10 ms·

I'm not really convinced more than a vanishingly small percentage of people who self identify as "free speech absolutists" are using that term in good faith. Fr

I'm not really convinced more than a vanishingly small percentage of people who self identify as "free speech absolutists" are using that term in good faith. Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.

cyanydeez 2y ago
Most of them seem more like "freedom to fraud" or "freedom to incite violence" and speech is just the medium they need to do it.
echelon 2y ago
The current administration does not support free speech for everyone. It's actively punishing free speech. You're right -- many people who claim to support free speech really mean they favor "free speech for me, not for thee." And typically these people want to be able to say controversial things without consequence. But how people respond to speech is orthogonal to whether or not we are allowed to exercise our rights to it. The ACLU did "free speech absolutism" right back in the 90's and 00's. They defended everyone's speech, no matter the politics, no matter how socially right or wrong it was [1]. They'd step up to bat for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, and Satanists. Your views didn't matter. Defending the rights we all share was the point. Because when someone else's rights are degraded and not defended, it means everyone's rights are up for attack. Unfortunately the ACLU doesn't hold these same views today. They're batting for one team only. [1] They defended Westboro Baptist Church and NAMBLA, FFS. I definitely hate both of these organizations, but free speech is free speech. By defending even the most reprehensible speech, it ensures that mine remains free regardless of how the political pendulum swings. That's how it should be, anyway.
- _emacsomancer_ 2y ago
  [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - least 2y ago
    The Paradox of tolerance almost never means what the person invoking it as a rebuttal to free speech thinks it means. It's not some moral axiom that demands action to shut down problematic speech whenever it happens. It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold. The most frequently quoted text I've seen is Karl Popper's writing, where he states that we must reserve the right to suppress intolerant philosophies, not that we should always suppress them. Now, some people might have the opinion that we should be completely intolerant to intolerance and that might be a defendable position in its own right, but the paradox of tolerance is not intrinsically condoning that sort of response.
    - _emacsomancer_ 2y ago
      > ....It's not some moral axiom that demands action to shut down problematic speech whenever it happens. No, that would probably end up in a logical paradox, if one were intolerant of any degree of intolerance. > It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold. I don't know enough to have a particular position on the ACLU, but at least in theory an organisation defending free speech might decide that conditions have become such that defending certain things will lead to the inability to defend other things and choose to proceed differently on that basis.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    I think Popper would be quite sad with how people abuse his intend with stating it. Without a lot of context from Popper this principle isn't even a very good one and Popper certainly would agree here. It just displays that you didn't put time into it thinking it through, especially if you just distribute links.
- magicalist 2y ago
  eh, I'm not going to cast stones at people who will voice support for the right to reprehensible speech and will fight for a system that makes sure even people with reprehensible speech have recognized rights and can get legal representation, even while they personally do not want to represent nazis etc. That's not a moral failing. Suggesting a group is in some way a failure now because they don't use their speech how you think they should is, of course, at least a bit iffy while we're talking about this :) but FIRE is probably the group you're looking for today.
- galaxyLogic 2y ago
  It would be counter-intuitive if they defended the free speech of those who want to take away the free speech of others. Part of Free Speech is that it does not matter to have it if nobody hears you, maybe because your voice is drowned out by powerful media, serving the interests of the few. Therefore we need Equal Rights to free speech for everybody, especially when it comes to elections.
  - milesrout 2y ago
    No it wouldn't. Part of freedom of expression is the right to express opinions of any kind. That includes the view that freedom of expression should be limited: that is a perfectly legitimate opinion. >Therefore we need Equal Rights to free speech for everybody Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are entitled to a publicly funded megaphone or that anyone is required to listen to you.
    - galaxyLogic 2y ago
      I understand, constitution gives you the right to speak against free speech as well. I'm just saying it wouldn't make sense for ACLU to support people who want to take away your right to free speech. Also you're right that we can't give everybody the one hour of free speech on TV, can we?. But it is in the interest of the country as a whole that all viewpoints are heard. But if one person can buy all TV-stations then he will have free speech and nobody else really does. If nobody can hear you because somebody else is speaking so loudly, it doesn't matter if you have free speech or not. It used to be law that there are limits to how many millions one person or corporation can use to win elections. But seems that is no longer the case thanks to Supreme Court judges nominated by Republican presidents.
      - milesrout 2y ago
        >I'm just saying it wouldn't make sense for ACLU to support people who want to take away your right to free speech. It is supporting their right to freedom of speech, not supporting them, in my view. >But it is in the interest of the country as a whole that all viewpoints are heard. But if one person can buy all TV-stations then he will have free speech and nobody else really does. Did nobody have freedom of expression before television? Broadcast media is just one way of communicating ideas, and TV is a decreasingly relevant part of the media. TV is worse than it used to be largely because nobody really watches it anymore except for sports. >It used to be law that there are limits to how many millions one person or corporation can use to win elections. There is very little evidence that spending more on election advertising actually does anything. Hillary and Harris both spend much more than Trump and lost. Biden spent more and won. Obama spent less and won. The statistics across a wide range of elections at different scales don't show it having much effect. It is probably important to even be an option, but it doesn't win elections.
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
I don't think anyone identifies as "free speech absolutists" in the first place, except for Elon Musk one famous time. Strong free speech advocates remain about as common as they've always been, as far as I can tell - I suspect you just don't notice so much during times when the strongest threats to free speech are people and groups you're already inclined to oppose.
slibhb 2y ago
> Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics. And, for whatever it's worth, every vocal "free speech person" I know doesn't like the current administation. Some people actually just have principles!
- sapphicsnail 2y ago
  I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern about the government and media suppressing Gaza protestors or LGBTQ books being banned or anything else that affects the left. Doesn't seem very principled to me.
  - rtpg 2y ago
    I can't believe I'm going to say this but if you go over to reason.com and look at reporting on the visa stuff, there are a loooot of arguments going on in the comments. We're not even talking free speech absolutionists! Just like "normal"[0] conservatives being like "this is actually kind of messed up what's going on to these visa holders". Plenty of people happy to carry water for the admin as well. I just don't really have a great view of what people actually think about this issue. [0]: to be clear, I do not believe there are normal people on that website.
  - tetromino_ 2y ago
    > I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern ... Hi there. You are seeing one right now. Well, seeing the words of one. I am a free speech absolutist. What this administration is doing is abominable. I have always seen anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots, but Trump's crackdown on them is, imho, unconstitutional and immoral.
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      > anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots The problem with free speech absolutism is that it leads to the 'paradox of tolerance'. We are now seeing the fruits of that line of thinking. > The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
soulofmischief 2y ago
I know it's not your intention, but don't allow these people to control your perception of free speech advocates such that you're making blanket statements about them that might in turn color someone else's perception. They're hiding behind real free speech advocates, and powerful people are counting on stochastic comments like this one to help confuse the public.
jmyeet 2y ago
The only free speech absolutist in America is Noam Chomsky. He's the only one. Whenever conservatives talk about "free speech" just substitute "hate speech" because that's what they mean. Elon Musk has called himself a free speech absolutist while banning people from Twitter for hurting his feelings, for being journalists who are remotely critical of him, for making fun of him, for reporting ATC public data on the location of his private jet and for making jokes. The media is absolutely complicit in not challenging the countless lies told by Republicans. What didn't get a lot of attention is how Trump sued a bunch of media outlets (eg ABC/Disney) to defamation. These are cases he absolutely could not win on the merits. ABC presenter George Stephanopoulos made the on-air claim Trump was "liable for rape" after he lost the E. Jean Carroll case. Disney agreed to pay ~$16 million in what has all the apperances of a payoff.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  It's pretty amazing that out of 350 million people in the United States, the only one who is a free speech absolutist happens to be someone I've heard of.
lovich 2y ago
>Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more. They don't need to do any denials anymore because they have won. That was part of arguing in bad faith, they never actually believed the arguments. Nothing being discussed on a message board is going to change that
generalizations 2y ago
> Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more. Been a lot more hysterical on here as of late. Methinks there's less reason to discuss political things now.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
I don't think it fits completely, but for the sake of it, I am a free speech absolutist. I live in Europe for context. Your insinuations isn't really a good faith argument either but I gladly join that group of "these sorts of people" because they are obviously more sensible than the others.

cyanydeez 2y ago

Most of them seem more like "freedom to fraud" or "freedom to incite violence" and speech is just the medium they need to do it.

echelon 2y ago

The current administration does not support free speech for everyone. It's actively punishing free speech. You're right -- many people who claim to support free speech really mean they favor "free speech for me, not for thee." And typically these people want to be able to say controversial things without consequence. But how people respond to speech is orthogonal to whether or not we are allowed to exercise our rights to it. The ACLU did "free speech absolutism" right back in the 90's and 00's. They defended everyone's speech, no matter the politics, no matter how socially right or wrong it was [1]. They'd step up to bat for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, and Satanists. Your views didn't matter. Defending the rights we all share was the point. Because when someone else's rights are degraded and not defended, it means everyone's rights are up for attack. Unfortunately the ACLU doesn't hold these same views today. They're batting for one team only. [1] They defended Westboro Baptist Church and NAMBLA, FFS. I definitely hate both of these organizations, but free speech is free speech. By defending even the most reprehensible speech, it ensures that mine remains free regardless of how the political pendulum swings. That's how it should be, anyway.

_emacsomancer_ 2y ago
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- least 2y ago
  The Paradox of tolerance almost never means what the person invoking it as a rebuttal to free speech thinks it means. It's not some moral axiom that demands action to shut down problematic speech whenever it happens. It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold. The most frequently quoted text I've seen is Karl Popper's writing, where he states that we must reserve the right to suppress intolerant philosophies, not that we should always suppress them. Now, some people might have the opinion that we should be completely intolerant to intolerance and that might be a defendable position in its own right, but the paradox of tolerance is not intrinsically condoning that sort of response.
  - _emacsomancer_ 2y ago
    > ....It's not some moral axiom that demands action to shut down problematic speech whenever it happens. No, that would probably end up in a logical paradox, if one were intolerant of any degree of intolerance. > It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold. I don't know enough to have a particular position on the ACLU, but at least in theory an organisation defending free speech might decide that conditions have become such that defending certain things will lead to the inability to defend other things and choose to proceed differently on that basis.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  I think Popper would be quite sad with how people abuse his intend with stating it. Without a lot of context from Popper this principle isn't even a very good one and Popper certainly would agree here. It just displays that you didn't put time into it thinking it through, especially if you just distribute links.
magicalist 2y ago
eh, I'm not going to cast stones at people who will voice support for the right to reprehensible speech and will fight for a system that makes sure even people with reprehensible speech have recognized rights and can get legal representation, even while they personally do not want to represent nazis etc. That's not a moral failing. Suggesting a group is in some way a failure now because they don't use their speech how you think they should is, of course, at least a bit iffy while we're talking about this :) but FIRE is probably the group you're looking for today.
galaxyLogic 2y ago
It would be counter-intuitive if they defended the free speech of those who want to take away the free speech of others. Part of Free Speech is that it does not matter to have it if nobody hears you, maybe because your voice is drowned out by powerful media, serving the interests of the few. Therefore we need Equal Rights to free speech for everybody, especially when it comes to elections.
- milesrout 2y ago
  No it wouldn't. Part of freedom of expression is the right to express opinions of any kind. That includes the view that freedom of expression should be limited: that is a perfectly legitimate opinion. >Therefore we need Equal Rights to free speech for everybody Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are entitled to a publicly funded megaphone or that anyone is required to listen to you.
  - galaxyLogic 2y ago
    I understand, constitution gives you the right to speak against free speech as well. I'm just saying it wouldn't make sense for ACLU to support people who want to take away your right to free speech. Also you're right that we can't give everybody the one hour of free speech on TV, can we?. But it is in the interest of the country as a whole that all viewpoints are heard. But if one person can buy all TV-stations then he will have free speech and nobody else really does. If nobody can hear you because somebody else is speaking so loudly, it doesn't matter if you have free speech or not. It used to be law that there are limits to how many millions one person or corporation can use to win elections. But seems that is no longer the case thanks to Supreme Court judges nominated by Republican presidents.
    - milesrout 2y ago
      >I'm just saying it wouldn't make sense for ACLU to support people who want to take away your right to free speech. It is supporting their right to freedom of speech, not supporting them, in my view. >But it is in the interest of the country as a whole that all viewpoints are heard. But if one person can buy all TV-stations then he will have free speech and nobody else really does. Did nobody have freedom of expression before television? Broadcast media is just one way of communicating ideas, and TV is a decreasingly relevant part of the media. TV is worse than it used to be largely because nobody really watches it anymore except for sports. >It used to be law that there are limits to how many millions one person or corporation can use to win elections. There is very little evidence that spending more on election advertising actually does anything. Hillary and Harris both spend much more than Trump and lost. Biden spent more and won. Obama spent less and won. The statistics across a wide range of elections at different scales don't show it having much effect. It is probably important to even be an option, but it doesn't win elections.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

I don't think anyone identifies as "free speech absolutists" in the first place, except for Elon Musk one famous time. Strong free speech advocates remain about as common as they've always been, as far as I can tell - I suspect you just don't notice so much during times when the strongest threats to free speech are people and groups you're already inclined to oppose.

slibhb 2y ago

> Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics. And, for whatever it's worth, every vocal "free speech person" I know doesn't like the current administation. Some people actually just have principles!

sapphicsnail 2y ago
I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern about the government and media suppressing Gaza protestors or LGBTQ books being banned or anything else that affects the left. Doesn't seem very principled to me.
- rtpg 2y ago
  I can't believe I'm going to say this but if you go over to reason.com and look at reporting on the visa stuff, there are a loooot of arguments going on in the comments. We're not even talking free speech absolutionists! Just like "normal"[0] conservatives being like "this is actually kind of messed up what's going on to these visa holders". Plenty of people happy to carry water for the admin as well. I just don't really have a great view of what people actually think about this issue. [0]: to be clear, I do not believe there are normal people on that website.
- tetromino_ 2y ago
  > I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern ... Hi there. You are seeing one right now. Well, seeing the words of one. I am a free speech absolutist. What this administration is doing is abominable. I have always seen anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots, but Trump's crackdown on them is, imho, unconstitutional and immoral.
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    > anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots The problem with free speech absolutism is that it leads to the 'paradox of tolerance'. We are now seeing the fruits of that line of thinking. > The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

soulofmischief 2y ago

I know it's not your intention, but don't allow these people to control your perception of free speech advocates such that you're making blanket statements about them that might in turn color someone else's perception. They're hiding behind real free speech advocates, and powerful people are counting on stochastic comments like this one to help confuse the public.

jmyeet 2y ago

The only free speech absolutist in America is Noam Chomsky. He's the only one. Whenever conservatives talk about "free speech" just substitute "hate speech" because that's what they mean. Elon Musk has called himself a free speech absolutist while banning people from Twitter for hurting his feelings, for being journalists who are remotely critical of him, for making fun of him, for reporting ATC public data on the location of his private jet and for making jokes. The media is absolutely complicit in not challenging the countless lies told by Republicans. What didn't get a lot of attention is how Trump sued a bunch of media outlets (eg ABC/Disney) to defamation. These are cases he absolutely could not win on the merits. ABC presenter George Stephanopoulos made the on-air claim Trump was "liable for rape" after he lost the E. Jean Carroll case. Disney agreed to pay ~$16 million in what has all the apperances of a payoff.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
It's pretty amazing that out of 350 million people in the United States, the only one who is a free speech absolutist happens to be someone I've heard of.

lovich 2y ago

>Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more. They don't need to do any denials anymore because they have won. That was part of arguing in bad faith, they never actually believed the arguments. Nothing being discussed on a message board is going to change that

generalizations 2y ago

> Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more. Been a lot more hysterical on here as of late. Methinks there's less reason to discuss political things now.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

I don't think it fits completely, but for the sake of it, I am a free speech absolutist. I live in Europe for context. Your insinuations isn't really a good faith argument either but I gladly join that group of "these sorts of people" because they are obviously more sensible than the others.