3 ms·

> Does that include hate speech? Yes. > Does that include the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising? Yes, although this is a b

> Does that include hate speech? Yes. > Does that include the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising? Yes, although this is a bit tangential as this declaration is mostly concerned with freedom of personal political speech, and in most countries companies and individuals are distinguished from each other. Actually this is also the case for the U.S., except for in the case of political speech for reasons. > Does that include the right to "cancel" someone? If by cancel, you mean to fire someone for speech, that’s really a matter of employment law, which differs by country and even industry. If you mean the right to “call out”, yes. How did I ascertain this? By reading the UDHR, Article 19: > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The only part everyone (everyone here meaning every government and every tech company) hasn’t decided on is whether or not to enforce Article 19, which is why the declaration encourages them to. I think in general there has been a kind of anemia combined with infantilization introduced into political discourse where people believe issues are too complex or too divisive to be resolved. When we decide that issues are too complicated to be decided on by the polis, only the most extreme viewpoints will end up seeing their goals accomplished. Which is precisely what has happened on the issue of free speech, as governments ban protest, ban certain kinds of speech, all while ostensibly (but not really) “speaking for the people”.

slg 3y ago
>Yes. So much for that clear international definition. Look at the countries that outlaw some form of hate speech. [1] The US is in the extreme minority in the idea that hate speech is protected under a general definition of free speech. >Yes, although this is a bit tangential as this declaration is mostly concerned with freedom of personal political speech, and in most countries companies and individuals are distinguished from each other. Actually this is also the case for the U.S., except for in the case of political speech for reasons. No, this isn't about Citizens United. The UK doesn't allow any political advertising on TV or radio for example.[2] >If by cancel, you mean to fire someone for speech, that’s really a matter of employment law, which differs by country and even industry. >If you mean the right to “call out”, yes. I mean whatever a signatory like Bari Weiss means when she bemoans cancel culture[3]. She is a devoted free speech absolutist when it comes to her own rights, but when she is criticized suddenly people shouldn't have their reputation destroyed by backlash to their speech. That is an inherently anti-free speech mindset. If you have the freedom to say anything, I have the freedom to say anything in response including asking your employer to fire you. You can't have it both ways. >When we decide that issues are too complicated to be decided on by the polis, only the most extreme viewpoints will end up seeing their goals accomplished. Which is precisely what has happened on the issue of free speech, as governments ban protest, ban certain kinds of speech, all while ostensibly (but not really) “speaking for the people”. Pretending this issue is easy doesn't accomplish anything either. That was my original point. The term has become meaningless because everyone thinks of themselves as being pro-free speech. And no one in the political mainstream advocates against "free speech" even if their policies in actuality restrict speech. [1] - https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F7pjkexitf2w71.png https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F7... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003 [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2020:_Resignation_from_The_New_York_Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2020:_Resignation_f...

slg 3y ago

>Yes. So much for that clear international definition. Look at the countries that outlaw some form of hate speech. [1] The US is in the extreme minority in the idea that hate speech is protected under a general definition of free speech. >Yes, although this is a bit tangential as this declaration is mostly concerned with freedom of personal political speech, and in most countries companies and individuals are distinguished from each other. Actually this is also the case for the U.S., except for in the case of political speech for reasons. No, this isn't about Citizens United. The UK doesn't allow any political advertising on TV or radio for example.[2] >If by cancel, you mean to fire someone for speech, that’s really a matter of employment law, which differs by country and even industry. >If you mean the right to “call out”, yes. I mean whatever a signatory like Bari Weiss means when she bemoans cancel culture[3]. She is a devoted free speech absolutist when it comes to her own rights, but when she is criticized suddenly people shouldn't have their reputation destroyed by backlash to their speech. That is an inherently anti-free speech mindset. If you have the freedom to say anything, I have the freedom to say anything in response including asking your employer to fire you. You can't have it both ways. >When we decide that issues are too complicated to be decided on by the polis, only the most extreme viewpoints will end up seeing their goals accomplished. Which is precisely what has happened on the issue of free speech, as governments ban protest, ban certain kinds of speech, all while ostensibly (but not really) “speaking for the people”. Pretending this issue is easy doesn't accomplish anything either. That was my original point. The term has become meaningless because everyone thinks of themselves as being pro-free speech. And no one in the political mainstream advocates against "free speech" even if their policies in actuality restrict speech. [1] - https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F7pjkexitf2w71.png https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F7... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003 [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2020:_Resignation_from_The_New_York_Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2020:_Resignation_f...