3 ms·

Most so called "free speech absolutists", when pressed, will support some limits on free speech (e.g. incitement or "fighting words"). Many even support more st

Most so called "free speech absolutists", when pressed, will support some limits on free speech (e.g. incitement or "fighting words"). Many even support more strict libel and slander laws. Elon Musk is the obvious, prominent example of someone espousing "free speech absolutism" while limiting legal speech on his platform but there are plenty of others. So we're not really arguing about whether speech should be restricted, but where that line should be drawn. I would agree that Millennials support drawing that line a little more broadly, but there is also a difference about which speech should be more restricted. The pew research piece you linked was specifically about offensive statements about minority groups, but what if you asked about whether trans educational material should be banned or whether the word "cis" should be considered a slur? I suspect that the demographics would be flipped.

ryandrake 3y ago
To "steel man" the argument put forward by the state: The government doesn't have the right to regulate speech, but does has the right to regulate how people behave and conduct themselves. In meatspace, these concepts are distinct: You can speak all sorts of horrible stuff while being peaceful and conducting yourself well. You can also say nice things while being violent and belligerent. Government surely has the right to stop you from being violent and belligerent. On the Internet, there is no difference between speech and conduct. You conduct yourself by speaking/writing. So how can we enforce good conduct without regulating speech? The states are trying to draw the line between speech and conduct, and that's not easy (maybe impossible) online.
- verisimi 3y ago
  > The government doesn't have the right to regulate speech, but does has the right to regulate how people behave and conduct themselves. :) These types of comments make me smile. The government is an idea is the minds of people. It doesn't/can't have rights. It's a non-existent entity. And yet. People believe that it has the ability to create 'rights', and people will be somehow beholden to its pronouncements. Is government 'God'? I think to most people the answer is yes. It is their authority; such individuals are not an authority of themselves. The proper answer, imo, is that nothing except for my own heart and reason can guide me as to what is morally right or wrong. No work of man (law, religion, government) can say anything to me. All these works (law, government) are badly bent towards a self-serving elite, for the extraction of wealth from those that believe in these phantasms. We laugh at those in history who we are told tithed 10% of their work to their local lord in the feudal system, and 10% towards the church, but don't blink at paying 40% to the government. There are really only individuals, but the mind control in most is very effective.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    > The proper answer, imo, is that nothing except for my own heart and reason can guide me as to what is morally right or wrong. I think if we had the ability to trace the origin of each belief about what is right and wrong you would be surprised by how greatly law, government, and religion have influenced you. Edit: > There are really only individuals This must be why solitary confinement is considered such a great privilege when incarcerated.
    - verisimi 3y ago
      > This must be why solitary confinement is considered such a great privilege when incarcerated. Ha! Nice line. But, in all honesty, totally controlling another person, confining them, is only an example of control. But, if not in the individual, where do you think meaning or anything of value, occurs? The feeling/meaning/thought, is only within oneself, surely?
Dig1t 3y ago
I disagree with the metaphor. In the past freedom of speech meant absolute free speech with a small blacklist of specific situations in which it would cause immediate, physical, danger to others. Everything else was okay, even if it hurts other peoples' feelings. It is an extremely GOOD thing to have for society, it is the main tool that the left used to gain the power that it has today. It is the main tool by which good people can overcome bad people in power. The newer generation seems to be okay with moving from a blacklist -> whitelist approach where the range of acceptable opinions and topics are set by the group and things outside of that range are labeled offensive, bigoted, racist, something-phobic, or harmful in some other way and banned. Responding specifically to your point about trans educational material, free speech absolutists are 100% okay with allowing trans educational material that says anything at all. I'm not kidding, think of whatever offensive thing you want to say about cis people, free speech absolutists are okay with you saying it. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is something I, and other free speech absolutists, truly believe.
- uLogMicheal 3y ago
  When people fear discussion they will disengage, leaving discourse to the most motivated or incentivized to program thoughts.
- foldr 3y ago
  >In the past freedom of speech meant absolute free speech with a small blacklist of specific situations in which it would cause immediate, physical, danger to others. You'll have to specify when this golden age existed. I suspect that if you name any specific date, we could find all sorts of respects in which freedom of speech was much more restricted in the US at that time than it is now.
  - Dig1t 3y ago
    I am not saying that it has always been perfectly implemented, right leaning politicians have been guilty in myriad ways of censorship over the years. But the ideal that we define as a culture is what I stated, and if we all agree that's what we want then we can work every day towards the ideal. It has been the ideal since the founding of the United States in 1776. I know this to be true because my parents and grandparents told me that that is what their generation valued, and what they thought the definition of free speech should be. If the majority of the people in a culture decide that they care about free speech then the minority of censorious bad people in power can be overcome. How do you think the left got the power they have today? By being allowed to write whatever they want in opinion columns, make movies that insult corrupt politicians, write plays about evil industrial fat cats poisoning the water supply, marching through the streets with megaphones dissenting to war mongers. Now we are saying it's okay to silence these people as long as we label them as "harmful" or "bigots" in some way. Even being anti-war is now somehow becoming associated with the alt-right taboo people that must not be talked about. What we are seeing now is a generation of people who do not share the ideal of free speech, and are okay with censorship and an ingroup/outgroup by default.

ryandrake 3y ago

To "steel man" the argument put forward by the state: The government doesn't have the right to regulate speech, but does has the right to regulate how people behave and conduct themselves. In meatspace, these concepts are distinct: You can speak all sorts of horrible stuff while being peaceful and conducting yourself well. You can also say nice things while being violent and belligerent. Government surely has the right to stop you from being violent and belligerent. On the Internet, there is no difference between speech and conduct. You conduct yourself by speaking/writing. So how can we enforce good conduct without regulating speech? The states are trying to draw the line between speech and conduct, and that's not easy (maybe impossible) online.

verisimi 3y ago
> The government doesn't have the right to regulate speech, but does has the right to regulate how people behave and conduct themselves. :) These types of comments make me smile. The government is an idea is the minds of people. It doesn't/can't have rights. It's a non-existent entity. And yet. People believe that it has the ability to create 'rights', and people will be somehow beholden to its pronouncements. Is government 'God'? I think to most people the answer is yes. It is their authority; such individuals are not an authority of themselves. The proper answer, imo, is that nothing except for my own heart and reason can guide me as to what is morally right or wrong. No work of man (law, religion, government) can say anything to me. All these works (law, government) are badly bent towards a self-serving elite, for the extraction of wealth from those that believe in these phantasms. We laugh at those in history who we are told tithed 10% of their work to their local lord in the feudal system, and 10% towards the church, but don't blink at paying 40% to the government. There are really only individuals, but the mind control in most is very effective.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  > The proper answer, imo, is that nothing except for my own heart and reason can guide me as to what is morally right or wrong. I think if we had the ability to trace the origin of each belief about what is right and wrong you would be surprised by how greatly law, government, and religion have influenced you. Edit: > There are really only individuals This must be why solitary confinement is considered such a great privilege when incarcerated.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    > This must be why solitary confinement is considered such a great privilege when incarcerated. Ha! Nice line. But, in all honesty, totally controlling another person, confining them, is only an example of control. But, if not in the individual, where do you think meaning or anything of value, occurs? The feeling/meaning/thought, is only within oneself, surely?

Dig1t 3y ago

I disagree with the metaphor. In the past freedom of speech meant absolute free speech with a small blacklist of specific situations in which it would cause immediate, physical, danger to others. Everything else was okay, even if it hurts other peoples' feelings. It is an extremely GOOD thing to have for society, it is the main tool that the left used to gain the power that it has today. It is the main tool by which good people can overcome bad people in power. The newer generation seems to be okay with moving from a blacklist -> whitelist approach where the range of acceptable opinions and topics are set by the group and things outside of that range are labeled offensive, bigoted, racist, something-phobic, or harmful in some other way and banned. Responding specifically to your point about trans educational material, free speech absolutists are 100% okay with allowing trans educational material that says anything at all. I'm not kidding, think of whatever offensive thing you want to say about cis people, free speech absolutists are okay with you saying it. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is something I, and other free speech absolutists, truly believe.

uLogMicheal 3y ago
When people fear discussion they will disengage, leaving discourse to the most motivated or incentivized to program thoughts.
foldr 3y ago
>In the past freedom of speech meant absolute free speech with a small blacklist of specific situations in which it would cause immediate, physical, danger to others. You'll have to specify when this golden age existed. I suspect that if you name any specific date, we could find all sorts of respects in which freedom of speech was much more restricted in the US at that time than it is now.
- Dig1t 3y ago
  I am not saying that it has always been perfectly implemented, right leaning politicians have been guilty in myriad ways of censorship over the years. But the ideal that we define as a culture is what I stated, and if we all agree that's what we want then we can work every day towards the ideal. It has been the ideal since the founding of the United States in 1776. I know this to be true because my parents and grandparents told me that that is what their generation valued, and what they thought the definition of free speech should be. If the majority of the people in a culture decide that they care about free speech then the minority of censorious bad people in power can be overcome. How do you think the left got the power they have today? By being allowed to write whatever they want in opinion columns, make movies that insult corrupt politicians, write plays about evil industrial fat cats poisoning the water supply, marching through the streets with megaphones dissenting to war mongers. Now we are saying it's okay to silence these people as long as we label them as "harmful" or "bigots" in some way. Even being anti-war is now somehow becoming associated with the alt-right taboo people that must not be talked about. What we are seeing now is a generation of people who do not share the ideal of free speech, and are okay with censorship and an ingroup/outgroup by default.