4 ms·

This discussion of free speech makes one of the most common mistakes people make on this topic: It conflates not supporting speech with stifling speech. This a

This discussion of free speech makes one of the most common mistakes people make on this topic: It conflates not supporting speech with stifling speech. This actually turns the idea of free speech on its head: If your actions (which should be considered speech) are forced to support others' speech, then that's not free speech. That's forced speech. Most individuals, and non-government funded institutions, should be free to choose which speech they actively support, and which speech they simply ignore. Too often, proponents of free speech are actually promoting forced speech. They claim that not actively distributing, repeating, or hosting certain speech "suppresses" that speech, when, in fact, the lack of support is simply just that -- a lack of support. To force the support/disemmination of speech is antithetical to free speech.

78124781 4y ago
Not allowing college professors to choose what readings they want to assign in class is, in fact, stifling free speech. The essay is advocating against "forced" speech in terms of only allowing consideration of one point of view and refusing to even provide/offer other points of view.
scarmig 4y ago
Restricting "freedom of speech" to simply the ability to function in an environment with no intrapersonal or governmental violence gives us at best a faded facsimile of it. Most "totalitarian" countries don't function by literally throwing people in prison or beating them for saying Bad Things: that's far too expensive to be total and widespread. It functions by removing people from positions of media exposure; by denying them access to physical or network media; by ascribing implicit or explicit social credit scores that governs access to resources. None of those things are violent and rarely even explicitly ordered by the State. In fact, "no one has the right to a platform to hurt society/the nation" is how those totalitarian regimes typically justify their repression. And they're still every bit as much a restriction on freedom of speech.
- freedomtogripe 4y ago
  > Most "totalitarian" countries don't function by literally throwing people in prison or beating them for saying Bad Things Yes, they absolutely do, and the threat of either state or political violence keeps most people in line. > that's far too expensive to be total and widespread. That's true for all criminal acts, everywhere. The US doesn't even clear the majority of its violent crime. Law enforcement of all types and in all cases works via deterrence rather than perfect enforcement.
  - scarmig 4y ago
    > Yes, they absolutely do, They do, but that's not the primary enforcement mechanism.
    - freedomtogripe 4y ago
      Deterrence is the primary enforcement mechanism. Which is also true for every other type of crime. Again, the US doesn't even clear the majority of its violent crime. The rule of law everywhere is primarily achieved by deterrence rather than perfect enforcement.
- boplicity 4y ago
  > Most "totalitarian" countries don't function by literally throwing people in prison or beating them for saying Bad Things This is demonstrably false. More recent examples: In Russia, they jailed a lawmaker for being anti-war. They jailed many thousands of protesters for the same thing. In China, almost any criticism of the government comes with the threat of being jailed. (More recently, they've jailed many pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.) In Myanmar they recently executed pro-democracy activists. I'm sure you can easily find similar examples throughout every totalitarian regime -- assuming that people are not too afraid to make them public. Violence/jail, it turns out, is an effective deterrence.
  - Sin2x 4y ago
    Since I'm myself Russian and residing in Russia, I'd be glad to verify your statements as you weren't kind enough to provide prooflinks. > They jailed many thousands of protesters for the same thing. The same thing being "being anti-war". Well, this one is veritably incorrect, in fact, the opposite is true -- I haven't heard of a single person being jailed for being anti-war. There was a woman who showed an anti-war banner on national television during prime-time, she was fined about $500, Marina Ovsyannikova. So, what's your source? > In Russia, they jailed a lawmaker for being anti-war. Care to share the source here as well? What's his name?
nonethewiser 4y ago
> This discussion of free speech makes one of the most common mistakes people make on this topic: It conflates not supporting speech with stifling speech. The example in the article is not letting professors choose works such as those that refute the claim of structural racism. So its absolutely stifling academic freedom, which you seem to be conflating with free speech.

78124781 4y ago

Not allowing college professors to choose what readings they want to assign in class is, in fact, stifling free speech. The essay is advocating against "forced" speech in terms of only allowing consideration of one point of view and refusing to even provide/offer other points of view.

scarmig 4y ago

Restricting "freedom of speech" to simply the ability to function in an environment with no intrapersonal or governmental violence gives us at best a faded facsimile of it. Most "totalitarian" countries don't function by literally throwing people in prison or beating them for saying Bad Things: that's far too expensive to be total and widespread. It functions by removing people from positions of media exposure; by denying them access to physical or network media; by ascribing implicit or explicit social credit scores that governs access to resources. None of those things are violent and rarely even explicitly ordered by the State. In fact, "no one has the right to a platform to hurt society/the nation" is how those totalitarian regimes typically justify their repression. And they're still every bit as much a restriction on freedom of speech.

freedomtogripe 4y ago
> Most "totalitarian" countries don't function by literally throwing people in prison or beating them for saying Bad Things Yes, they absolutely do, and the threat of either state or political violence keeps most people in line. > that's far too expensive to be total and widespread. That's true for all criminal acts, everywhere. The US doesn't even clear the majority of its violent crime. Law enforcement of all types and in all cases works via deterrence rather than perfect enforcement.
- scarmig 4y ago
  > Yes, they absolutely do, They do, but that's not the primary enforcement mechanism.
  - freedomtogripe 4y ago
    Deterrence is the primary enforcement mechanism. Which is also true for every other type of crime. Again, the US doesn't even clear the majority of its violent crime. The rule of law everywhere is primarily achieved by deterrence rather than perfect enforcement.
boplicity 4y ago
> Most "totalitarian" countries don't function by literally throwing people in prison or beating them for saying Bad Things This is demonstrably false. More recent examples: In Russia, they jailed a lawmaker for being anti-war. They jailed many thousands of protesters for the same thing. In China, almost any criticism of the government comes with the threat of being jailed. (More recently, they've jailed many pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.) In Myanmar they recently executed pro-democracy activists. I'm sure you can easily find similar examples throughout every totalitarian regime -- assuming that people are not too afraid to make them public. Violence/jail, it turns out, is an effective deterrence.
- Sin2x 4y ago
  Since I'm myself Russian and residing in Russia, I'd be glad to verify your statements as you weren't kind enough to provide prooflinks. > They jailed many thousands of protesters for the same thing. The same thing being "being anti-war". Well, this one is veritably incorrect, in fact, the opposite is true -- I haven't heard of a single person being jailed for being anti-war. There was a woman who showed an anti-war banner on national television during prime-time, she was fined about $500, Marina Ovsyannikova. So, what's your source? > In Russia, they jailed a lawmaker for being anti-war. Care to share the source here as well? What's his name?

nonethewiser 4y ago

> This discussion of free speech makes one of the most common mistakes people make on this topic: It conflates not supporting speech with stifling speech. The example in the article is not letting professors choose works such as those that refute the claim of structural racism. So its absolutely stifling academic freedom, which you seem to be conflating with free speech.