25 ms·
"Freedom of speech" on Twitter is nothing more than Newspeak for censorship. In reality, the goal has always been to silence minorities who already struggle to
"Freedom of speech" on Twitter is nothing more than Newspeak for censorship. In reality, the goal has always been to silence minorities who already struggle to express themselves, while allowing hate, racist, homophobic, and transphobic language to run rampant. It is a form of indirect censorship, through the self-censorship of minorities who fear speaking out. Then comes direct censorship, where certain terms or links are banned.
[flagged]
> In reality, the goal has always been to silence minorities who already struggle to express themselves
This particular clause seens very unlikely. One could want an increase in racism and homophobia on a platform without specifically wanting there to be less black people (for example) speaking out. That the -isms cause said people to speak up less would likely be a (pleasant?) side effect rather than the primary goal.
It is very simple:
1. Inherited rich kids like Elon often have a strong feeling that they are better then the rest of humanity.
2. But it turns out if you are a leech on society like that sooner or later people stop accepting that (remember: he pays less in taxes and gains more in government subsides than most people)
3. So in order for people not to turn against you sooner or later you need to keep them split into subsections that are in conflict with each other. The more split they are, the more wealth you can extract.
That is the age old strategy of divide and conquer and if you ever wondered why your political system seemed to be split down the middle 50:50, that is your answer: people with money profit from it being so.
Even granting that, you would want MORE LGBTQ+/minority speech. The more energy people spend arguing with each other about culture war, the more dividee they are and the less they have for trying to change inequality.
Trying to silence LGBTQ+ etc people goes directly against the goal you posit.
Not if you're trying to win the next election in the hope is going to be the last.
It's not a closed ecosystem. If LGBTQ+/minority speech is happening on a different platform or medium, it's still happening. It can be profitable to be the part of the ecosystem that doesn't cater to the minority as long as someone else does.
[flagged]
Aren't racists a minority who struggle to express themselves?
How did you come to these conclusions about the goals and future of Twitter? My naive expectation was that Musk is mostly interested in enriching and aggrandizing himself, and that a crusade against some social group is only interesting as long as it serves the primary interests.
> allowing hate, racist, homophobic, and transphobic language to run rampant
Are the people with these views not also entitled to free speech and equal rights to express themselves the same as everybody else?
Prior to Musk's purchase of Twitter, feminists who expressed the view that women and girls need single-sex spaces, and that males who identify as women aren't actually women and therefore shouldn't be allowed in these spaces, would be banned from the platform under the guise of "transphobia".
They were literally being silenced for expressing their criticism of the ideology of gender identity and how it is being used to disadvantage and oppress women and girls.
On X, however, they are free to state this without fear of censorship, due to the broadening of permissible speech on the platform. So while it might not be the "free speech absolutism" that Musk disingenuously claims, it's an improvement to the pre-Musk era of censorship.
I don’t have the freedom to say how I feel this. But I have been studying the great helmsman recently and soon we will all have an exchange of views.
The difference is that freedom of speech is concerned with what the Government allows you to talk about.
X, through Musk, is now a quasi-governmental platform - as can demonstrated by actions like this.
I agree that is true regarding freedom of speech laws. But many organisations, including social media platforms, have policies regarding freedom of speech as well. Universities are another such example, as free speech is an essential component of academic freedom.
This is a flat out falsehood - jk rowling was spewing anti trans hate from the position of “feminism” long before the purchase of twitter, she was never “censored” or anything close to it. This is revisionist bs, framed in a way to make your dear leader look like the hero, and not the incompetent anti free speech nitwit he actually is.
Freedom of speech, at least in the US, is a concern specifically with the government censoring citizens' speech. The Twitter files are a recent example of the government partnering with private corps to censor, so that's a fair argument, but in general a private company can't violate free speech by deciding what kind of content they want allowed.
Is it shitty that they censor? Absolutely. But is it a constitutional violation? Not unless I've horribly misunderstood my rights for more than 35 years.
The owner is working for the government, can't play that card any more.
This is definitely true, however many of us remember Musk declaring himself a "free-speech absolutist", so in most cases people are referring to his hyprocisy rather than his legal rights.
[0] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600
Actually freedom of speech is a principle, which Musk and his ilk claim to care about, despite using their power to censor people through either direct control of information streams or threats. The first amendment to the US constitution specifically seeks to reify this principle in laws pertaining only to the government's actions, but freedom of speech as a principle can be supported or violated by anyone with power over other people. The people claiming to be "free speech absolutists" are hypocritical even if they didn't also work for the government and enact these vendettas against speech they don't like on a governmental level (which is also happening)
Name it X because old Twitter is dead.
Just because some people use "freedom of speech" as a veil, doesn't make it bad.
True, but thanks to certain groups using it as a dog whistle you now have to do extra work to find out whether you the person saying it actually cares about empowering people to speak or whether they just want a safe space where they can say the n word.
Which thankfully when it's a platform it doesn't take long to find out which it is.
As with all things in life, regulation makes it possible in the first place.
Unfortunately, in American culture any kind of regulation is seen as negative inherently, whereas in continental European cultures, regulation is seen as a vital and fundamental part of ensuring a place where everyone can thrive.
No it doesn't. It's like libertarianism—it's a concept I find interesting if it helps promote mutual aid, collectivism, etc. Abolishing the state as a vehicle of oppression? Why not.
But if we abolish the state the way libertarians currently define it—meaning abolishing the state but not private property (which paradoxically forces the state to persist in order to determine who owns what, such as businesses, housing, etc.)—then it's an entirely different project. We would be abolishing the so-called oppression of the state only to replace it with an even worse and unchecked oppression by corporations and the billionaires who own them, with no means of voting (since "voting with your wallet" is a myth).
And yet, when you listen to them, it sounds as if they are liberating us from something, when in reality, they are freeing themselves from all control so they can better enslave us.
The free market on its own doesn’t work, that’s why we have regulation in place to guide it to a place that minimises the long term damage while consumers try to maximise the short-term benefit.
It’s an interesting analogy to free speech.
Free speech in the US means they cannot make specific laws against proposing ideas, but a long history of legal cases does mean there are cases when you can be civilly or criminally liable if your words lead others to harmful actions
Its a weird grey area for sure. The best rationalization I have ever come up with is that when speech involves a legitimate threat to do harm, for example, that skips past just speech and can be seen as a step in actively planning to do harm. In certain situations, like murder or terrorism, we've agreed that simply planning to do it is a crime.
Combine the two and it isn't that you said something that is illegal, its that the statement is interpreted as a clear signal of actively planning to do something which itself is illegal.
That's a good rationalization indeed! It makes sense that you should be able to think and say "Y_Y is a jerk who deserves to die", but if you say it to my face then I might be reasonably upset to the point of considerable emotional harm, or if you say it from your pulpit it could reasonably be interpreted by one of your followers as an instruction to commit murder. The speech alone isn't the crime, but you can certainly commit different crimes purely by speaking (though the context is determinative).
It is quite nuanced, but generally it depends on your intent. If you plan how to commit a crime without intending or encouraging anyone to commit it, that is not illegal, but intending to commit a crime, even if some else does the actual deed or if nobody is even harmed, that is illegal, as they were the perpetrator and succeeded. Eg https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/80382/can-you-be-punished-for-planning-a-crime-and-what-constitutes-planning https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/80382/can-you-be-pun...
>It doesnt though, thats the point.
Not a Lawyer, but threatening to kill someone is not protected by free speech right?
>They keep listening to the hate speech
The definition of "hate speech" is unclear and a made-up word to make people feel bad for being angry -> Two Minutes Hate
>>The political purpose of the Two Minutes Hate is to allow the citizens of Oceania to vent their existential anguish and personal hatred toward politically expedient enemies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate
> Not a Lawyer, but threatening to kill someone is not protected by free speech right?
It depends on context. The legal test is called the "Imminent Lawless Action" Test in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#Brandenburg_test_(%22imminent_lawless_action%22_test) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#Brandenbur...
> Not a Lawyer, but threatening to kill someone is not protected by free speech right?
If someone threatened to kill me theres no way I would be trying to invoke law to protect me. Why would I when they have done nothing wrong? If they pick up a gun and shoot at me then that becomes illegal and I will call the police or defend myself. If they pay somebody else to act on their opinion and cause me harm then again it becomes illegal. But to expect the law to punish someone just because they said 'I want to kill you'? That IMO is barbaric and completely ridiculous.
That's not how capitalism works because the between the companies and the customers is a Mismazch in power and information.
That's why governments make rules to protect those with less indormation and power.
According to your logic cyberbullying is just free speech.
Should I wish for you to by cyberbullied, so you see first hand that free speech has limits?
And don't forget that many free speech apologetics say that free speech doesn't mean free of consequences. At this point it's clear that for most people free speech doesn't exitst because they censor their posts if say fear consequences.
> According to your logic cyberbullying is just free speech.
IMO it is
> Should I wish for you to by cyberbullied, so you see first hand that free speech has limits?
Feel free to, you have that right. If people choose to act on it I will deal with it on my end appropriately, and I wont be complaining to you to stop saying what you have the right to.
> > Even free speech has its limits
> It doesnt though, thats the point.
In theory. But in practive even the most staunch pro-free speech jurisdictions have limits on them. A lot for good reasons that most people would agree with (threats and fraud, stuff like that), but also some that would be absurd in other jurisdictions (obscenities for example, which is usually very locality specific).
There's a Wikipedia page with free speech exceptions in the USA. Those exceptions don't really seem weird, but just seeing that there are reasonable exceptions makes free speech absolutism less sensible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Your logic here is circular. You're arguing definitions, it doesn't make sense to point to examples of places that claim to have free speech and decide that free speech must have limits because those places said they have it and they have limits.
You could just as easily look at those places and say they must not actually have free speech because they have legal limits on what you say.
Sure, you could easily say that, but it would be a pretty silly thing to say. The world is not black and white, as much as we'd like it to be sometimes.
Most of the limits on free speech don't pertain to the speech itself, but rather the speech being related to some other form of criminal conduct. Incitement to violence can be punished because of the violence; fraud can be punished because of the theft, etc.
So one can still be a free speech absolutist with respect to speech in itself, while still holding people responsible for unlawful activity that the speech is helping to facilitate.
> It doesnt though, thats the point.
If free speech has no limit, that means you can't prevent people from arguing against the end of free speech.
Such arguments have been convincing in many places and in many times, for many different reasons. Including the USA — the things that are considered "corrupting our youth" at different times and in different ways, plus a bunch of other stuff that society just doesn't function without banning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
> A company can sell terrible products and what should happen is people see they are terrible products and vote with their wallet to stop buying. Then the company goes out of business.
Like the 84% reduction in Twitter revenue prior to the election?
> They are still allowed to say anything they want, but their reputation is tarnished and hardly anybody listens to them and they loose their platform/influence.
Musk sued the people who pointed out to brands advertising on twitter that their reputations were getting tarnished by what their content was getting associated with on Twitter.
> The solution to all these things is education and people spending more time thinking about how they respond to things in the world.
Number of times I've personally witnessed sales clerks and customer support teams not knowing their own products suggests this is one of those solutions that sounds easy but isn't.
Had to tell one that not only did we support browsers other than Internet Explorer, but that they were themselves using Firefox at the time they claimed to only support Internet Explorer.
> If free speech has no limit, that means you can't prevent people from arguing against the end of free speech.
Correct, they can talk about it all they want but cant act on it.
> Like the 84% reduction in Twitter revenue prior to the election?
Yep, and if the majority of the world fully agrees that Twitter is in the wrong and is a horrible place then it will plummit further and cease to exist. The thing here is that there is a massive percent of the population that loves twitter as it is, and so it will continue as there are still enough people to justify the advertising.
> Musk sued the people who pointed out to brands advertising on twitter that their reputations were getting tarnished by what their content was getting associated with on Twitter.
He didnt. He is trying to and we will see what hapopens there. Personally I think his case will be thrown out but thats just an opinion.
> Number of times I've personally witnessed sales clerks and customer support teams not knowing their own products suggests this is one of those solutions that sounds easy but isn't.
I agree, I never said it was easy. In fact I said that the majority of the world will take the easy way out and not put the thought required into their reponses to things.
[flagged]
I see it a bit differently. Progressives tend to believe speech can have limits, and generally support private citizens and companies enforcing it through shame etc.
Elon touts being a free speech absolutist, but limits speech on his platform in a … whimsical … manner.
There's nothing inconsistent with people who don't call themselves "free speech absolutists" not being free speech absolutists.
There's a lot inconsistent with someone masquerading as a "free speech absolutist" whilst actually drawing the line in a different place, in this case a place which has all sorts of arbitrary new offences like references to the word "cis", ADS-B feeds, and parody accounts and whatever else has annoyed him recently whilst removing more posts at government request than his predecessors, but is mostly cool with racial hatred.
>Pick a lane.
No, a good society should not pick lanes, but cherries.
The "lane" is simple and has always been: no "right", as fundamental as it can be, is limitless. For ex. Freedom of movement is largely restricted, and the fact I can't "enter your house freely" is not a slippery slope to internal visas as the sort China uses to restrict movement internally.
Even in the US, freedom of speech IS restricted: the Supreme Court put the bar very high but it didn't say you could say anything. State secrets can't be revealed willy-nilly; even lower, you can't enter a non-disclosure agreement and then violate it.
The "lane" is that we try as much as possible to put clear, consistent guideline that apply to everyone through a legislative (actual laws) and judicial (precedent) process. This is absolutely not the same as Musk deciding on his own, inconsistent, ridiculous fits of drug-addled rage, where he bans the word "cisgender" or @elonjet for his own safety and then allows complete nazi-"WE WILL KILL YOU BITCHES" stuff - and that's only one of many examples.
The right view is, if you want to put it simplistically like this:
Progressives: Elon doesn't care about free speech, he cares about limiting the speech of progressives in favor of the extreme right
Also progressives: Free speech should have limits to protect minorities from aggressors
Nothing at all inconsistent about these two positions, regardless of whether you think that either one is a good idea, or even true.
>So do Jews. So are we seeing full free speech in action?
To be clear, you're comparing anti-semites (a racist "group") with Jews (an ethnic/religious group). One is defined by holding a targeted, hateful ideology. The other is a group of human beings, by birth/existence.
I make no claim against you, but this framing represents the insidiously successful repackaging of hate as an "equal right", which racists have used to mainstream hateful ideas that, at-scale, ultimately infringe on the rights of groups of people. This can include (has included) incitement to violence. The latter is famously a limitation of free speech, and all rights are generally circumscribed by their infringement on the rights of others, in any case.
The other insidiously misleading argument around this issue is that Twitter is enforcing "free speech" in the first place. Only the government can infringe on the right, as it restrains only the government. Twitter is no "protector" of free speech, because it cannot be. It can, however, make the choice to allow and promote hateful speech against others, and that's exactly what it's doing.
So, the argument here is not whether promoting rights is good for society. The argument is whether promoting hate is good for society.
[flagged]
> To be clear, you're comparing anti-semites (a racist "group") with Jews (an ethnic/religious group). One is defined by holding a targeted, hateful ideology. The other is a group of human beings, by birth/existence.
I disagree. In this context they are 2 groups of people who disagree about something, everything else is irrelevant. It is your opinion to colour one side or the other 'hateful', 'racist' or any other word. You are applying your opionin and bias to other people arguments to paint one side better than the other.
Take this same opinion and apply it to Israel/Palestine, and suddenly it becomes not so clear cut. Both sides claim something about the other side, and both are killing each other because if it. In this instance, who would you call hateful and racist? It completely depends on who you sympathise with as there is no correct answer here. It is no different to any other groups of people who you are not part of.
> I disagree. In this context they are 2 groups of people who disagree about something, everything else is irrelevant.
This is an absurdly disingenuous way of phrasing the situation. One group is ideological and defined by its generalized hatred towards members of the other, while the other group is an ethnic/religious group. Being jewish does not imply that you subscribe to any particular opinion or identify with either end of the political spectrum. There is no possible way this can simply be seen as as a disagreement between "two sides".
Your attempt to equate this to the Israel/Palestine conflict is equally absurd. The Hamas and the government of Israel are both committing heinous acts of terrorism in the name of hatred, bigotry and racism.
>It is your opinion to colour one side or the other 'hateful', 'racist'
You should look up the word, antisemite.
>Take this same opinion and apply...
I understand why you'd want to change the subject, but no.
I also understand why you ignored the rest of my comment.
I see now that you're a promoter of exactly the insidious "hate as an equal right" mantra that turned Twitter into what it is today. While it's infected too many people, it is heartening to watch the exodus underway that's rapidly evolving it into a 4chan-esque echo chamber.
Definition of antisemite: a person who is prejudiced against Jewish people
Prejudice is completely different to hate. They are often associated but are not the same.
> I see now that you're a promoter of exactly the insidious "hate as an equal right" mantra that turned Twitter into what it is today.
You seem very quick to label and categorise people into boxes about what they think about. Be careful, that is a very dangerous road to go down as history has proved time and time again.
>Definition of antisemite
Your abridged definition is your cartoonish admission that you're aware that you're wrong.
With just a little more cleverness you could have easily avoided that reveal and actually challenged me.
>You seem very quick to label...
Ah yes, the old, "labeling the labelers is the real problem here" routine.
I'm seeing now that you're just kind of a lazy troll—boring and unimaginative. This is where I exit. Feel free to carry on with yourself!
> I'm seeing now that you're just kind of a lazy troll—boring and unimaginative.
Theres a main difference between you and I here which is becoming quite apparent at this point.
I respect your right to think and say anything you like. I have no issue with you or your opinions, and you are free to express them against me as you wish. This is the whole basis for all my posts as can plainly be seen.
You seem to have very strong feelings against me, resorting to labelling and name calling very quickly. You dont seem to respect my opinion or right to have one. You seem to think I am 'wrong' in the general sense, yet have nothing other than your opinion of me, a random person on the internet, to back that up.
Carry on with your offense throwing, I completely respect your right to express yourself in that way and will not tell you you are wrong or you should stop:)
Pretty much anytime sometime says "antisemitism" these days what they mean is "opposing genocide".
The Jewish people who are against genocide really do not appreciate people like you staining them with that lie.
"Antisemitic" is also being thrown around a lot towards people who aren't actually saying antisemitic things, but rather criticizing the government of Israel and their actions that take place under color of law.
That is true, but Jew hating people are quite prominent on Twitter.
Just look how many likes Ye’s “I AM A NAZI” tweet has…
You're not wrong, but lately, criticism of Israel includes its right to exist, and while anti-Zionism isn't technically anti-Semitism, in practice it is. Furthermore, the pro-Palestine crowd includes many textbook anti-Semites.
Yeah, lots of name-calling going around everywhere for sure. We used to have to word "Anti-Zionist" for people against like what Israel is engaging in now, but at one point it feels like the term was "hijacked" and Zionist/Anti-Zionist is now part of forgotten terminology.
"Liberal Zionism" used to be in vogue in Israel, which takes a more moderate view and criticizes the Israeli occupation while still arguing for an Jewish state, but I think it's gotten less and less popular these days, at least from what I tell from the outside, and a more extreme form has become the popular one again.
> "Liberal Zionism" used to be in vogue in Israel, which takes a more moderate view and criticizes the Israeli occupation while still arguing for an Jewish state, but I think it's gotten less and less popular these days, at least from what I tell from the outside, and a more extreme form has become the popular one again.
Another part of the issue is that especially among young people, words have lost their meanings. Everything is toxic, a genocide, sexual assault, rape, cultural appropriation, god knows what else - the room for nuances in discussion has been entirely lost because large parts of society lack the vocabulary to talk about it, 1984 says hello.
The combination of hyper-social media, ever shorter dopamine feedings / gamification and a complete lack of awareness for the importance of basic education and history are disastrous.
> My naive expectation was that Musk is mostly interested in enriching and aggrandizing himself, and that a crusade against some social group is only interesting as long as it serves the primary interests.
Difference without distinction in this case. The left actually polices its luminaries to some degree (not perfectly but still) which makes it incompatible with the grifter class Musk is chief president of. He’s never going to drift leftward because we’re not going to metaphorically suck his balls because he promotes basic human decency. Figures like him only go rightward.
As for if he bought twitter explicitly to make it a greater hotbed for racism, I think you’d have a hard time proving it in court, but at the same time, he’s unbanned a lot of prominent alt-right figure heads, and boosted tons of their tweets to the financial detriment of the platform. Can’t say he bought it to do that but the huge drops in value because of it hasn’t deterred him so…
> that a crusade against some social group is only interesting as long as it serves the primary interests.
This is clearly not true. X represents Elon’s politics. Best example: Elon has X officially blocked any usage of the term cis as part of his crusade against his trans daughter - and I don’t say that lightly, he was not anti trans until she came out.
https://www.fastcompany.com/91126082/elon-musk-x-cisgender-cis-slur https://www.fastcompany.com/91126082/elon-musk-x-cisgender-c...
That's true in good part. But when it comes to leftist activists specifically, it's war for Musk. His son transitioning didn't exactly endear him to the ideology.
> But when it comes to leftist activists specifically, it's war for Musk. His son transitioning didn't exactly endear him to the ideology.
It isn't just a left issue. Liberatarians also don't really care about LGBT people expressing themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LGBT_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LG...
So Musk isn't libertarian nor left on social issues. He is conservative right. Although his exact philosophy is hard to pin down because he isn't really a supporter of the traditional family.
>Aren't racists a minority who struggle to express themselves?
No, because people acting with hate as motivator don’t care if they are within a social minority. They will cease any opportunity to use every aggression tool they have at their disposal to express loudly their will to oppress whoever looks like unaligned with their mindset.
This is in sharp contrast with minorities whose only wish is to live in a way that is aligned with with their own aspirations that perfectly fit in a specter of harmonious social differences even if it doesn’t fall right in the middle of the median mainstream stereotype.
Everybody is part of some minorities. But not everyone think that because they are a member of this or that minority they should be given some hegemony over everything and the rest in the political matter of their society.
How can being racist belong to a minority while literally being the force that elected a white supremacist like Donald Trump?
Moreover, it’s not that simple. Racists can express themselves. I was talking about racist discourse, not racists themselves. Racism is a hate speech, which has nothing to do with, for example, the right to enjoy one's body and have an abortion as a woman or the ability to express one's gender identity—something that, according to all scientific studies and meta-analyses on the subject, clearly improves the well-being of trans people.
I know very well that racists are experts at playing the victim and making it seem like they are the ones facing repression, but who runs the country? Who are the journalists on television? Are they women or men? White? Rich?
It’s outrageous to claim that the richest man in the world—Elon Musk, a racist, antisemitic, misogynistic white supremacist—is supposedly "censored" and unable to express himself freely! Remind me of a time in American history when a woman had as much power as Elon Musk over the country, or even over other countries (as we see with ALD in Germany)?
> Yes of course, why wouldnt I? Trying to understand that opinion and maybe bring us closer to agreeing on the underlying issues would be my first aim,
I think the promotion of liberalism and the lack of critical thinking has created a society of fanatics. For the vast majority of disagreements, it's good to try and understand other perspectives and to work towards compromise. What compromise should the German jews have offered the Nazis? What insights could they have gained from understanding the Nazi perspective?
> You can say anything you want, acting on it is what turns that into illegal activity.
Everything Hilter/Stalin did was legal. When families were gassed and thrown into ovens, that was legal. In fact, it was illegal to impede them. That started as somebody's political opinion, they were able to foment support for it, and it happened.
And finally, I understand what the law is in the US. The US basically allows any speech that doesn't threaten the government's monopoly on violence. I'm saying the Europeans are right to criminalize some political ideas. There's been no slippery slope in German because they don't let you wear swastikas.
"I am ready to pay 1000000 USD to anyone who tortures and/or kills you or anyone in your family in the most gruesome way."
Isn't that free speech?
Free speech doesn't allow you to say anything at all you know?
Calling for the eradication of people with certain sexual preferences or skin color for example.
Free speech doesnt have asterisks. If certain people say things that are undesireable to other certain people, they have to power to ignore them.
Free speech is a legal construction and it does in fact come with exceptions.
Child pornography, slander, and death threats are other examples of exceptions.
[flagged]
Anyone who has considered child porn speech is smoking something. We have agreed the act of taking pictures or videos of children in those situations to be illegal, it isn't about the meaning or speech a person may apply to that final product.
Slander and death threats are harder to define. You have to show an active plot to commit the crime, not just a statement. At that point the plot, the action you took, is the crime rather than your words.
> Free speech doesnt have asterisks.
Yeah it does, at least in America. You can't yell fire in a theatre and incite panic.
Also there is the paradox of tolerance.
Well that isn't quite right. The original idiom came out of an earlier supreme court ruling that was partially overturned by later rulings on the matter:
> Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout "fire" in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Incitement to violence is also permitted as long as it isn't immediate and/or likely. This is known as the Brandenburg Test:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
Well, according to Free Speech Absolutist Elon Musk it does. Which is why we're here, discussing this topic. Right now. And is the point of the person you quoted.
When Musk and people similar to him say "free speech", what they mean is their ability to say and do things without consequences. To them, the world only exists for them and their benefit, so someone disagreeing with them or them facing consequences for something they said is "silencing their free speech".
They also feel like they should be allowed to shut down other people's speech, because that is part of their idea of free speech. They should be allowed to tell you that you're not allowed to talk.
The more people understand that when people talk about "absolute free speech", it isn't a serious position, and is mostly held by people with this view, the better. I'm sure there are actual "free speech purists" out there, but they are few and far between. Instead it is mostly people using the guise of free speech so they can say and do what they want without consequences.
I does, like any other fundamental rights. Absolutely none are absolute.
You clearly don't know anything about actual law and rights.
In that case, even as an ideal, free speech does not exist. Someone can proclaim that I should be killed because of a certain opinion that I voice. Now there are only four outcomes to that scenario: (a) I take the threat seriously and stop voicing that opinion, in which case they have suppressed my freedom of speech; (b) I take the threat seriously and use it to suppress their freedom of speech, (c) I ignore the threat, yet someone else takes it seriously and, as a natural consequence of being dead, they have suppressed my freedom of speech; or (d) I ignore the threat and nothing happens, so nobody's freedom of speech is violated. The problem is, there is no guarantee of scenario (d). This leads to the freedom of speech being used as a tool to suppress the freedom of speech.
This is not a simple matter of people saying things that are undesirable, or even heretical. It is not a matter of someone saying something hateful, then ignoring them as a hater, because chances are they want to suppress the speech of those they hate.
Deciding what a company should say, or behave about speech, is subverting THEIR freedom of speech.
This is why the no asterisk position sets itself to implode.
The core defense of Free speech, one of the better articulated points is from Oliver Wendell Holmes. He articulates that free speech serves the search for truth, but the search for truth via the competition of ideas.
>that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,
This was his articulation in a sedition case brought by the government against citizens.
It is specifically in the case of government using its power to become a player in the market of ideas.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
[flagged]
Free speech does protect you to say whatever you want from government censorship. That's getting blurred here with most of the discussion circling around Twitter censorship.
I would still argue, though, that saying literally anything should be legal. Acting on hate speech, by plotting to commit a crime, may be illegal. The problem there is that you plotted a crime and in certain case that plot itself is illegal, it isn't about what you said but what you did.
Or burning a flag you don't like…
You can actually call for the eradication of certain groups in the US under the 1st amendment.
The limit is basically “speech which threatens imminent violence”.
So saying “we should kill all group X” is fine. Saying “lets go kill those people from group X standing on Main St at 2pm” is not ok.
This is the tricky line, isn't it?
Regardless of whether someone is entitled to free speech, is a private company bound to the constitutional protection?
My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can. The NY Times isn't required to write an article I submit to them for example, that's no different than Twitter deciding not to keep a post a write.
exactly. Once we stop treating TwiX like a public good but rather like the private website of a a gaming cheater with a lot of guests, things would be more obvious, wouldn't it?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply on an incediary topic.
I agree with your viewpoint I think, but Im sure as always there are some edge cases which make this definition difficult.
Tricky? Not really.
Difficult? Yes.
> My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can.
Then you have no free speech. I can just refuse you internet access, or not sell ink and paper to you…
So my take is that no, it should not be allowed to private companies to censor arbitrarily. And of course an "algorithm" that sorts stuff in any other way than chronologically is censorship. The feed should just show chronological ordered stuff of followed accounts. No more and no less.
Then you do not have free speech, since this is what the rules of free speech are.
They are about ensuring that the government doesnt use its unique powers of force to ensure that certain ideas are not shared or discussed.
What the current government is doing, with Fox + Twitter, is fundamentally the opposite of free speech. They have the power to say something, then pretend it is true, and act on it.
Its not a fair fight.
No one is required to help me spread my speech. The only protection is against governments censoring what their citizens say.
Don't sell me paper. Cut off my internet. That doesn't stop me from saying whatever I want, whether in public or private.
How you don't understand that the point of free speech is the ability to be heard by others, and if you're shadow-banned you're effectively just writing a private diary?
I mean, ok you have this right. What do you think was the INTENTION of this right? Do you think they intended for people to freely mumble to themselves or to tell their ideas to others?
You seem to have an incomplete understanding.
Freedom of Speech goes hand in hand with Freedom of Association. You are free to speak and spread your ideas, you are not free to compel others to help you to do so and you are not entitled to an audience.
I don’t have to let you stand on my porch to speak anymore than Instagram has to allow you to post things or Costco has to allow you to hold lectures in the food court.
> The NY Times isn't required to write an article I submit to them for example, that's no different than Twitter deciding not to keep a post a write
I generally agree with your point about private companies and the 1A.
However, the NYT and Twitter/X are fundamentally different in that the NYT is not a user platform but rather a media company who decides what it wants to publish--meaning that is it's stated goal. Twitter/X stated goal is to provide a platform for users to publish whatever they want to say. Now, Twitter/X can have a policy saying "here's a platform where you can say whatever you want except for X, Y and Z" and that's fine. Just like HN has policies. As long as it's clear and transparent as to what they are allowing or disallowing, then users are informed enough to know what they're going to get when they log on to X. Just like I know what I'm going to get if I visit Fox News.
Prior to Elon, Twitter's policies were stricter and so there was a lot less "hate speech" (for lack of a better term). Those guardrails are gone, since for one Elon fired the whole moderation team, and also because of Elon's own immature posts setting the example, it's devolved into a reddit-style cesspool so I decided not to go there anymore.
Banning links to Signal would be no big deal if Elon hadn't loudly proclaimed himself as the "defender of free speech" and demonized the "censorship" of Twitter.
We pretty much agree here. The contradiction of claiming free speech while doing things like banning Signal links is frustrating for sure.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but I've gotten too cynical to believe any company or rich individual making a business deal to actually tell the truth - its all marketing at that point.
> Are the people with these views not also entitled to free speech and equal rights to express themselves the same as everybody else?
Free speech and equal rights in a legal sense, meaning staying out of jail? Sure, with caveats about threats and abuse.
Free to use a private platform? No, nobody's entitled to the support of someone else's private platform. Equal rights are about protection from the state, not from others' opinions.
Platforms themselves also have speech-based rights. Even if one portrays itself as a neutral 'town square,' it puts its own rights to work as soon as it implements an algorithmic feed, implicitly deciding what content to promote or hide.
You are entitled to your opinion: good, bad, or irrelevant. You are entitled to your words. You are not entitled to an audience.
> You are entitled to your opinion: good, bad, or irrelevant. You are entitled to your words. You are not entitled to an audience.
Brilliant statement, I fully agree.
The issue is who chooses to give them an audience. IMO it is up to the audience not to listen, but it seems to be the opinion of a lot of people here that gatekeepers (companies) should have the power to decide that and 'protect' their audience from it. That IMO is anti free speech, as the 'protect' part of the term is abiguous/subjective and depends on the beliefs/opinions of the gatekeepers.
If a firm decides to be pro or anti free speech. That is their choice.
If their choices were unpopular, people would flock to alternatives. They don't.
Which puts a hole into the underlying theory. If people do not naturally gravitate towards alternative ideas, and network effects keep people in one place, then these networks should be made government owned.
Firms have a right to their property, and the choices of how they maximize revenue on it.
I mean, should the head of a media firm be threatened by the Government or President, and forced to comply with their preferred style of gatekeeping?
> If their choices were unpopular, people would flock to alternatives. They don't.
What you are saying is actively happening right now.
Certain people dont like that another certain group of people have been allowed back onto Twitter, and so they are going in droves to Mastodon/Bluesky/Threads/TruthSocial etc.
Twitter has received an 87% drop in revenue since reinstating previously blocked accounts.
Id say people are flocking to alternatives.
This is creating an extremely fragmented society, all creating their own bubble of what they want to see. History has shown that where this happens it increases aggression and intense reaction, where people are not used to seeing things they disagree with and so when they do they react more violently.
> Firms have a right to their property, and the choices of how they maximize revenue on it.
Of course they do, but what this generally turns into in the modern age is 'The left doesnt like what the right have to say, block them plz". Then this turns into a political argument, when in fact one group of people just dont want to hear what a different group of people have to say because 'it offends them'.
> I mean, should the head of a media firm be threatened by the Government or President, and forced to comply with their preferred style of gatekeeping?
We have rules and laws to prevent this as it is recognised as being a threat.
>>> If their choices were unpopular, people would flock to alternatives. They don't.
>What you are saying is actively happening right now.
Oh. I am wrong.
SO we don't need to enforce rules on free speech, People are able to choose who to interact with.
>This is creating an extremely fragmented society, all creating their own bubble of what they want to see
So we SHOULD enforce rules of free speech, because people dont want to hear what others are saying?
So we should have free speech, but we should control listening?
>We have rules and laws to prevent this as it is recognised as being a threat.
Wait really? Someone is suing the President for threatening Meta/Zuckerberg? Who?
Would you be on board with launching a lawsuit against a government which threatened a media firm ?
To be honest, I have no idea what opinion you are trying to form here. You are twisting and turning my words all over the place and I am unable to gather your thoughts into a coherent point.
You seem to be trying to pin me down to an opinion, and Im not really sure why. Do I, a random person on the internet, matter to you that much that you need to clarify my exact opinion on stuff?
Sure, let me summarize.
Your position:
>Your position:
>… t and 'protect' their audience from it. That IMO is anti free speech, as the 'protect' part of the term is abiguous/subjective and depends on the beliefs/opinions of the gatekeepers.
Your position ignores the rights given to firms to run their business, and the choice of their speech via citizens united.
Firms have a right to do what they please, as long as it is legal.
You dont like what firms do.
You want to make them behave a certain way. You are asking the government to force them to do so.
This kills free speech.
——-
The position that you set up, is inherently in contradiction to the norms of reality. I am a policy person and understand the trade offs here intimately, which is leading to me playing fast and loose, resulting in confusion.
And yes - you matter to me. Why shouldn’t you? You seem intelligent, or if not, you value looking intelligent.
It would be interesting to see how you resolve the contradiction that your position throws up.
———
No, this is paradox of Tolerance 101.
Even in his dissenting opinion in Abrams vs the United States, Holmes valued not free speech, but the market place of ideas - the competition of ideas that underlies the search for truth.
Slavishly sticking to free speech, and destroying the market of ideas - creating a monopilist propaganda force, with a symbiotic political party is NOT free speech.
Today we have far more information than any of the founders had anticipated. Monopolies of ideas, far more content than fact, the race to the bottom due to advertising - a source of stress in every pocket?
Yeah, your network is going to have a very specific signal to noise ratio. Your market place of ideas is going to be selling junk food, because its cheap and easy to make.
The idea of counter speech works, if counter speech is heard in the first place. If your message never gets to the other side, or the other party is completely enraged and unable to think past their fears - you have no market place of ideas.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48366184 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48366184
You should perhaps do more research before making claims like "flat out falsehood".
Even this article doesn’t go out of its way to say that’s why she was banned - this is according to her. Even if this terrible source were true and you found a single case - it doesnt change the fact at all at what I said, the single loudest feminist anti trans voice is still alive and well on twitter and has never faced a lick of censorship on twitter or now X. So yea, it’s a falsehood. Musk didnt “change” anything here. It’s revisionist nonsense.
I could search X and provide many more examples, including from feminists who appealed and were unbanned after Musk took over the company, others from screenshots posted of emails with the reason for the ban.
Would that change your view?
The original claim:
“before musk you as a feminist could not state (common anti trans positions held by feminists of a certain flavor)”
I provided the single biggest counterexample ever in JK rowling, so the original post is either a falsehood (I believe so) or very wrong, hope that’s more clear to you, since you seem to have issues following here.
You could search it yet you don’t provide those examples here which is why I’m not taking anything you’re saying in good faith because it isn’t. if you’re curious why I think that, read again the first part of this comment.
It seems to me that you've misread my original comment as stating that all feminists who spoke out against the misogyny of gender identity ideology on Twitter were banned. This isn't what I said or what I meant. To elaborate a bit more: in addition to the then-permanent bans, there was also a considerable amount of self-censorship amongst those who hadn't been banned (or had only been temporarily suspended), to avoid wording their views in such a way that may be disfavoured by Twitter's censorial policies.
JKR is an interesting counterexample for a number of reasons. One is that she was very careful and tempered in her language, as one may expect from an expert writer and of someone with her keen perception of language. If you search her tweets on this topic prior to Musk's ownership (e.g. "from:jk_rowling until:2022-04-14 trans" in the X search box) you'll see what I mean. Another is that she spoke out on this topic fairly late on, and so would have witnessed the censorship and been aware of how best to express her views around these limitations. There is also the fact that hers is and was one of Twitter's most-followed accounts and in practice that would give her more leeway in terms of freedom of expression.
I could search X to confirm to you what I personally witnessed with regard to feminists who aren't JKR being censored and banned, but that would take some effort and I'm not yet convinced that it would be worth it, given that you're engaging with an attitude of aggressive cross-examination rather than curiosity and open-mindedness. This is also why I enquired as to if it might change your view.
I mean, congratulations you’ve explained why the Speechers criticising Twitter were always wrong on this point, but Twitter has now been taken over by people who’ve been pushing a very unamerican idea of free speech so it’s fair game to point out they’re trying to prevent people from using the very system that DOGE runs on.
> Freedom of speech, at least in the US, is a concern specifically with the government censoring citizens' speech.
Well, no -- you're conflating "freedom of speech" as a general concept with the first amendment as a legal principle. The first amendment is specifically the mechanism of law we use to ensure that freedom of speech is respected in our interactions with the political state.
The first amendment doesn't apply to our interactions with each other outside of the political sphere, but that doesn't mean that we don't also have expectations of conduct and cultural norms that uphold freedom of speech via other means in non-government contexts.
You're right, and that's were the double standards come in.
Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case)
Also progressives: Freedom of speech has its limits
Pick a lane.
Elon described himself as a free speech absolutist. There is no inconsistency in pointing out that his actions don’t align with this description, regardless of whether or not the person doing so is themselves a free speech absolutist.
Shifting the goal posts.
The attacks on Musk are almost always that he doesn’t support freedom of speech, without any qualification.
If you’re trying to attack the much narrower position that he’s not a free speech absolutist you need to do it at the time your make the criticism, not retrospectively after you make the allegation.
I don't think so. Twitter before Musk had all kinds of TOS that obviously blocked speech that would be protected by the First Amendment. No-one is saying that Twitter used to be a free speech absolutist free-for-all before Musk took over. They're saying two things. First, that his actions don't match his stated intentions. Second, that he is heavily biased towards unblocking far right accounts.
> Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case)
No, it's "Elon claims to be a free speech absolutist yet somehow keeps denying freedom of speech to people who disagree with him". The hypocrisy is the problem.
Here is my lane: Elon is a hypocrite. He bought twitter in the name of "free speech," then removes any speech he doesn't like.
His actions are inconsistent, and this one of many demonstrations that he doesn't care at all about liberty. That matters because he's now apparently in charge of every federal government agency.
Your definitions of social norms ass backwards.
Cultural norms dictate some modicum of restraint on everyone. You have no obligation to tolerate me if I call your wife a whore. Any given community has its social norms that dictate what you can and can't say. To force them to accept "unacceptable" speech would violate freedom of speech itself.
No, that's not quite correct. A lot of subcultures and echo-chamber type social contexts certainly do have extreme policing of extremely particular taboo subject matters, but in more general contexts, especially in American society, there's a strong expectation that people ought to be able to speak their mind without excessive interference, and there's usually a high bar to what constitutes subject matters taboo enough to restrict or exclude people for engaging with, along with social norms that often regard excessive policing of other people's expression as itself taboo.
No there isn't. You can't, rightfully, campaign to make rape legal for a day without your life being ruined through ostracization. I wouldn't want to be associated with such a person. And that is in public.
In private you have severe restrictions on speech and expressions. Workplaces, stores, and schools have codes of conduct, dress codes, etc. to restrict expression.
What you call "extremely taboo subjects" is relative, based on your own biases and beliefs. "Woman should be more active in public life" is not an "extreme" view, even in more conservative sections of society. But in Ultra-orthodox jewish communities, or isolationist muslim communities, or even many christian sects, this would be controversial statement.
If a member faces social consequences for these statements, it is not a violation of their right to free speech. Nobody is obligated to tolerate you, no matter how in the right you may be. You can't force society to be on your side.
You might say, "But these social norms are repressive and harmful." Well then change them through activism. Stop whining about "free speech violations". That is, again, ass backwards.
When Mr. Musk describes X as "the last bastion of free speech" or similar what do you think he refers to?
> In practice, the law not taking this seriously is how a lot of women in abusive relationships die
Yes agreed, and its also the reason we have an innocent until proven guilty justice system.
Things can be said in anger, and not really meant. In fact I would wager out of all the death threats made in the entire world, the vast majority are said in anger and not meant to be followed through on. This is why we dont lock people up for just saying things. There needs to be other motives and evidence behind it to show intent.
Unfortunately yes this means we have situations where people are not believed and go on to receieve harm. Humanity has decided as a society that this is less harmful than locking far too many innocent people up by mistake. I do not have an opinion on whether this is right or wrong, but it is what exists for us and created by us.
If you have a better idea for a more fair justice system then go advocate for it, but the whole history of humanity hasnt found one yet.
> Things can be said in anger, and not really meant. In fact I would wager out of all the death threats made in the entire world, the vast majority are said in anger and not meant to be followed through on. This is why we dont lock people up for just saying things. There needs to be other motives and evidence behind it to show intent.
You are incorrect, at least in California
https://www.cronisraelsandstark.com/criminal-threats-california-penal-code-422#:~:text=California%20Penal%20Code%20422%20is,imprisonment%20in%20the%20state%20prison. https://www.cronisraelsandstark.com/criminal-threats-califor...
> If they pick up a gun and shoot at me then that becomes illegal
While I appreciate your free speech maximalism, I can't help but feel you're shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
My feeling is that someone should be allowed to say that they hate me, and that they'd like to kill me. All the same, if I think they'll actually attempt to do so then I'm ok with the law trying to prevent it.
I'm fact I'm glad that they're allowed to express themselves like this because then I know who not to stand near cliff edges with.
For real though I think a lot (but not all) of opposition to things like hate speech is really an opposition to the feeling being expressed, rather than the expression itself. I'd prefer someone didn't have hatred in their heart, but once they do I prefer that they're open about it.
(You might say that that will only encourage others to become hateful, I don't necessarily agree, but it's a fair concern.)
I really like your opinion, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I agree with what you are saying.
> if I think they'll actually attempt to do so then I'm ok with the law trying to prevent it.
This is the sticky issue which nobody is able to solve though. How do you prove someone will actually attemt to do it? Currently the legal system requires more than them just saying it to prosecute. There needs to be more motive, or evidence of actual persistent stalking or harm.
What do you think makes the difference between an idle threat and an actual intention of harm?
I don't have a good idea for how to determine whether a threat is sincere or not, or whether or not either party believes it to be so.
On the other hand, it may not be necessary. When I say the law can try to prevent my murder, I don't necessarily mean to deprive my would-be murder of liberty or privacy (since those should be protected in the absence of proven guilt). If you put the prevention on the other side, and offer e.g. a police escort or enforced blocks on communication media then maybe you can discourage/prevent my murder without answering difficult questions like intent.
You might well say, "I shouldn't have to do any of that, they should have to not murder", or "that's all fine but who's going to pay". I have a most marvellous answer to those, but is comment is too small to contain it.
Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am enjoying mulling over your responses.
> You might well say...
Well indeed I do say who is going to pay. If we had a society where you could get your own police escort or phone block just by saying that someone threatened you, I feel that service would be open to abuse and would end up costing the taxpayer a whole lot.
> I have a most marvellous answer to those
Please retort your answer, I am intrigued :)
> The definition of "hate speech" is unclear and a made-up word to make people feel bad for being angry
Buddy, do a little bit of googling before you say plainly incorrect stuff like this. [1] [2]
Just because there’s not a single definition of a word does not mean the meaning of the word is unclear.
I think everyone on the planet could identify the vast majority of hate speech from the age of like 11. They say the edgiest stuff, after all.
Even if you agree with hate speech, you can still identify it.
Also like… all words are made-up
1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
> Just because there’s not a single definition of a word does not mean the meaning of the word is unclear.
So, from the opposite direction, I have the same issue as the other commentator but with the divergent use of the word "woke" by those mostly on the right (and sarcastically by those on the left) — if the person hearing/reading it doesn't know what to expect, it's not a useful word.
Therefore, while I know what I mean by "hate speech" (demonising/dehumanising a group), I tend to avoid using the term as it doesn't successfully replicate my thoughts into the heads of other people.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
You seem incredibly intereseted in my opinion. Do I really need to give you a rundown of all high profile murdereres and paedophiles and what I think of them?
> You overestimate the power of your mind
No I dont. I am fully aware of mine and everybody elses weakness and bias.
> But it doesn’t matter because free speech over all?
Exactly!
I think you are overestimating your opinion, you come across as if you know everything thats right and wrong and everybody should have the same opinion as you.
Luckily for myself and free speech, opinions are subjective. Here you are trying your hardest to offend me and back me into a corner about what I think.
Yet my overarching opinion is that you are free to say anything you like about me. I have no issue with your opinions, and if you didnt have issue with mine this would be a much nicer world to live in.
Try tolerence of other peoples opinions sometime, even if you dont agree with them. Its actually quite refreshing and liberating.
Thanks for the link, I'll have a read through of that.
> Correct, they can talk about it all they want but cant act on it.
"Election".
Action very easy. They do it a lot. Did it this time, even, despite what they say.
> He didnt.
He did.
Here's the lawsuit that X Corp. filed: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.383454/gov.uscourts.txnd.383454.1.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...
That is him doing the thing.
>If free speech has no limit, that means you can't prevent people from arguing against the end of free speech.
As a more general approach to freedom, we can consider that freedom can only begin where it confirms others’ freedom. If we don’t act with reciprocity in mind, we are on the track to build some kind of hegemony, not to establish a society of free people.
> I was simply pointing out two common misconceptions.
With regard to falsely shouting fire, there are no common misconceptions. The common understanding of the saying is identical with the understanding in the judgment, and that part of the judgment remains good law.
However, there is a modern meme that strives to obscure this reality by pointing out that the judgment reached conclusions that modern people generally disapprove of. This has no relevance to the issue.
Fair enough.
> You want to make them behave a certain way. You are asking the government to force them to do so.
Im actually not doing that. I dont know where I gave you that impression but I do not believe the government should force any company to allow full free speech on their commercial platform.
> Your position ignores the rights given to firms to run their business, and the choice of their speech via citizens united.
We are talking about twitter here in this context, which has been many times quoted as saying they are upholding free speech. The opinions you are referencing here apply to that company because that is what they state. Im not talking about all companies and their right to control what people say on their platforms, I feel this is more of an ideological discussion around Twitter/any social media which claims to uphold free speech in their public forum.
Therefore the contradiction does not really exist IMO, because they are being held to their own values and not mine.
Interesting thought experiment, I enjoyed chewing that over for a bit. Thanks :)
Ok. Sure, so I think my error was based on my over extrapolation from this:
>people here that gatekeepers (companies) should have the power to decide that and 'protect' their audience from it. That IMO is anti free speech, as the 'protect' part of the term is abiguous/subjective and depends on the beliefs/opinions of the gatekeepers.
Gatekeeping would be a right of platforms and I assumed that combating it would involve forcing them to behave in accordance with an external force.
And Since you are discussing only twitter, it does follow that Twitter has an anti-speech position, despite their stated intentions.
——-
For a bit more fun, I think what X was proclaiming is the naive version of free speech. The kind of “anyone can make this app” naive over generalization.
I have a mechanism which allows me to balance the needs of moderation and censorship with free speech. Its an interesting exercise, I think you might like working through it.
From personal experience - I have had to ban people, and it was a form of censorship. Resolving this contradiction effectively changed my career path.
So I have a 1000 users on my forum. One user is incredibly active, and spends their time abusing a specific local minority group.
Things like X minority needs to die, not arguing in good faith.
Now, ideally I shouldn’t ban him, and let counter speech do its things. But since they aren’t arguing in good faith, counter speech doesn’t work.
Over time, this is also creating second order effects in other conversations.
It’s attracting a new kind of user, its driving conversations to be more polarized, and its reducing time spent on longer more thoughtful posts.
How would you respond, and why?
> This is creating an extremely fragmented society, all creating their own bubble of what they want to see
It has always been thus. E.g. right wingers did not use twitter back in 2021.
I will grant it's getting worse though... for instance, the battle here on hackernews between left and right has strongly intensified and it looks like the left will win the downvote/flagging war and the right will stop posting in (and reading) political threads.
That's a generalization that I think you'll find hard to back up with evidence. I'm the progressive you're discussing this with right now, and I don't think I've said anything inconsistent. But I'll respond to your imagination's idea of what "progressives" must be saying anyway.
The statements "Elon Musk Musk doesn't care about free speech because he doesn't allow (edge case)." and "Free speech has limits." Are non-contradictory.
Additionally, not allowing links to Signal isn't an "edge case," but a considerable offense against free speech (the general concept, not the literal law in the constitution), especially for one who calls himself a "free speech absolutist."
> No there isn't. You can't, rightfully, campaign to make rape legal for a day without your life being ruined through ostracization.
You can't control what other opinions people will have of you, or suppress their expression of those opinions, that's true. But that itself is part and parcel of freedom of speech. The social consequences of expressing opinions that other people find offensive or disgusting are yours to bear, and may indeed motivate others to want to have little to do with you.
But this is juxtaposed against an expectation of freedom of speech as a cultural norm -- the point above is precisely that the way this is expressed in other contexts is different from the way it's expressed with respect to the political state. So we do have an expectation that formal institutions will not engage in prior restraint, or punish people for speech itself within most (but not necessarily all) categories, etc.
For example, people might find it reasonable that someone be dismissed from a job for making overtly racist comments in the office. But the same people would consider it inappropriate if, for example, an employee was fired for expressing that he does not like the boss's favorite movie.
There are absolutely different boundaries and different weighing of consequences between how we apply the norm of freedom of speech to political vs. social situations, but to say that we do not adhere to freedom of speech as a cultural norm at all is quite incorrect.