4 ms·

It is sad that people who believe in real free speech now have to clarify that they are free speech absolutists. When it comes down to it, I don’t think any of

It is sad that people who believe in real free speech now have to clarify that they are free speech absolutists. When it comes down to it, I don’t think any of those people you are mentioning ever actually supported free speech - just the idea of it before it came to a head.

cratermoon 4y ago
How is free speech absolutism more "real" than a more nuanced approached to speech?
faeriechangling 4y ago
Absolute free speech is more of a thought experiment than something that's possible, so I don't really see it as sad that people are only referring to American-style free speech (No libel, fraud, fighting words, calls to imminent lawlessness) when they say "free speech", I see it as practical. Absolute free speech would imply even a lack of self-censorship. I think if you deeply analyse communication you sort of realise that it's fundamentally built on censorship. Censorship is a core communication filter function. Getting rid of censorship absolutely is actually absurd.
- Bloating 4y ago
  There's a difference b/w having a filter, social consequences for lack of filter, and government restrictions
  - faeriechangling 4y ago
    Yeah but the existence of self-censorship implies a fear of social sanction, so if people are still doing it society is still being censored for fear of social sanction. Remember we're talking about absolutism here, obviously we shouldn't actually be concerned with self-censorship, but it is an obstacle to ABSOLUTE free speech.
8ytecoder 4y ago
I think Free speech, Freedom from prosecution for speech and speech without any consequences are all confused with each other. To me, the freedoms to oppose some speech, by way of boycotting, protesting, shunning and shaming is also speech. There’s also the difference between beheading for speech and getting your Twitter account suspended. If someone says absolutely nutty stuff in a town square and the local folks drown him out or threaten to not patronize the shops in the town square for allowing the speech, is that considered suppression of speech? It seems to me that people are asking for tolerance of speech at all costs. I don’t know if Free Speech ever came with that built in.
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  There is a semantic dispute over how free speech should be defined which is wrapped up in your views of the subject to begin with, but in my view the most consistent way to define the topic is that free speech is "the notion that people should speak freely without fear of social sanction". When I think of somebody who supports free speech, I think of somebody who: - Speaks in a less filtered way - Brushes off people saying something offensive about them - Brushes off people saying something offensive about other people - Doesn't support the regulation of speech at any official level I don't see supporting free speech as an inherent good by the way, I see it more as something nessecary to counteract the even larger issue of the "tyranny of the majority", and this is essential on more levels of society than the governmental level. Even amongst a group of peers or colleagues consideration must be given to allowing free speech.
  - 8ytecoder 4y ago
    Hidden in your notion of free speech is the expectation that I shut up when you say something offensive to me or don’t agree with - “Brushes off people saying something offensive about them”. That’s what I’m taking an issue with.
    - faeriechangling 4y ago
      Hmm you're right, I suppose you're correct it would be more free speech purist to simply not have an opinion on censorship whatsoever, but to still not engage in it themselves. Censorship can ironically itself be a form of free speech. However I will mention that the "paradox of tolerance" posits that if you don't censor those who would censor others, society will end up with more censorship. So there is an argument that somebody who is totally in favor of free speech, EXCEPT the free speech of those who censor others, is a more advocate of free speech than somebody who is for free speech in all situations. This is arguably game theoretically better than the former strategy.
zamalek 4y ago
Absolute free speech is a practical impossibility. Fighting words, by definition, are words that could result in the limitation of freedoms (including speech) of others. For example, what would you do if one person successfully convinces a crowd (through speech) to hang/kill their opponent? Given that the opponent would subsequently be dead (or maimed), how would they exercise their right to free speech? I can certainly agree with the paper, but not to the point of absolutism. The logical flaws in free speech absolutism betray very weak logical prowess, which would presumably mean the individual is deficient in cognitive ability.

cratermoon 4y ago

How is free speech absolutism more "real" than a more nuanced approached to speech?

faeriechangling 4y ago

Absolute free speech is more of a thought experiment than something that's possible, so I don't really see it as sad that people are only referring to American-style free speech (No libel, fraud, fighting words, calls to imminent lawlessness) when they say "free speech", I see it as practical. Absolute free speech would imply even a lack of self-censorship. I think if you deeply analyse communication you sort of realise that it's fundamentally built on censorship. Censorship is a core communication filter function. Getting rid of censorship absolutely is actually absurd.

Bloating 4y ago
There's a difference b/w having a filter, social consequences for lack of filter, and government restrictions
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  Yeah but the existence of self-censorship implies a fear of social sanction, so if people are still doing it society is still being censored for fear of social sanction. Remember we're talking about absolutism here, obviously we shouldn't actually be concerned with self-censorship, but it is an obstacle to ABSOLUTE free speech.

8ytecoder 4y ago

I think Free speech, Freedom from prosecution for speech and speech without any consequences are all confused with each other. To me, the freedoms to oppose some speech, by way of boycotting, protesting, shunning and shaming is also speech. There’s also the difference between beheading for speech and getting your Twitter account suspended. If someone says absolutely nutty stuff in a town square and the local folks drown him out or threaten to not patronize the shops in the town square for allowing the speech, is that considered suppression of speech? It seems to me that people are asking for tolerance of speech at all costs. I don’t know if Free Speech ever came with that built in.

faeriechangling 4y ago
There is a semantic dispute over how free speech should be defined which is wrapped up in your views of the subject to begin with, but in my view the most consistent way to define the topic is that free speech is "the notion that people should speak freely without fear of social sanction". When I think of somebody who supports free speech, I think of somebody who: - Speaks in a less filtered way - Brushes off people saying something offensive about them - Brushes off people saying something offensive about other people - Doesn't support the regulation of speech at any official level I don't see supporting free speech as an inherent good by the way, I see it more as something nessecary to counteract the even larger issue of the "tyranny of the majority", and this is essential on more levels of society than the governmental level. Even amongst a group of peers or colleagues consideration must be given to allowing free speech.
- 8ytecoder 4y ago
  Hidden in your notion of free speech is the expectation that I shut up when you say something offensive to me or don’t agree with - “Brushes off people saying something offensive about them”. That’s what I’m taking an issue with.
  - faeriechangling 4y ago
    Hmm you're right, I suppose you're correct it would be more free speech purist to simply not have an opinion on censorship whatsoever, but to still not engage in it themselves. Censorship can ironically itself be a form of free speech. However I will mention that the "paradox of tolerance" posits that if you don't censor those who would censor others, society will end up with more censorship. So there is an argument that somebody who is totally in favor of free speech, EXCEPT the free speech of those who censor others, is a more advocate of free speech than somebody who is for free speech in all situations. This is arguably game theoretically better than the former strategy.

zamalek 4y ago

Absolute free speech is a practical impossibility. Fighting words, by definition, are words that could result in the limitation of freedoms (including speech) of others. For example, what would you do if one person successfully convinces a crowd (through speech) to hang/kill their opponent? Given that the opponent would subsequently be dead (or maimed), how would they exercise their right to free speech? I can certainly agree with the paper, but not to the point of absolutism. The logical flaws in free speech absolutism betray very weak logical prowess, which would presumably mean the individual is deficient in cognitive ability.