10 ms·

We want to ban speech today that was considered acceptable 60 years ago; and the things we celebrate today are things people wanted to ban or censor 60 years ag

We want to ban speech today that was considered acceptable 60 years ago; and the things we celebrate today are things people wanted to ban or censor 60 years ago. You can’t have it both ways: if you want to speak freely about what you care about, you have to let the people you hate speak freely too. Over the last 100 years, it has done far more good than harm to let people express themselves

croes 4y ago
Are you sure? Didn't it help that is wasn't unacceptable to call a black person n**r and to call a homosexual f**t? Freedom of expression always goes in both directions. Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression.
- scarmig 4y ago
  > Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression?
  - croes 4y ago
    Ever heard of bullying? You don't need physical force for that.
    - BlueDingo 4y ago
      Bullying is an additional level of action, right? If you're using a different verb it probably also means additional actions that aren't simply speech. I dislike bad stuff too. Bullying is wrong and should be stopped. Hate speech is also wrong but I'll defend people's right to speak.
    - version_five 4y ago
      "Bullying" is actually a great example of something that once we decide the concept is bad, there is a rush from people to frame everything they don't like along those lines. I'd suggest that under the blanket and nebulous headline of "bullying" are actions that are already illegal like harassment and assault.
  - adamredwoods 4y ago
    >> How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression? Fear, threat of property and physical harm.
    - yucky 4y ago
      So...eat the rich? Seize the means of production? ACAB? Things like that qualify?
    - willnonya 4y ago
      That is not the same thing though is it. People today fear being socially ostracized or losing a career over crossing an undefined or subjective line. Neither of these fears are the same as actually preventing someone from expressing their views. When threats become actual violence there are already laws to address that. Trying to preemptively protect people from mean words invariably harms more people than it purports to protect.
      - croes 4y ago
        >When threats become actual violence Only physical violence or does psychological violence count too? What about cyberbullying and mobbing?
- MacsHeadroom 4y ago
  [dead]
_cenw 4y ago
Typically, hate speech wasn't afforded the same reach 60 years ago that it may have now. You have to remember that all these idealistic views happened in the context of a very harsh monopoly on mass media and a much tighter control of which opinions would be platformed on there (can you imagine a communist being allowed to speak during the cold war, other suppression of speech in that area aside?)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- e67f70028a46fba 4y ago
  There was a mass media monopoly in 1788?

croes 4y ago

Are you sure? Didn't it help that is wasn't unacceptable to call a black person n**r and to call a homosexual f**t? Freedom of expression always goes in both directions. Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression.

scarmig 4y ago
> Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression?
- croes 4y ago
  Ever heard of bullying? You don't need physical force for that.
  - BlueDingo 4y ago
    Bullying is an additional level of action, right? If you're using a different verb it probably also means additional actions that aren't simply speech. I dislike bad stuff too. Bullying is wrong and should be stopped. Hate speech is also wrong but I'll defend people's right to speak.
  - version_five 4y ago
    "Bullying" is actually a great example of something that once we decide the concept is bad, there is a rush from people to frame everything they don't like along those lines. I'd suggest that under the blanket and nebulous headline of "bullying" are actions that are already illegal like harassment and assault.
- adamredwoods 4y ago
  >> How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression? Fear, threat of property and physical harm.
  - yucky 4y ago
    So...eat the rich? Seize the means of production? ACAB? Things like that qualify?
  - willnonya 4y ago
    That is not the same thing though is it. People today fear being socially ostracized or losing a career over crossing an undefined or subjective line. Neither of these fears are the same as actually preventing someone from expressing their views. When threats become actual violence there are already laws to address that. Trying to preemptively protect people from mean words invariably harms more people than it purports to protect.
    - croes 4y ago
      >When threats become actual violence Only physical violence or does psychological violence count too? What about cyberbullying and mobbing?
MacsHeadroom 4y ago
[dead]

_cenw 4y ago

Typically, hate speech wasn't afforded the same reach 60 years ago that it may have now. You have to remember that all these idealistic views happened in the context of a very harsh monopoly on mass media and a much tighter control of which opinions would be platformed on there (can you imagine a communist being allowed to speak during the cold war, other suppression of speech in that area aside?)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
e67f70028a46fba 4y ago
There was a mass media monopoly in 1788?