky 4y ago
    And Music censoring was Tipper Gore (Al Gore's wife).
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      Parents’ Music Resource Center had four founders, the other one who was a wife of a federal official was Susan Baker, wife of Bush’s then-Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III.
  - rektide 4y ago
    I remember DADT as an easing of the status quo, which was at the time: we are watching & you better not.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Wasn't DADT instituted by the Clinton administration? “Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue” was, as official policy when implemented, a relaxation of the pre-existing hard ban on homosexuality in the military—which was a prohibition with Ask, Tell-or-face-additional-punishment-for-concealment, and Pursue any indication from any aspect of a service members personal life that might tend to suggest homosexual orientation—to a ban on public homosexual conduct. (In practice, it tended to be much less and much less consistent of a relaxation as suggested by the official policy.) When people are talking about the repeal of DADT, what they really are referring to is the repeal of the longstanding prohibition of homosexuality in the military, of which DADT was the last and, at least in it's overt terms the mildest, manifestation. Also, DADT was adopted because Clinton was trying to split the baby of fulfilling his campaign promise of lifting the ban and minimizing friction with the GOP as part of a strategy to minimize risk to higher priority legislative priorities.

dnissley 4y ago

The example I always use here as someone who grew up in the 90s is that having an openly gay character on network tv used to be extremely controversial at best and politically untenable at worst.

dragontamer 4y ago
Except the side who are "free speech absolutists" are worried about those gay characters kissing in "She-Ra" remake or various Disney+ cartoons where men kiss, and want that stuff censored off the airs. And then want to ban the book "Maus", etc. etc.
- FormerBandmate 4y ago
  Maybe phony Republicans who don't actually believe what they say are. Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey are many things, but they are not that
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > Elon Musk So.... when will that guy start talking about the benefits of Free Speech in China? Particularly, the Shanghai factory that Elon Musk has been so proud of? https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-tesla-boss-praises-182248534.html https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-tesla-boss-... > Jack Dorsey Same same. Twitter bends its "free speech" in China so that it can operate in that country. Its all about the money to them, they'd rather get that Chinese-money than to piss off their new overlords and actually make a racket about free-speech issues over there.
    - ljw1001 4y ago
      It’s always about the money when we let billionaires decide how society should operate.
- edanm 4y ago
  Not everything fits neatly into tribal politics, especially not tribal US politics specifically. Twitter, the internet, etc are all platforms that are open to places other than the States, I don't think it makes sense to link everything about its moderation to D vs. R politics. I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian / "classical liberal". I'm therefore something of a "free speech absolutist", have no issue with gay characters, and hate the idea of banning books. Not everyone who thinks differently than you do about free speech fits into a neat little caricature.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    I'm certainly not accusing you of being a hypocrite. Largely because I don't know you. I'm accusing my family, friends, coworkers, of being a hypocrite. Because I know them and have seen how their values have changed on this issue. They're for "free speech" and "against cancel culture" one day, and then for "banning LGBTQ+ cartoons from Netflix" the next day.
    - native_samples 4y ago
      Usually, speech to children is considered separately. I'd consider myself a libertarian free speech absolutist. I don't think anything should be banned from Netflix. I do think what teachers say in the classroom should be carefully controlled and parents should have a lot of control over what speech their children are exposed to more generally (e.g. filters on Netflix), because children almost by definition find it extremely difficult to separate truths from untruths and are much more impressionable than adults. Part of being a parent is deciding how to raise your kids and what beliefs to teach them. That's one reason totalitarian states always try so hard to indoctrinate children - it's easy, and they're a weak spot through which adults can be attacked in turn (see the sordid history of children being convinced to spy on their parents). A big part of the fights in the USA at the moment and in culture more generally are about this sort of underhanded tactic - where one ideology that's losing the battle of ideas tries to short circuit it by indoctrinating children. Arguably that's where CRT came from. It's not a coincidence it emerged from academia, a place filled with impressionable teenagers.
- TMWNN 4y ago
  >And then want to ban the book "Maus", etc. etc. No. Maus was removed from an 8th grade curriculum list because of graphic depictions of sexuality/violence/language, but the school board sought alternative, age-appropriate works to teach about the Holocaust with (<https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2022/01/27/why-did-tennessee-school-board-remove-maus-art-spiegelman/9244295002/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2022/01/27/why-did-ten...>). To say that Maus is "banned", and not any and every other book the board decides to not include on its curriculum, is inaccurate.
- PolygonSheep 4y ago
  > Except the side who are "free speech absolutists" are worried about those gay characters kissing in "She-Ra" remake or various Disney+ cartoons where men kiss, Does holding freedom of speech as an ideal mean you must never dislike anything or tell anyone else that you dislike it? Is Elon giving orders to Disney+ about what they can and can't show? Is he going to ban Disney from using Twitter now because two guys kissed in a cartoon? > and want that stuff censored off the airs. There is indeed censorship of broadcast media but it long predates Elon or Twitter and it's done by the FCC. > And then want to ban the book "Maus", etc. etc. Removing a book from the curriculum and replacing it with another book that teaches pretty much the same thing is hardly "banning" it. Did students face disciplinary action or criminal charges for possessing a copy of Maus on school grounds? Did parents who bought a copy for their kids get a visit from the sheriff? Was Amazon ordered to stop selling it? It's ridiculous. If you think about it almost all books are similarly "banned" as there are countless possible books you could have kids read and very limited time and space on the curriculum. We had the Pearson algebra textbook in high school so I guess that means the McGraw-Hill one was "banned".

nonameiguess 4y ago

Short-term isn't really that short. Witness all the tales of teachers not being able to admit to being gay in the 90s without risking getting fired, or don't ask, don't tell, which was only repealed roughly a decade ago. These speech restrictions were all being pushed by the American GOP, which is now reversing course less than a few years later as they find the cultural tides shifting away from moral majority, satanic panic type stuff that saw them banning 2 Live Crew and Judas Priest albums toward political correctness and now it's their speech being restricted. There is no good reason to think this is some permanent state of affairs and the tides won't shift back the other way again, or that it will take centuries or something. If history is any guide, it'll happen before current college students even hit middle age.

bogantech 4y ago
> don't ask, don't tell, which was only repealed roughly a decade ago. These speech restrictions were all being pushed by the American GOP Wasn't DADT instituted by the Clinton administration?
- louky 4y ago
  And Music censoring was Tipper Gore (Al Gore's wife).
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Parents’ Music Resource Center had four founders, the other one who was a wife of a federal official was Susan Baker, wife of Bush’s then-Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III.
- rektide 4y ago
  I remember DADT as an easing of the status quo, which was at the time: we are watching & you better not.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Wasn't DADT instituted by the Clinton administration? “Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue” was, as official policy when implemented, a relaxation of the pre-existing hard ban on homosexuality in the military—which was a prohibition with Ask, Tell-or-face-additional-punishment-for-concealment, and Pursue any indication from any aspect of a service members personal life that might tend to suggest homosexual orientation—to a ban on public homosexual conduct. (In practice, it tended to be much less and much less consistent of a relaxation as suggested by the official policy.) When people are talking about the repeal of DADT, what they really are referring to is the repeal of the longstanding prohibition of homosexuality in the military, of which DADT was the last and, at least in it's overt terms the mildest, manifestation. Also, DADT was adopted because Clinton was trying to split the baby of fulfilling his campaign promise of lifting the ban and minimizing friction with the GOP as part of a strategy to minimize risk to higher priority legislative priorities.