4 ms·

Might be a strawman, but it seems this kind of person reverses the order of time. People worrying about free speech before (and now in the UK) are ignored, cal

Might be a strawman, but it seems this kind of person reverses the order of time. People worrying about free speech before (and now in the UK) are ignored, called hysterical etc ... yet the minute someone is worried about Orange Man it's legitimate worry and you are hypocritical if you feel schadenfreude a bit. Denialism is a real poison. Sided worryists/denialists are the real problem. I'm not sure how to call them out without engaging in the same games they play themselves. There are groups doing great work though, like the FSU in the UK.

_petronius 2y ago
I think this is confusing two things, intentionally: 1. Free speech in the public sphere includes the right of people offended by your speech to express that they are offended (to speak back). People like Toby Young (founder of the FSU), and those who decry "cancel culture" do not like this, but it is part of what constitutes genuine free expression. 2. Free speech against the government, which the government should not be allowed to punish people for, to enable a pluralistic and democratic society. E.g. someone like Mahmoud Khalil who was recently arrested for his political views on Palestine (in violation of both the principles of free speech and his rights as a green card holder). People angry about #1 (arguing) tend to conflate it with #2 (genuine censorship), and accuse people who accuse those approximately equal (or less) in power than them as equivalent to draconian speech-controllers. People angry about #2 are pointing out a genuine power imbalance, and the damage to democratic society. Elon Musk embodies this perfectly: he argues in favor of free speech when people tell him his opinions are objectionable, but actively censors speech on Twitter that he doesn't like. In one situation, he simply wants people to receive his speech without speaking back, in another, he wants to stifle discussion. Speech is not a unidirectional activity. In order for it to be valuable and protected, the act of speaking in public is the act of listening to criticisms of what you say.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  To add some nuance about the US’s 1st Amendment: it is not just speech against the government that is protected. It is that all speech is protected from the government. The government also is not allowed to imprison you or threaten you for speech about another private party, for example.
- suraci 2y ago
  pro-palestinian protestors were arrested under biden admin too, does it mean there's 'limited' free speech at the biden era? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2000-people-arrested-nationwide-palestinian-campus-protests-rcna150446 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2000-people-arrested-na... i mean, how much free it should be to be free speech, how far it can be 'limited' but still is free speech I'm not defending for trump or elon musk, in case you want to know it
  - Bolwin 2y ago
    Yes absolutely. The free speech of pro-palestine protestors has been restricted since the start
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    You actually think there’s no difference between Department of Homeland Security’s federal agents and a local municipal (or sometimes even campus) police force arresting someone? Arresting someone for a crime is obviously not a problem, and generally protestors commit all sorts of minor nuisance civil violations for which they get arrested, booked, and released — all of which must be done without regard to the content of the speech being exercised during the violation. Deploying federal officers to go hunt down specific individuals and then disappearing them across state lines and modifying their immigration status without due process is absolutely unequivocally in a totally different league. Trump has specifically said he’s going after people for the content of their speech. This is illegal and is totally different from what happened under Biden.
nindalf 2y ago
Randall Munroe explained freedom of speech better than I could - https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ You seem to be invoking the tired old trope of "both sides bad". But they're not. The government pardoning rioters and punishing law firms is not the same as individuals saying "you know what, fuck Roseanne Barr, I don't want to watch her show anymore." You're tying yourself in knots to establish a false equivalence between the two. But it's clear as day that they're not.
- scandox 2y ago
  Can you not see how what that XKCD says which sounds so reasonable and innocuous will look to the people on the receiving end: that they are being shamed by an aggressive, vocal minority because of the views they sincerely hold? That this intolerance or deplatorming or whatever it gets called is likely to start as mere people not liking what you say and end in burning? Maybe both sides aren't as bad as each other but they're sure as blind as each other.
  - kolektiv 2y ago
    What do you propose as an alternative? That people should have listen to/host a certain percentage of unpopular views regardless of will? There is nothing stopping you creating your own platform, or finding one where you're welcome - if that fails to get much traction, it's probably because your message isn't very popular, and the people opposed to it perhaps weren't a minority. What is it that you should do with, let's say, Nazis? Should the rest of society not make it clear that they consider them abhorrent?
    - scandox 2y ago
      There's no reason to reach for the Nazis. As an example they are the reverse of clarifying. What I've seen the last 15 years is both right and left aggressively hollowing out the centre. Views that would have been vaguely centre right in the Clinton era described as fascistic. Views that would have been faintly centre left treated as communist propaganda. And the contempt and hatred on both sides showed me that nobody despite their protestations would have any problem with their opponents being subjected to any kind of suppression if they had the power to do so... Edit: to answer your question I do not have the solution but I believe better psychology and more respect for the other view point is certainly the starting point.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

_petronius 2y ago

I think this is confusing two things, intentionally: 1. Free speech in the public sphere includes the right of people offended by your speech to express that they are offended (to speak back). People like Toby Young (founder of the FSU), and those who decry "cancel culture" do not like this, but it is part of what constitutes genuine free expression. 2. Free speech against the government, which the government should not be allowed to punish people for, to enable a pluralistic and democratic society. E.g. someone like Mahmoud Khalil who was recently arrested for his political views on Palestine (in violation of both the principles of free speech and his rights as a green card holder). People angry about #1 (arguing) tend to conflate it with #2 (genuine censorship), and accuse people who accuse those approximately equal (or less) in power than them as equivalent to draconian speech-controllers. People angry about #2 are pointing out a genuine power imbalance, and the damage to democratic society. Elon Musk embodies this perfectly: he argues in favor of free speech when people tell him his opinions are objectionable, but actively censors speech on Twitter that he doesn't like. In one situation, he simply wants people to receive his speech without speaking back, in another, he wants to stifle discussion. Speech is not a unidirectional activity. In order for it to be valuable and protected, the act of speaking in public is the act of listening to criticisms of what you say.

llamaimperative 2y ago
To add some nuance about the US’s 1st Amendment: it is not just speech against the government that is protected. It is that all speech is protected from the government. The government also is not allowed to imprison you or threaten you for speech about another private party, for example.
suraci 2y ago
pro-palestinian protestors were arrested under biden admin too, does it mean there's 'limited' free speech at the biden era? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2000-people-arrested-nationwide-palestinian-campus-protests-rcna150446 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2000-people-arrested-na... i mean, how much free it should be to be free speech, how far it can be 'limited' but still is free speech I'm not defending for trump or elon musk, in case you want to know it
- Bolwin 2y ago
  Yes absolutely. The free speech of pro-palestine protestors has been restricted since the start
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  You actually think there’s no difference between Department of Homeland Security’s federal agents and a local municipal (or sometimes even campus) police force arresting someone? Arresting someone for a crime is obviously not a problem, and generally protestors commit all sorts of minor nuisance civil violations for which they get arrested, booked, and released — all of which must be done without regard to the content of the speech being exercised during the violation. Deploying federal officers to go hunt down specific individuals and then disappearing them across state lines and modifying their immigration status without due process is absolutely unequivocally in a totally different league. Trump has specifically said he’s going after people for the content of their speech. This is illegal and is totally different from what happened under Biden.

nindalf 2y ago

Randall Munroe explained freedom of speech better than I could - https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ You seem to be invoking the tired old trope of "both sides bad". But they're not. The government pardoning rioters and punishing law firms is not the same as individuals saying "you know what, fuck Roseanne Barr, I don't want to watch her show anymore." You're tying yourself in knots to establish a false equivalence between the two. But it's clear as day that they're not.

scandox 2y ago
Can you not see how what that XKCD says which sounds so reasonable and innocuous will look to the people on the receiving end: that they are being shamed by an aggressive, vocal minority because of the views they sincerely hold? That this intolerance or deplatorming or whatever it gets called is likely to start as mere people not liking what you say and end in burning? Maybe both sides aren't as bad as each other but they're sure as blind as each other.
- kolektiv 2y ago
  What do you propose as an alternative? That people should have listen to/host a certain percentage of unpopular views regardless of will? There is nothing stopping you creating your own platform, or finding one where you're welcome - if that fails to get much traction, it's probably because your message isn't very popular, and the people opposed to it perhaps weren't a minority. What is it that you should do with, let's say, Nazis? Should the rest of society not make it clear that they consider them abhorrent?
  - scandox 2y ago
    There's no reason to reach for the Nazis. As an example they are the reverse of clarifying. What I've seen the last 15 years is both right and left aggressively hollowing out the centre. Views that would have been vaguely centre right in the Clinton era described as fascistic. Views that would have been faintly centre left treated as communist propaganda. And the contempt and hatred on both sides showed me that nobody despite their protestations would have any problem with their opponents being subjected to any kind of suppression if they had the power to do so... Edit: to answer your question I do not have the solution but I believe better psychology and more respect for the other view point is certainly the starting point.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]