4 ms·

Depends on what you consider free speech to be I suppose. The left side of the political spectrum has for a very long time advocated for an interpretation of 1A

• uhgfdrt 2y ago
  > left side of the political spectrum has for a very long time advocated for an interpretation of 1A that is "free as in liberty" while the right prefers a "free as in anarchy" approach. This is incredibly incorrect. > right prefers a "free as in anarchy" The right wing of USA politics claims this but clearly act in opposition to this claim. Also, “anarchy” is the most extreme is “leftist” politics.
  • eru 2y ago
    > Also, “anarchy” is the most extreme is “leftist” politics. Depends on what you mean by 'left' and 'anarchy'. See eg anarcho-capitalists as an example that most people would see as 'right' and that uses the term 'anarchy'. (I'm explicitly not saying that their use of 'anarchy' is the correct definition of the term, just pointing out that at least a substantial number of people use a definition of 'anarchy' that makes this concept possible for them.)
    • some_furry 2y ago
      Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism creates hierarchies. Anarchy is a rejection of hierarchies, because it creates rulers.
      • dartos 2y ago
        Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? How could you enforce communism under anarchy?
        • dragonwriter 2y ago
          > Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? Communism implies anarchism. > How could you enforce communism under anarchy? Communism, as a state, is the hypothetical self-sustaining stateless end-state envisioned by Communism, the ideology. Socialism (an intermediate state in the theory), and State Capitalism (an intermediate state—and one most real regimes claiming Communist ideology get stuck in—in practice) may need enforcement, Communism, almost by definition, does not (whether it os attainable is, of course, a different question.)
          • x-complexity 2y ago
            > > Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? > Communism implies anarchism. The economic system of communism in no way implies that it would be achieved via anarchic means; It only outlines that the participants in the system share resources towards achieving the common goals of everyone involved. How it should be done has been left as an unfortunate "left as an exercise to the reader". Anarchic forces may be one way of doing so, but it is in no way implied by communism.
          • dartos 2y ago
            > Communism implies anarchism How so? Communism, as a state, requires rules. By that virtue, it’s not anarchy. Communism as the utopian ideal I suppose could be considered anarchy, but in reality that would never happen, so IMO not really worth discussing.
            • s1artibartfast 2y ago
              Communists (believers in communism) set up socialist states. A communist state would be decentralized and voluntary. The two are often conflated, but this fact is fundamental to communist philosophy, economics, and literature. The USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not "Communist Republics" As a term, communist state is used by Western historians, political scientists, and media to refer to these countries. However, these states do not describe themselves as communist nor do they claim to have achieved communism — they refer to themselves as socialist states that are in the process of constructing socialism and progressing toward a communist society.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state
  • Spivak 2y ago
    I guess you could read the word anarchy that way but the phrase "as in anarchy" has caught on to describe the notion of a thing being unrestricted on an individual level so that's what I went with. It's the common usage of the word and bares no intended relation to The Anarchist movement. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the matter if you don't believe this is a fair assessment of each side's ideals. I do agree that how it plays out in practice is always going to be much messier once those ideals are filtered through humans who are by nature imperfect.
    • CobrastanJorji 2y ago
      You two agree on what the right claims its position is. However, the Republicans are passing a bill called "Take It Down" that the Republican President told a joint session of congress he intends to use specifically to remove speech against him. This is clearly not demonstrative of a "free as in anarchy" position on speech. Same thing happened with Elon Musk. When taking over Twitter, he described himself as a "free speech absolutist," which is the same as "free as in anarchy," but in practice he bans speech against his interest liberally, for example automatically removing any post that uses the word "cisgender," but also deleting tweets from reporters that he dislikes.
      • stouset 2y ago
        Also restricting videos that parody him. The right believes in “free speech for me but not for thee”. Which isn’t compatible with any good faith attempt at a definition.
        • userbinator 2y ago
          So does the left.
          • CobrastanJorji 2y ago
            No, sir. Democrats have done lots of stuff that's not great for free speech. For example, when in charge of the government, they've worked together with obliging social media companies to remove what they considered foreign misinformation. But stuff like that is absolutely nothing compared to what's happening now, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I can't think of a single thing Democrats have done in the last hundred years that is even in the same league as the President's promise to use the "Take It Down" Act to silence criticism, and I'll bet you can't either.
  • dartos 2y ago
    > Also, “anarchy” is the most extreme is “leftist” politics What? No it’s not. Anarchy is the extreme libertarian position. The smallest possible form of governance is anarchy. The extreme left is total communism, where everything is controlled in order to ensure a minimum standard of living.
    • mplanchard 2y ago
      You’re wrong, which is why you’re being downvoted. A decent intro to the topic on the anarchist side is Chomsky’s On Anarchism
      • dartos 2y ago
        I’ve been right and have been downvoted too ;) But I’m not an expert on this topic. How is anarchy not the extreme libertarian position?
        • rat87 2y ago
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism Vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism > While the earliest extant attestation of "anarchocapitalism" [sic] is in Karl Hess's essay "The Death of Politics" published by Playboy in March 1969,[8][9] American economist Murray Rothbard was credited with coining the terms anarcho-capitalist[10][11] and anarcho-capitalism in 1971 Left wing anarchism used the name much earlier and arguably was more influential historically even in the US. For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_William_McKinley https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_William_McK... was done by a left wing anarchist. But arguably in the US it might be used more often to refer to anarcho capitalists these days I believe there's a similar sort of issue with the term libertarianism that was at least sometimes used to refer to something similar to anarcho Communism
          • dartos 2y ago
            My understanding of the main libertarianism is that it calls for extremely small government with minimal impact on the lives of individuals. This seems pretty in line with anarchy. I know that in the US “libertarians” tend to be fairly right leaning, but I don’t think that “libertarian” means “republican” Maybe the confusion is just over semantics.
  • foul 2y ago
    >The right wing of USA politics claims this but clearly act in opposition to this claim. Not at all. They just immediately embraced war dynamics. USA conservatives and libertarians (stop referring to right wing and leftism in USA, it makes no sense) view anarchy as their chance to fight for a fief or a monarchy. EDIT: >Also, “anarchy” is the most extreme is “leftist” politics. Not really, it depends on whether you mean Bakunin and Foucault, or Thoreau, Stirner and Rand
• hayst4ck 2y ago
  I think it's more fair to say that liberals believe that the 1A protects speaking truth to power, while the conservative idea is more the 1A protects saying things people don't like. America's founding fathers were absolutely raging liberals, and within the countries founding document -- the declaration of independence, the liberal idea of "social contract" was encoded. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) Liberals are suspicious of speech that violates the social contract, such as speech that is a prelude to violating other people's, like transgender people's, pursuit of life liberty or the pursuit of happiness. If you use your right to speech as a prelude to stripping other people of their rights, it is right for there to be consequences. The social contract in fact demands at least some degree of consequences, otherwise the social contract is useless because it's purpose is fundamentally to protect rights. In a democracy, should people be allowed to vote for a dictator who promises to dissolve the government? That's a really rough philosophical question. I consent to a democracy, but I don't consent to a monarchy. It's the paradox of democracy and paradox of the idea of a government that exists primarily to protect rights.
  • teh_infallible 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • hayst4ck 2y ago
      Why do you think that is? What do you think the end goal and justification is for using coercive force against someone resisting vaccines or coercive force against polluting companies?
      • userbinator 2y ago
        "The truth does not resist questioning."
        • hayst4ck 2y ago
          Only between people acting in good faith.
• userbinator 2y ago
  The last administration was far from perfect but I think they upheld their view of free speech quite well in terms of policy. The last administration: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/sunsetting-section-230-will-hurt-internet-users-not-big-tech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/sunsetting-section-230...
  • Arainach 2y ago
    That article doesn't mention the executive branch at any point.
• Dracophoenix 2y ago
  > The left side of the political spectrum has for a very long time advocated for an interpretation of 1A that is "free as in liberty" while the right prefers a "free as in anarchy" approach. You may have it backwards, depending on one's definitions of "left" and "right". It was Berkley's Free Speech Movement, largely composed of leftist students and sympathizers, that kickstarted the "free as in anarchy" approach to speech in its modern incarnation. And anarchy is not even an exaggeration as many of its members occupied buildings, engaged in shut-ins and shut downs of privately owned businesses, as well as mounted police cars when one of their members were arrested. In many ways, this is the style of freedom the internet offered at its earliest and most fringe.
  • foul 2y ago
    It wouldn't be backwards, more like bipartisan. Furthermore, when assimilated by the Democratic party, the "free speech as in anarchy" idea got war dynamics (pragmatism in accepting persons and accepting the unacceptable) in the same way it has always been thought in the Republican side.
  • alwayslikethis 2y ago
    > And anarchy is not even an exaggeration as many of its members occupied buildings, engaged in shut-ins and shut downs of privately owned businesses, as well as mounted police cars when one of their members were arrested As far as I can tell, freedom of speech never extended to actions. "Free as in anarchy" is more like being able to shout insults, offensive, blasphemous, and politically incorrect, or deliberately misleading speech.
  • y0eswddl 2y ago
    [dead]