3 ms·
I think this article makes a key mistake that I see almost all commentators make of visions of free speech less radical than, say, the first amendment: They con
by somesortofthing 4y ago
I think this article makes a key mistake that I see almost all commentators make of visions of free speech less radical than, say, the first amendment: They consider only the direct effects of speech on those who hear it. If you accept this, it's very easy to(correctly) respond that it's not the state's job to police mere offense, no matter how grave it may be. Some people who try to make criticisms of a radical free speech regime(such as the NYT author this article mentions) also fall into this trap, but I think the much more compelling for limiting speech is less about harm done by speech to listeners and more about incitement of physical harm.
It's very, very easy to communicate in ways that encourage and incite violence(be it direct physical violence or denial of the means to live a dignified life), especially against groups against whom such violence is already normalized. Not all speech that does incite violence is intended to, but this fact also lends plausible deniability to people who do explicitly want violence but know that it's socially unacceptable to call for it directly. There is the danger of being overzealous with what speech to limit, but at the same time, it's undeniable that a lot of money and attention is flowing to ever-bolder provocateurs whose only possible goal is to escalate existing tensions and iniquities to violence in service of their political aims. Taking such people at their word on their intentions is dangerous, and those who do so have no right to act surprised and claim innocence when actions and rhetoric escalate past the point they're comfortable with.
- kneebonian 4y ago> but at the same time, it's undeniable that a lot of money and attention is flowing to ever-bolder provocateurs whose only possible goal is to escalate existing tensions and iniquities to violence in service of their political aims. Then you should defeat them in the marketplace of ideas and be able to counter their facillous words. To suggest otherwise is to stand in a position where you claim that some people are incapable of intelligently reasoning about something and that another superior individual should be able to police what they hear. If someone says racist hateful things you're argument is that people should not be allowed to listen to it because it is a "bad thing" and other people who aren't as wise as you shoudlnt be allowed to hear it because they might act violently.
- giraffe_lady 4y agoThe marketplace of ideas is a completely made up thing to justify a stance of political non-action against real harms. People who are for example planning a mass shooting against a demonized minority are not participating in such a market, to the extent it exists at all.
- ReptileMan 4y agoAnd the people planning shooting against a demonized majority?
- giraffe_lady 4y agoThey're probably not in that "market" either! Thanks for asking this totally sincere, clarifying and helpful question.
- 0xcde4c3db 4y agoThis isn't really about whose ideas are more correct. The strategy is, as Steve Bannon infamously put it, to "flood the zone with shit". They're basically doing a DDoS against the marketplace of ideas.
- fllsdf 4y agoIt is effectively impossible to reason people out of positions they have not reasoned themselves into. The market place of idea struggles in my close friend group where we have sort of a tradition to do these kind of debates, despite us being very close since almost a decade, and educated above our national average. It's a nice enough idea, but i dont see how to make it work in a space where money amplifies speech, and some types of speeches have been a negative to specific groups of people throughout history. The obvious long term solution is more education but that requires money, so the obvious short term solution is censorship
- kneebonian 4y ago> It is effectively impossible to reason people out of positions they have not reasoned themselves into. Some people cannot be trusted with certain ideas so a more superior individual must control what they can hear. Do you realize how patronizing and condescending you sound about your friends by the way when you clearly imply your ideas are well reasoned and factual and theirs are the result of psychology manipulation?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- commandlinefan 4y agoEven if I agreed with you (I don't), moving harm further and further away from actual speech and trying to divine what the speaker is "actually saying" and punish them for that leads to Stasi thought police every time it's tried.
- bnralt 4y agoI think everyone is able to see how the other side incites violence, but thinks the rule doesn't apply to them. For instance, there was a lot of rhetoric about how dangerous it was when Donald Trump was elected - that it would be the end of Democracy, that fascism was coming to the U.S., that we could well end up with concentration camps and nuclear war. The man who shot up the Congressional baseball game[1] was a member of pages dedicated to how threatening Trump and the Republicans were. Are the people who said that responsible for his attempt at political assassination? I guess you can argue that. But most people I see bringing up "stochastic terrorism" suddenly say that those types of violence don't count. It's not just that this outlook is controversial - I've yet to meet anyone who has applied it consistently. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shootin...
- ReptileMan 4y ago>denial of the means to live a dignified life That is not violence, not sure why you put some weasel statements in.