3 ms·

“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

“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
        > 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… No, I'm not. If some speech serves to cause people to die, that speech is bad and is not worth protecting. Preventing people from dying is the opposite of weaponizing. If my opponents want to prevent me from dying, I won't oppose them in doing so. My opponents and I don't disagree on everything. If I say I should eat bread but not shit, your argument is that my opponents can now say that I should eat shit but not bread. You're ignoring that only one of these is wrong. You seem to be missing that cancel culture is itself free speech, so your position contradicts itself.
        twblalock 4y ago
        > If I say I should eat bread but not shit, your argument is that my opponents can now say that I should eat shit but not bread. You're ignoring that only one of these is wrong. I’m not sure why you keep going with the weird shit-based analogy. My argument is simply that if you can control the speech of others, then they can control yours. Whether some speech is “right” or “wrong” is always going to be up for debate. The result will simply be that anyone in power will ban speech they don’t like.
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.

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
      > 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… No, I'm not. If some speech serves to cause people to die, that speech is bad and is not worth protecting. Preventing people from dying is the opposite of weaponizing. If my opponents want to prevent me from dying, I won't oppose them in doing so. My opponents and I don't disagree on everything. If I say I should eat bread but not shit, your argument is that my opponents can now say that I should eat shit but not bread. You're ignoring that only one of these is wrong. You seem to be missing that cancel culture is itself free speech, so your position contradicts itself.
      - twblalock 4y ago
        > If I say I should eat bread but not shit, your argument is that my opponents can now say that I should eat shit but not bread. You're ignoring that only one of these is wrong. I’m not sure why you keep going with the weird shit-based analogy. My argument is simply that if you can control the speech of others, then they can control yours. Whether some speech is “right” or “wrong” is always going to be up for debate. The result will simply be that anyone in power will ban speech they don’t like.

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.