6 ms·

As an American, the importance of free speech is ingrained in us from a very early age. It is thought of as a foundation of free society, and it is a VERY high

As an American, the importance of free speech is ingrained in us from a very early age. It is thought of as a foundation of free society, and it is a VERY high bar to justify using the law to prevent speech. It is a Central American value.

zasdffaa 4y ago
Yes. I know that and you've just presented it again without asking yourself if it's right or if others should be judged by your standards. You've kind of made my point.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  Oh, I question it myself all the time. I am still very much in favor of free speech, although I do think we as a society need to work on dealing with the consequences of free speech rather than just thinking it will work itself out. However, my concerns with free speech would never include the types of things the UK is enforcing here. I am not worried about people being upset or hurt by mean things, I am worried about false information and propaganda.
okasaki 4y ago
Why? What exactly is it achieving for your society?
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  Possibly a massive lot of good - or not. My point was, it doesn't seem questioned by those who espouse it so strongly, so if it's set wrongly (if we can decide such a thing) it can't be re-set better.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Political stability. The US has operated under its current system of government for longer than any other democratic country. Allowing the craziest to express themselves without being silenced allows the democratic process to play out in a way that legitimizes the outcome.
  - gojomo 4y ago
    I agree that having some of the world's broadest protections for free speech is important to the US political stability, & its technological/cultural/economic power. But, hasn't the UK's "current system of government" been at least as continuous as the US for longer? (Has any regime-discontinuity happened since, say, the adoption of the US Constitution?)
    - kube-system 4y ago
      It does very much depend on how you define “continuous” and “democracy”. That aside, I think there is enough evidence that restricting political speech in a democracy kind of defeats the point and it disenfranchises people. Some counter this by saying “well we only want to ban the extreme speech”, but I’d argue those are exactly the people who are likely to take up pitchforks first. A right to only “moderate” political speech doesn’t make any sense. Moderate speech isn’t a target of censorship.
      - gojomo 4y ago
        So what are your definitions of those terms, that imply the US "has operated under its current system of government for longer than" the UK?
  - nullfield 4y ago
    It also helps set and/or make visible the window of acceptable-to-some-(epsilon,delta)-part-of-the-populace speech; that’s good because it prevents Bad Things from forming in a vacuum before suddenly appearing in the mainstream… but it can also be uncomfortable for some, or cause anxiety or fear. It seems better to get an opportunity to confront Bad Things, or debunk them, or whatever though. Obviously it’s not okay or legal to threaten someone, but on the other hand we also get taught to a large degree that you have no right to not have your feelings hurt. This intuitively makes sense to me too-can you imagine if you tried to speak nearly anything and had to ensure that no one, anywhere, had their feelings hurt or felt anxious from it? Speech outside that may not get you arrested, but it can certainly have personal and professional implications. As an example (and they’re not all this clear-cut), it’s perfectly legal to espouse “plain racism” but it’s not a generally accepted thing, nor considered moral, and quite likely to cause you some backlash or, if applicable, loss of professional standing.
bitwize 4y ago
Eh, not really. Before 1969, it was totally legitimate to pass laws restricting or even criminalizing speech, to an extent at least as severe as what prevails in Germany today. One of the first things our country did after adopting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, which among other things outlawed criticism of the incumbent government. The Sedition Act was allowed to expire, and was never declared unconstitutional (though Jeffersonians believed it was). It was only since the decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio that the First Amendment has been interpreted broadly enough to protect all speech that is not otherwise itself an illegal act (as in CSAM) or does not incite "imminent lawless action".
fzeroracer 4y ago
I really dislike this idea of it being a 'central American' value simply because that hasn't been the case since the founding of America. There have always been people who have full access to free speech and the rest of people have 'Free Speech*'. Hundreds of years of minorities being punished for saying the wrong thing or being in the wrong place while the strong and wealthy get away with whatever they want. Even now that's the case where if you're wealthy you have more speech than others. You can call people all sorts of vile things and sic your fanbase on them, you can mouth off to police and if you want to you can sue people into the ground. The rest of us can get thrown in jail for vaguely insulting a man in blue's honor. How quickly people forget that our political apparatus had a woman harassed and jailed for laughing at Jeff Sessons.
- gojomo 4y ago
  Free speech has absolutely been a central value, since the time of founding, as evidenced by its prominent spot in the 'Bill of Rights'. It hasn't always been fully respected, but for the most part the trends have been good. Only in a few narrow places & times might someone be "thrown in jail for vaguely insulting a man in blue's honor", and those are typically undone when the full process runs. The anecdote you share, with the important details filed-off, is that a woman was prosecuted not for merely "laughing at Jeff Sessions" but the more specific charge of disruptive behavior during a government hearing. Opinions differ as to whether he behavior rose to the level of prosecutable disruption, but an actual criminal jury of 12 citizens was somehow convinced to unanimously rule her behavior merited conviction. But then when the full legal process ran, an appelate judge called the conviction 'absurd', throwing out the jury's conviction. Ultimately, that demonstrates that like in other countries, officials in the US can misuse their powers-in-the-moment to attempt some amount of speech punishment, sure. But further that in the US, you can appeal to 'free speech' as a defense, and thus escape punishment for things that might keep you punished in the UK & other somewhat-liberal democracies with lesser speech protections.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    The entire legal system is designed to punish people from the moment of arrest through conviction. Just because a rational judge realized that the case was absurd does not make the hoops she had to go through any less arduous. For example officer writing you a bogus speeding ticket that you can successfully challenge in court still requires time and effort to challenge, moreso than the officer did issuing it and that's very frequently done to poorer individuals. Which again, you ignore that we had (and in many places still have) an amount of people which simply did not have the same free speech rights that you say America was founded upon.
ninethirty 4y ago
It appears to me that free speech is being phased out and replaced with SafeSpeech. Its presented like this: "It is actually more free because safe spaces are where people are free-est to speak their minds; free from bullying, etc." fwiw, I find this trend abhorrent, but I can't stop it.
- userbinator 4y ago

zasdffaa 4y ago

Yes. I know that and you've just presented it again without asking yourself if it's right or if others should be judged by your standards. You've kind of made my point.

cortesoft 4y ago
Oh, I question it myself all the time. I am still very much in favor of free speech, although I do think we as a society need to work on dealing with the consequences of free speech rather than just thinking it will work itself out. However, my concerns with free speech would never include the types of things the UK is enforcing here. I am not worried about people being upset or hurt by mean things, I am worried about false information and propaganda.

okasaki 4y ago

Why? What exactly is it achieving for your society?

zasdffaa 4y ago
Possibly a massive lot of good - or not. My point was, it doesn't seem questioned by those who espouse it so strongly, so if it's set wrongly (if we can decide such a thing) it can't be re-set better.
kube-system 4y ago
Political stability. The US has operated under its current system of government for longer than any other democratic country. Allowing the craziest to express themselves without being silenced allows the democratic process to play out in a way that legitimizes the outcome.
- gojomo 4y ago
  I agree that having some of the world's broadest protections for free speech is important to the US political stability, & its technological/cultural/economic power. But, hasn't the UK's "current system of government" been at least as continuous as the US for longer? (Has any regime-discontinuity happened since, say, the adoption of the US Constitution?)
  - kube-system 4y ago
    It does very much depend on how you define “continuous” and “democracy”. That aside, I think there is enough evidence that restricting political speech in a democracy kind of defeats the point and it disenfranchises people. Some counter this by saying “well we only want to ban the extreme speech”, but I’d argue those are exactly the people who are likely to take up pitchforks first. A right to only “moderate” political speech doesn’t make any sense. Moderate speech isn’t a target of censorship.
    - gojomo 4y ago
      So what are your definitions of those terms, that imply the US "has operated under its current system of government for longer than" the UK?
- nullfield 4y ago
  It also helps set and/or make visible the window of acceptable-to-some-(epsilon,delta)-part-of-the-populace speech; that’s good because it prevents Bad Things from forming in a vacuum before suddenly appearing in the mainstream… but it can also be uncomfortable for some, or cause anxiety or fear. It seems better to get an opportunity to confront Bad Things, or debunk them, or whatever though. Obviously it’s not okay or legal to threaten someone, but on the other hand we also get taught to a large degree that you have no right to not have your feelings hurt. This intuitively makes sense to me too-can you imagine if you tried to speak nearly anything and had to ensure that no one, anywhere, had their feelings hurt or felt anxious from it? Speech outside that may not get you arrested, but it can certainly have personal and professional implications. As an example (and they’re not all this clear-cut), it’s perfectly legal to espouse “plain racism” but it’s not a generally accepted thing, nor considered moral, and quite likely to cause you some backlash or, if applicable, loss of professional standing.

bitwize 4y ago

Eh, not really. Before 1969, it was totally legitimate to pass laws restricting or even criminalizing speech, to an extent at least as severe as what prevails in Germany today. One of the first things our country did after adopting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, which among other things outlawed criticism of the incumbent government. The Sedition Act was allowed to expire, and was never declared unconstitutional (though Jeffersonians believed it was). It was only since the decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio that the First Amendment has been interpreted broadly enough to protect all speech that is not otherwise itself an illegal act (as in CSAM) or does not incite "imminent lawless action".

fzeroracer 4y ago

I really dislike this idea of it being a 'central American' value simply because that hasn't been the case since the founding of America. There have always been people who have full access to free speech and the rest of people have 'Free Speech*'. Hundreds of years of minorities being punished for saying the wrong thing or being in the wrong place while the strong and wealthy get away with whatever they want. Even now that's the case where if you're wealthy you have more speech than others. You can call people all sorts of vile things and sic your fanbase on them, you can mouth off to police and if you want to you can sue people into the ground. The rest of us can get thrown in jail for vaguely insulting a man in blue's honor. How quickly people forget that our political apparatus had a woman harassed and jailed for laughing at Jeff Sessons.

gojomo 4y ago
Free speech has absolutely been a central value, since the time of founding, as evidenced by its prominent spot in the 'Bill of Rights'. It hasn't always been fully respected, but for the most part the trends have been good. Only in a few narrow places & times might someone be "thrown in jail for vaguely insulting a man in blue's honor", and those are typically undone when the full process runs. The anecdote you share, with the important details filed-off, is that a woman was prosecuted not for merely "laughing at Jeff Sessions" but the more specific charge of disruptive behavior during a government hearing. Opinions differ as to whether he behavior rose to the level of prosecutable disruption, but an actual criminal jury of 12 citizens was somehow convinced to unanimously rule her behavior merited conviction. But then when the full legal process ran, an appelate judge called the conviction 'absurd', throwing out the jury's conviction. Ultimately, that demonstrates that like in other countries, officials in the US can misuse their powers-in-the-moment to attempt some amount of speech punishment, sure. But further that in the US, you can appeal to 'free speech' as a defense, and thus escape punishment for things that might keep you punished in the UK & other somewhat-liberal democracies with lesser speech protections.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  The entire legal system is designed to punish people from the moment of arrest through conviction. Just because a rational judge realized that the case was absurd does not make the hoops she had to go through any less arduous. For example officer writing you a bogus speeding ticket that you can successfully challenge in court still requires time and effort to challenge, moreso than the officer did issuing it and that's very frequently done to poorer individuals. Which again, you ignore that we had (and in many places still have) an amount of people which simply did not have the same free speech rights that you say America was founded upon.

ninethirty 4y ago

It appears to me that free speech is being phased out and replaced with SafeSpeech. Its presented like this: "It is actually more free because safe spaces are where people are free-est to speak their minds; free from bullying, etc." fwiw, I find this trend abhorrent, but I can't stop it.

userbinator 4y ago