4 ms·

Former head of ACLU being the relevant bit of information. The previous generation who wrote books titled "Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not C

by dmix 4y ago

Former head of ACLU being the relevant bit of information. The previous generation who wrote books titled "Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship" aren't very popular among the university cliques these days.

revscat 4y ago
Food for thought. This is a reaction against: 1. The overly-broad application of the First Amendment to conservative SCOTUS decisions giving corporations 1A rights. 2. The financial success of propaganda corporations such as Fox News, and their poisoning of public discourse. 3. The weakening of democratic institutions and the ability for people to govern themselves as they choose Given that, is it any surprise that people are lashing out? MTG gets softball 60 Minutes segments. Perhaps people are coming to understand that this isn’t a viable way forward.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- TinkersW 4y ago
  60 minutes wasting time on MTG just means you shouldn't watch 60 minutes, not that free speech needs to be abandoned. Fox started the problem with our news, but now we have similiar outlets on both left and right doing it. Don't watch them.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  It can't be a reaction to those things, because they're 1) arguing that private companies arbitrarily deciding what they want to allow on their platform, even under direct request from government departments and powerful individuals, is actually good and needed to protect minorities. 2) They also defend one set of "propaganda corporations" from the other set of "propaganda corporations"; they don't rail against extremely partisan coverage, they have come to consider it a patriotic duty to even suppress true information that would give the opposition ammo. 3) They support the FBI and the CIA over Congress and the democratic process. Democratic processes are ridiculed as "popularity contests." They support US military interventions and sanctions regimes abroad against democratically elected leaders.
- chr1 4y ago
  Or maybe most people like silencing those with whom they disagree, so the same type of people who were becoming religious zealots before, and were against frrespeach, are becoming other types of zealots now who are still against free speech.
  - revscat 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - Georgelemental 4y ago
      If you don't believe you can share a country with millions of your fellow citizens, that the disagreement is not reconcilable—you are free to leave.
bradleyjg 4y ago
Someone should really write a book about how the ACLU(!) came to no longer be a stalwart supporter of free speech. To me it is like the Catholic Church deciding that the Bishop of Rome is just one of many important Bishops.
- nostromo 4y ago
  I support the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) instead of the ACLU since they’ve lose their way.
  - RickJWagner 4y ago
    Thank you for making this recommendation. I'll check out FIRE.
- froh 4y ago
  the current bishop of Rome indeed sees it like that, a little bit. he even sees bishops as some among many important Catholics https://www.synod.va https://www.synod.va wrt free speech I find poppers paradox of intolerance relevant. a unhealthy overdose of Der Stürmer and lashing out against some scapegoat minorities lead Europe into WWII in simple words: you _have_ to put limits on bullshitting else your freedom is shat on.
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    the current bishop of Rome indeed sees it like that, a little bit Not really. He’s making these pronouncements and reforms. He isn’t deferring to each bishop in their own territory. wrt free speech I find Regardless of what you or I think about this issue there was an organization that stood for one position on it for almost a century. However good the arguments are, I don’t expect the National Pro-Life Religious Council to decide that maybe abortions aren’t so bad after all.
    - froh 4y ago
      pp Francis one one hand is strengthening synodality and subsidiarity, i.e. decentralizing "who has the say" and in the other hand he is at the same time limiting divisive occult undercurrents of radical trad caths who are far right infiltrated by divisive neo fascist. so in a way he's is managing "free speech" which is our topic here: how do we establish the rules for speech which support unity and support for our neighbors and which end oppression of weak minorities? which speech rules foster growth and fairness and justice and health for all?

by dmix 4y ago

revscat 4y ago

Food for thought. This is a reaction against: 1. The overly-broad application of the First Amendment to conservative SCOTUS decisions giving corporations 1A rights. 2. The financial success of propaganda corporations such as Fox News, and their poisoning of public discourse. 3. The weakening of democratic institutions and the ability for people to govern themselves as they choose Given that, is it any surprise that people are lashing out? MTG gets softball 60 Minutes segments. Perhaps people are coming to understand that this isn’t a viable way forward.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
TinkersW 4y ago
60 minutes wasting time on MTG just means you shouldn't watch 60 minutes, not that free speech needs to be abandoned. Fox started the problem with our news, but now we have similiar outlets on both left and right doing it. Don't watch them.
pessimizer 4y ago
It can't be a reaction to those things, because they're 1) arguing that private companies arbitrarily deciding what they want to allow on their platform, even under direct request from government departments and powerful individuals, is actually good and needed to protect minorities. 2) They also defend one set of "propaganda corporations" from the other set of "propaganda corporations"; they don't rail against extremely partisan coverage, they have come to consider it a patriotic duty to even suppress true information that would give the opposition ammo. 3) They support the FBI and the CIA over Congress and the democratic process. Democratic processes are ridiculed as "popularity contests." They support US military interventions and sanctions regimes abroad against democratically elected leaders.
chr1 4y ago
Or maybe most people like silencing those with whom they disagree, so the same type of people who were becoming religious zealots before, and were against frrespeach, are becoming other types of zealots now who are still against free speech.
- revscat 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    If you don't believe you can share a country with millions of your fellow citizens, that the disagreement is not reconcilable—you are free to leave.

bradleyjg 4y ago

Someone should really write a book about how the ACLU(!) came to no longer be a stalwart supporter of free speech. To me it is like the Catholic Church deciding that the Bishop of Rome is just one of many important Bishops.

nostromo 4y ago
I support the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) instead of the ACLU since they’ve lose their way.
- RickJWagner 4y ago
  Thank you for making this recommendation. I'll check out FIRE.
froh 4y ago
the current bishop of Rome indeed sees it like that, a little bit. he even sees bishops as some among many important Catholics https://www.synod.va https://www.synod.va wrt free speech I find poppers paradox of intolerance relevant. a unhealthy overdose of Der Stürmer and lashing out against some scapegoat minorities lead Europe into WWII in simple words: you _have_ to put limits on bullshitting else your freedom is shat on.
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  the current bishop of Rome indeed sees it like that, a little bit Not really. He’s making these pronouncements and reforms. He isn’t deferring to each bishop in their own territory. wrt free speech I find Regardless of what you or I think about this issue there was an organization that stood for one position on it for almost a century. However good the arguments are, I don’t expect the National Pro-Life Religious Council to decide that maybe abortions aren’t so bad after all.
  - froh 4y ago
    pp Francis one one hand is strengthening synodality and subsidiarity, i.e. decentralizing "who has the say" and in the other hand he is at the same time limiting divisive occult undercurrents of radical trad caths who are far right infiltrated by divisive neo fascist. so in a way he's is managing "free speech" which is our topic here: how do we establish the rules for speech which support unity and support for our neighbors and which end oppression of weak minorities? which speech rules foster growth and fairness and justice and health for all?