7 ms·

All "punishments" are not the same. Free speech means that you cannot be punished by the government for your speech. You can't imprisoned or physically harmed

All "punishments" are not the same. Free speech means that you cannot be punished by the government for your speech. You can't imprisoned or physically harmed. But people equate that with speech without consequence and, even more, that they are entitled to someone else's forum for their speech. In authoritarian regimes we are talking about real criminal-type punishments. You're purposely conflating these ideas together when they are different. If nobody wants to listen to your terrible idea or give you a forum for them then that's their right. If people don't want to associate with you because of what you believe that is their right. If people want to convince others to not give you that forum, that's their free speech. We don't have to give a forum to the very ideas that lead to real punishment of criticism.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mantas 3y ago
I think you know jack-shit about totalitarian regimes. For example USSR used a shit-ton of unofficial punishment styles. E.g. small time dissidents would have a hard time getting a job. Employers would be in the know about certain people they should steer away from. But it was illegal to not work in USSR :) So technically nobody was punishing those dissidents. But they had a hard time to make ends meet AND they could be easily sentenced for being unemployed if they started causing trouble. Influential groups of society punishing people for wrongthink is pretty damn close.
- wvenable 3y ago
  What is protesting then? If I protest against a Nazi speaker at a university, which side of this totalitarianism am I on? Am I the influential group punishing someone for wrongthink? The implication here is yes I am. So apparently a healthy "non-totalitarian" society cannot allow protest...
  - mantas 3y ago
    Many (if not 99%) of silenced speakers were not nazis. Unless everything right of X is nazi and everything left is commie. Which is bullshit. The „influential group“ refers to „consequences“ like making people loose their jobs after spamming their employers for controversial (at best) speech. Protest is fine. But preventing speech is fine. Do you want to stay outside of a meeting room with a banner? Cool. Do you want to politely ask uncomfortable questions? Great. Do you want to prevent those people from speaking? That's where it gets bad.
    - wvenable 3y ago
      I agree they don't have to Nazis. > Do you want to prevent those people from speaking? Nobody is prevented from speaking. It's never been easier in the history of the world to get your message out. But again, nobody is required to have a forum to speak and I'm not required to give that forum directly or indirectly. I can also use my speech to convince others to not provide that forum. > spamming their employers That's harassment. Harassment is already bad on it's own it doesn't have to be mixed into this. But outside of harassment if an employer doesn't want to associate with someone because of their speech, they're free to do that.
      - mantas 3y ago
        When a group of people sets up a speaker and another group prevents speaker from making his speech... That is preventing from speaking. Allowing to fire people because of their political views is a very fine line. Especially if they cleanly separate political and professional lives. Few years ago we had an ex-politician fired from stocking shelves in a supermarket. Arguably dude did have some contraversial opinions in his heyday. But he left the politics long ago and was trying to make a fair living. Then his opponents from the other far- side tracked him down and „informed“ the employer about the dude's past.
        wvenable 3y ago
        > another group prevents speaker from making his speech... That is preventing from speaking. How are they preventing it? Physically holding the doors closed? > Allowing to fire people because of their political views is a very fine line. You can hold whatever political views you want. But people want only the positive results of broadcasting their political views and none of the negative. One might want to change the law so short people can't vote -- so they broadcast that view far and wide to make that consequence happen. But then why should that person be completely sheltered from any negative consequences of trying to affect that change. The fact is that social pressure is generally what keeps us from falling into barbarism. Can it be abused? Sure. Anything can be abused. Even what you're suggesting can and is being abused.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mantas 3y ago

I think you know jack-shit about totalitarian regimes. For example USSR used a shit-ton of unofficial punishment styles. E.g. small time dissidents would have a hard time getting a job. Employers would be in the know about certain people they should steer away from. But it was illegal to not work in USSR :) So technically nobody was punishing those dissidents. But they had a hard time to make ends meet AND they could be easily sentenced for being unemployed if they started causing trouble. Influential groups of society punishing people for wrongthink is pretty damn close.

wvenable 3y ago
What is protesting then? If I protest against a Nazi speaker at a university, which side of this totalitarianism am I on? Am I the influential group punishing someone for wrongthink? The implication here is yes I am. So apparently a healthy "non-totalitarian" society cannot allow protest...
- mantas 3y ago
  Many (if not 99%) of silenced speakers were not nazis. Unless everything right of X is nazi and everything left is commie. Which is bullshit. The „influential group“ refers to „consequences“ like making people loose their jobs after spamming their employers for controversial (at best) speech. Protest is fine. But preventing speech is fine. Do you want to stay outside of a meeting room with a banner? Cool. Do you want to politely ask uncomfortable questions? Great. Do you want to prevent those people from speaking? That's where it gets bad.
  - wvenable 3y ago
    I agree they don't have to Nazis. > Do you want to prevent those people from speaking? Nobody is prevented from speaking. It's never been easier in the history of the world to get your message out. But again, nobody is required to have a forum to speak and I'm not required to give that forum directly or indirectly. I can also use my speech to convince others to not provide that forum. > spamming their employers That's harassment. Harassment is already bad on it's own it doesn't have to be mixed into this. But outside of harassment if an employer doesn't want to associate with someone because of their speech, they're free to do that.
    - mantas 3y ago
      When a group of people sets up a speaker and another group prevents speaker from making his speech... That is preventing from speaking. Allowing to fire people because of their political views is a very fine line. Especially if they cleanly separate political and professional lives. Few years ago we had an ex-politician fired from stocking shelves in a supermarket. Arguably dude did have some contraversial opinions in his heyday. But he left the politics long ago and was trying to make a fair living. Then his opponents from the other far- side tracked him down and „informed“ the employer about the dude's past.
      - wvenable 3y ago
        > another group prevents speaker from making his speech... That is preventing from speaking. How are they preventing it? Physically holding the doors closed? > Allowing to fire people because of their political views is a very fine line. You can hold whatever political views you want. But people want only the positive results of broadcasting their political views and none of the negative. One might want to change the law so short people can't vote -- so they broadcast that view far and wide to make that consequence happen. But then why should that person be completely sheltered from any negative consequences of trying to affect that change. The fact is that social pressure is generally what keeps us from falling into barbarism. Can it be abused? Sure. Anything can be abused. Even what you're suggesting can and is being abused.