3 ms·

I think it would be interesting if there was a real "free speech" movement, but my observation is that "free speech" in your context just means speech that suit

I think it would be interesting if there was a real "free speech" movement, but my observation is that "free speech" in your context just means speech that suits the claimant politically. That's why in an era of "free speech" we're seeing draconian social media and age verification laws in red states; cops being called out to shut down pro-Palestine protests; or a virtually endless list of hypocrisy from folks like Elon Musk (starting with tossing the ElonJet guy off the platform and moving on from there.)

reaperman 2y ago
For loud movements above a certain size, this certainly rings true for me. Obviously there are a lot of people out there who truly believe in actual free speech - I’m one of them … but there’s some kind of fine line. It still feels a bit like harassment when groups on campuses (often not anyone with any affiliation to the school, bussed in by special interest money) are deliberately “getting in my face” as I walk between classes. I don’t mind them being there, but feels like they should have to stay 2 feet off the walkways and not go right up to people. I feel the same way about restaurant barkers/criers in the French Quarter though. When I say “bussed in by special interest money” I’m not calling out “George Soros” or anything. And its not like 100 people or anything - just 1-5. I’ve seen it done across the entire political spectrum - PragerU, Anti-zionist groups, churches, nation of islam, DNC, etc. I spend time sympathetically talking with a lot of the groups and learn they’re often poor individuals who have a lot of time and moneyed groups take advantage of their time and convince them to heckle for their cause, and set up drivers / ride shares across the metro area to get random people to the campus. For me its the aggression and attempts to incite angry responses which I find debatable: whether incendiary behavior should be considered “legal free speech”. Its often not just “speech” but body positioning and direct targeted aggressive engagement of individual passersby which feels calculated to make people feel aggressed while maintaining some degree of plausible deniability.
Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
> "free speech" means speech that suits the claimant politically Absolute free speech is not desirable or practical because it has real harms, like yelling fire in theatre and causing a panic, libeling people and destroying reputations, mispresenting products and scamming people. We do need and want rules for these sorts of things. But language, context and people are squishy so hard lines don't exist. The free speech debate is important and on-going - as it should be. It will never be settled and will always be subject to groups who want more restrictions and those who want less. In the words of Dr. Ichiro Serizawa, "Let them fight"

reaperman 2y ago

For loud movements above a certain size, this certainly rings true for me. Obviously there are a lot of people out there who truly believe in actual free speech - I’m one of them … but there’s some kind of fine line. It still feels a bit like harassment when groups on campuses (often not anyone with any affiliation to the school, bussed in by special interest money) are deliberately “getting in my face” as I walk between classes. I don’t mind them being there, but feels like they should have to stay 2 feet off the walkways and not go right up to people. I feel the same way about restaurant barkers/criers in the French Quarter though. When I say “bussed in by special interest money” I’m not calling out “George Soros” or anything. And its not like 100 people or anything - just 1-5. I’ve seen it done across the entire political spectrum - PragerU, Anti-zionist groups, churches, nation of islam, DNC, etc. I spend time sympathetically talking with a lot of the groups and learn they’re often poor individuals who have a lot of time and moneyed groups take advantage of their time and convince them to heckle for their cause, and set up drivers / ride shares across the metro area to get random people to the campus. For me its the aggression and attempts to incite angry responses which I find debatable: whether incendiary behavior should be considered “legal free speech”. Its often not just “speech” but body positioning and direct targeted aggressive engagement of individual passersby which feels calculated to make people feel aggressed while maintaining some degree of plausible deniability.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago

> "free speech" means speech that suits the claimant politically Absolute free speech is not desirable or practical because it has real harms, like yelling fire in theatre and causing a panic, libeling people and destroying reputations, mispresenting products and scamming people. We do need and want rules for these sorts of things. But language, context and people are squishy so hard lines don't exist. The free speech debate is important and on-going - as it should be. It will never be settled and will always be subject to groups who want more restrictions and those who want less. In the words of Dr. Ichiro Serizawa, "Let them fight"