3 ms·

A couple years ago, somebody remarked to me, "oh, you're one of those free speech guys, aren't you?" and I realized it was meant as an insult. Yes, I guess so!

A couple years ago, somebody remarked to me, "oh, you're one of those free speech guys, aren't you?" and I realized it was meant as an insult. Yes, I guess so! I'm not sure what changed, but I doubt that would ever have happened a few decades ago. You might have argued about the practical limits of free speech (shouting fire in a theater, Potter Stewart's obscenity test, etc.) but you would never hear someone say that free speech itself was less than an unalloyed good to society, if not the foundation for it. You wouldn't accuse someone of "being a free speech guy" because everybody was expected to be one. I really hope that's not in the process of getting thrown out with the bath water.

jopython 3y ago
- shouting fire in a theater Its a myth. https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-cro...
nsajko 3y ago
A few months ago I was discussing due-process-related rights and principles with some twenty-something university student (mostly CS) acquaintances. Apart from the frightening fact that I was the only one strongly defending these rights, at one point someone associated my rhetoric with "Jordan Peterson's free speech arguments" in an attempt to dismiss my points. Apparently democracy and a free judiciary are now an alt-right topic?
- karaterobot 3y ago
  That was sort of the impression I got as well. Hating anything your opponent supports, regardless of its merits, feels like a bad strategy to follow.
  - jl6 3y ago
    It’s a symptom of the bipartisan mindrot that is polarization. “You’re either with us or against us”. Thus disagreement is escalated to opposition, opposition is escalated to vilification. The culture warriors no longer hold viewpoints, they have identities, and identities are inviolable[0]. Challenge is thus perceived as an existential attack that must be defeated at all costs. Words are labelled as violence. Pushback is labelled as genocide. Suddenly everyone is either a Nazi or a pedophile. [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
- Breza 3y ago
  I miss Nat Hentoff. Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee feels prophetic now.
dale_glass 3y ago
> Yes, I guess so! I'm not sure what changed, but I doubt that would ever have happened a few decades ago. I'd say what changed is that a lot of people started realizing the power of speech is asymmetric. It's far easier to spout bullshit than to disprove it, so debunking only works if there's very few people spouting bullshit. And the internet made this a lot worse, because one person can invest a trivial amount of time in spreading misinformation and never caring about anything afterwards, while anybody trying to counteract it must invest enormous amounts of time to do so effectively. > You might have argued about the practical limits of free speech (shouting fire in a theater, Potter Stewart's obscenity test, etc.) but you would never hear someone say that free speech itself was less than an unalloyed good to society, if not the foundation for it. Well, I think that's one of the big ones. Almost everyone already recognizes that speech must have limits to it (eg, defamation, inciting panic). Therefore saying it's an "unalloyed good" is nothing more than a nice sounding fiction. This is not like say, being against killing people because we can actually have a society where legitimately nobody has to die for any reason. We can just put them in prison forever instead. Free speech I suspect is a value most people hold as a means to an end. Meaning you hold it not because free speech itself is desirable, but because we believe that it has desirable outcomes. This makes it easy to reject if we ever end up living in a world at odds with what we like. Do a mental experiment, imagine living in a place where every time somebody opens their mouth it raises your blood pressure. Whether because of politics, or threats to your life/your loved ones, any reason you like. How long would it remain being an "unalloyed good" in your eyes?
kaba0 3y ago
I think the nuance of those practical limits are very important — we have a terrible case of misinformation going on and unfortunately that noble goal is easily weaponized. Also, paradox of tolerance. So the negative echoes you might here is more of a reaction to those who weaponize it.
sillyfluke 3y ago
In those types of discussions and environments I found its best to state your accepted limits of free speech right off the bat. Before the recent anti-free speech wave, free speech defenders didn't have to restate their redline exception to free speech: incitement to violence. This was the one limit that all liberal democracies accepted for free speech. Once you share this point of view then at least it's easier turn to discussing why all other limits are dangerous and ridden with pitfalls. Nonetheless, I do think there are somethings alluded to in the sibling comment by dale_glass that needs to be addressed even though I don't agree with many of his assumptions. Namely, the practical matter of the disenfranchised trying to fight a losing war on social media platforms against an onslaught of doxxing, sex tapes etc, and lies distributed to millions by parties with war chests several magnitudes greater than their targets. This has also had a big impact on many elections across the globe in the last decade as well. I have not seen any coherent solution proposed by free speech defenders, and I count myself among them, to this practial problem. And I think we should at least have the humility to admit that we currently do not have a good solution either, and at least make it a top priority to establish one.

jopython 3y ago

- shouting fire in a theater Its a myth. https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-cro...

nsajko 3y ago

A few months ago I was discussing due-process-related rights and principles with some twenty-something university student (mostly CS) acquaintances. Apart from the frightening fact that I was the only one strongly defending these rights, at one point someone associated my rhetoric with "Jordan Peterson's free speech arguments" in an attempt to dismiss my points. Apparently democracy and a free judiciary are now an alt-right topic?

karaterobot 3y ago
That was sort of the impression I got as well. Hating anything your opponent supports, regardless of its merits, feels like a bad strategy to follow.
- jl6 3y ago
  It’s a symptom of the bipartisan mindrot that is polarization. “You’re either with us or against us”. Thus disagreement is escalated to opposition, opposition is escalated to vilification. The culture warriors no longer hold viewpoints, they have identities, and identities are inviolable[0]. Challenge is thus perceived as an existential attack that must be defeated at all costs. Words are labelled as violence. Pushback is labelled as genocide. Suddenly everyone is either a Nazi or a pedophile. [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
Breza 3y ago
I miss Nat Hentoff. Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee feels prophetic now.

dale_glass 3y ago

> Yes, I guess so! I'm not sure what changed, but I doubt that would ever have happened a few decades ago. I'd say what changed is that a lot of people started realizing the power of speech is asymmetric. It's far easier to spout bullshit than to disprove it, so debunking only works if there's very few people spouting bullshit. And the internet made this a lot worse, because one person can invest a trivial amount of time in spreading misinformation and never caring about anything afterwards, while anybody trying to counteract it must invest enormous amounts of time to do so effectively. > You might have argued about the practical limits of free speech (shouting fire in a theater, Potter Stewart's obscenity test, etc.) but you would never hear someone say that free speech itself was less than an unalloyed good to society, if not the foundation for it. Well, I think that's one of the big ones. Almost everyone already recognizes that speech must have limits to it (eg, defamation, inciting panic). Therefore saying it's an "unalloyed good" is nothing more than a nice sounding fiction. This is not like say, being against killing people because we can actually have a society where legitimately nobody has to die for any reason. We can just put them in prison forever instead. Free speech I suspect is a value most people hold as a means to an end. Meaning you hold it not because free speech itself is desirable, but because we believe that it has desirable outcomes. This makes it easy to reject if we ever end up living in a world at odds with what we like. Do a mental experiment, imagine living in a place where every time somebody opens their mouth it raises your blood pressure. Whether because of politics, or threats to your life/your loved ones, any reason you like. How long would it remain being an "unalloyed good" in your eyes?

kaba0 3y ago

I think the nuance of those practical limits are very important — we have a terrible case of misinformation going on and unfortunately that noble goal is easily weaponized. Also, paradox of tolerance. So the negative echoes you might here is more of a reaction to those who weaponize it.

sillyfluke 3y ago

In those types of discussions and environments I found its best to state your accepted limits of free speech right off the bat. Before the recent anti-free speech wave, free speech defenders didn't have to restate their redline exception to free speech: incitement to violence. This was the one limit that all liberal democracies accepted for free speech. Once you share this point of view then at least it's easier turn to discussing why all other limits are dangerous and ridden with pitfalls. Nonetheless, I do think there are somethings alluded to in the sibling comment by dale_glass that needs to be addressed even though I don't agree with many of his assumptions. Namely, the practical matter of the disenfranchised trying to fight a losing war on social media platforms against an onslaught of doxxing, sex tapes etc, and lies distributed to millions by parties with war chests several magnitudes greater than their targets. This has also had a big impact on many elections across the globe in the last decade as well. I have not seen any coherent solution proposed by free speech defenders, and I count myself among them, to this practial problem. And I think we should at least have the humility to admit that we currently do not have a good solution either, and at least make it a top priority to establish one.