5 ms·

Free speech does not mean free from consequences. Its perfectly understandable to want to protect the freedom that allows nazi sympathisers to speak about their

by expazl 4y ago

Free speech does not mean free from consequences. Its perfectly understandable to want to protect the freedom that allows nazi sympathisers to speak about their hatred for the Jewish people, while still wanting for no-one to chose to do so, and also there to be social consequences for the people who do so. The anti-freedom of speech path would be to ban any pro nazi speech entirely.

twblalock 4y ago
“Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences” can just as easily be used to justify imprisoning critics of the government as it can to justify shunning people. Not all consequences are justified. Plus, let’s be honest — most of the “consequences” of speech, like cancelling people, are not really targeted at the person being cancelled. They are really happening because people want to suppress speech they don’t like by scaring other people into silence. Government is not the only source of oppression. We should be very careful about excusing social consequences for people speaking their mind, or we will lose free speech because of a cancel-culture mob mentality rather than because of government oppression. The end result is pretty much the same and we shouldn’t let it happen.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  Is there no nuance left in the world? If we remove consequences from people who criticize the government, must we also remove consequences from people spreading Nazi rhetoric? If we eat bread, must we also eat shit? Free speech is not an ideal that we should strive for in itself but shorthand for a principle that helps promote stronger societies that help its members live longer. Any speech that goes against that basic goal is stupid to fight for. Eating is something that is not something we should strive for in itself but shorthand for fulfilling the nutritional needs of the body. Any eating that goes against that basic goal is stupid to promote.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    Free speech is definitely an idea we should strive for on its own. We should strive for free speech even if it hurts people’s feelings, and even if it gives a microphone to crazy people, even Nazis. The alternative is a world where the government, or a mob, or both, get to dictate what we can say and think. It would also be a world where we cannot point out errors without being shouted down, resulting in things like Soviet science and basic errors of governance being uncorrected until they ruin everything (e.g. the recent history of Sri Lanka). It would be a world where both scientists and critics of science have no ability to deal with pandemics or other disasters outside the bounds set by politicians who have no idea what they are doing. There was a time when cancel culture was turned against people arguing for gay rights, desegregation, and feminism. That time may come again, quite soon, and people on the left who have recently turned against free speech and created mechanisms to weaken it will reap what they have sown.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      > Free speech is definitely an idea we should strive for on its own. Utter nonsense. Would you rather have free speech or live? Only one of these is a primary goal. The other is merely a means to attain the other. Hence, the restrictions on free speech provided by every country's laws. > There was a time when cancel culture was turned against people arguing for gay rights, desegregation, and feminism. That time may come again, quite soon, and people on the left who have recently turned against free speech and created mechanisms to weaken it will reap what they have sown. Cancel culture itself is free speech. The right used it to morally bankrupt ends that resulted in people losing their lives.
      - twblalock 4y ago
        You seem to be missing the point that if something can be weaponized by the right, it can be weaponized by the left, and then the right can weaponize it again… Any argument you have given so far can also be used by your opponents.
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- yibg 4y ago
  How do you propose to solve this without limiting others freedom of speech? You have the right to say whatever you want but I don’t have the right to respond? Seems like just another version of rights for me but not for thee.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    Obviously you can respond with other speech. Getting someone fired, cancelling their appearances at universities and other public events, blacklisting them from academia -- those things are not speech.
    - 1270018080 4y ago
      > Getting someone fired, cancelling their appearances at universities and other public events, blacklisting them from academia None of these are restricting someone's freedom of speech. It's the same badly constructed talking point over and over again.
      - twblalock 4y ago
        Of course those things restrict speech for that person -- and they cause a chilling effect for anyone else who might want to say the same things. You might as well also say that jailing people for their speech doesn't infringe on freedom of speech, because that is a consequence of speech they already made. But that's a very narrow (and ahistorical) view of what freedom of speech really means. We can lean on the Wikipedia definition here: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      What about boycotting businesses that employ them? Is that speech? It's the employer who terminates employment, not the people asking the employer to do so. The opponents of the people asking the employer to terminate employment can exercise their free speech to argue for continued employment. That is the only action congruent with free speech absolutism. In this case, it also happens to match what the law protects.
sabarn01 4y ago
I think the issue is that you have people that are trying to apply new norms via small group social pressure amplified via social media. We have some social norms for certain attitude that no one will tolerate in polite society, but those norms are well known. In the last five years a host of new norms have been created that are enforced by small groups that don't mesh with general societal consensus.
jesusofnazarath 4y ago
[dead]

by expazl 4y ago

twblalock 4y ago

“Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences” can just as easily be used to justify imprisoning critics of the government as it can to justify shunning people. Not all consequences are justified. Plus, let’s be honest — most of the “consequences” of speech, like cancelling people, are not really targeted at the person being cancelled. They are really happening because people want to suppress speech they don’t like by scaring other people into silence. Government is not the only source of oppression. We should be very careful about excusing social consequences for people speaking their mind, or we will lose free speech because of a cancel-culture mob mentality rather than because of government oppression. The end result is pretty much the same and we shouldn’t let it happen.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
Is there no nuance left in the world? If we remove consequences from people who criticize the government, must we also remove consequences from people spreading Nazi rhetoric? If we eat bread, must we also eat shit? Free speech is not an ideal that we should strive for in itself but shorthand for a principle that helps promote stronger societies that help its members live longer. Any speech that goes against that basic goal is stupid to fight for. Eating is something that is not something we should strive for in itself but shorthand for fulfilling the nutritional needs of the body. Any eating that goes against that basic goal is stupid to promote.
- twblalock 4y ago
  Free speech is definitely an idea we should strive for on its own. We should strive for free speech even if it hurts people’s feelings, and even if it gives a microphone to crazy people, even Nazis. The alternative is a world where the government, or a mob, or both, get to dictate what we can say and think. It would also be a world where we cannot point out errors without being shouted down, resulting in things like Soviet science and basic errors of governance being uncorrected until they ruin everything (e.g. the recent history of Sri Lanka). It would be a world where both scientists and critics of science have no ability to deal with pandemics or other disasters outside the bounds set by politicians who have no idea what they are doing. There was a time when cancel culture was turned against people arguing for gay rights, desegregation, and feminism. That time may come again, quite soon, and people on the left who have recently turned against free speech and created mechanisms to weaken it will reap what they have sown.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    > Free speech is definitely an idea we should strive for on its own. Utter nonsense. Would you rather have free speech or live? Only one of these is a primary goal. The other is merely a means to attain the other. Hence, the restrictions on free speech provided by every country's laws. > There was a time when cancel culture was turned against people arguing for gay rights, desegregation, and feminism. That time may come again, quite soon, and people on the left who have recently turned against free speech and created mechanisms to weaken it will reap what they have sown. Cancel culture itself is free speech. The right used it to morally bankrupt ends that resulted in people losing their lives.
    - twblalock 4y ago
      You seem to be missing the point that if something can be weaponized by the right, it can be weaponized by the left, and then the right can weaponize it again… Any argument you have given so far can also be used by your opponents.
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yibg 4y ago
How do you propose to solve this without limiting others freedom of speech? You have the right to say whatever you want but I don’t have the right to respond? Seems like just another version of rights for me but not for thee.
- twblalock 4y ago
  Obviously you can respond with other speech. Getting someone fired, cancelling their appearances at universities and other public events, blacklisting them from academia -- those things are not speech.
  - 1270018080 4y ago
    > Getting someone fired, cancelling their appearances at universities and other public events, blacklisting them from academia None of these are restricting someone's freedom of speech. It's the same badly constructed talking point over and over again.
    - twblalock 4y ago
      Of course those things restrict speech for that person -- and they cause a chilling effect for anyone else who might want to say the same things. You might as well also say that jailing people for their speech doesn't infringe on freedom of speech, because that is a consequence of speech they already made. But that's a very narrow (and ahistorical) view of what freedom of speech really means. We can lean on the Wikipedia definition here: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    What about boycotting businesses that employ them? Is that speech? It's the employer who terminates employment, not the people asking the employer to do so. The opponents of the people asking the employer to terminate employment can exercise their free speech to argue for continued employment. That is the only action congruent with free speech absolutism. In this case, it also happens to match what the law protects.

sabarn01 4y ago

I think the issue is that you have people that are trying to apply new norms via small group social pressure amplified via social media. We have some social norms for certain attitude that no one will tolerate in polite society, but those norms are well known. In the last five years a host of new norms have been created that are enforced by small groups that don't mesh with general societal consensus.

jesusofnazarath 4y ago

[dead]