11 ms·

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 el

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
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    I don't see the paradox. You can consider some people idiots and find it condemnable for idiots to be kidnapped in vans or have their visas revoked. If anything it's a slipperly slope logic. These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening. Unfortuntaely, the admin is proving all those fallacies before us.
    - try_the_bass 2y ago
      > These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening. These are unfortunately the only circumstances in which I ever see Popper's "paradox" invoked.
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      'Considering some people idiots' is intolerance. Tolerating that kind of intolerance in the name of free speech in the marketplace of ideas or whatever can allow that intolerance to gain traction such that intolerance becomes a dominant mode of thinking, via tolerating people. Is that not the paradox?
- davorak 2y ago
  > free speech absolutist An unfortunately overloaded term. 1) free speech absolutist meaning the government should not be censor private citizens speech in any way, 2) or twitter/similar is breaking the law by censoring X speech, 3) or twitter/similar should be considered a defacto public square and therefor the company twitter/similar can not legally censor speech on it, 4) or "I align with Elon Musk who calls himself a free speech absolutist", or etc. Likely sapphicsnail was talking about the less principled, or not understood by principles by me, variety of people calling themselves free speech absolutist, who seem to dominate, or least be the most vocal, the conversation around "free speech absolutism" in reason years.
  - slg 2y ago
    You're still missing a good portion of the ambiguity of the term. Both "free" and "absolutist" are rather definitive terms with clear meaning. But what is "speech"? Does that count fraud, defamation, threats, or even the distribution of child porn? Almost everyone agrees at least some of that should be restricted. So an "absolutists" either needs to defend that type of harmful speech or debate the meaning of "speech" and once that happens the term has lost all meaning.
    - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
      I'm not a free-speech absolutist but I've met some. Generally, I've only ever encountered discussion of free speech to be in regards to one's rights to voice their beliefs, opinions, and criticisms. That usually will apply to defamation (but with the right of the defamed party to sue, especially if the claims are false). There's probably some division about where threats cross from speech into violence, especially as threats can themselves be used to restrict freedom of speech. Likewise for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as copyrighted films, classified war plans, trade secrets, doctor-patient or lawyer-client privileged information, or intimate recordings of people taken without consent (or without ability to consent).
      - 2y ago
- PieTime 2y ago
  You’re free to support apartheid but I’ve never found slandering your opposition particularly useful. I don’t support any forms of violence, and framing is very important because it leads to peace activists being conflated with war mongering. Israel fascism is at the very heart of why free speech is being banned. https://youtu.be/9Z1NyTdhZ-U?si=9S4rOI-fQY0Yr0XD https://youtu.be/9Z1NyTdhZ-U?si=9S4rOI-fQY0Yr0XD
  - spwa4 2y ago
    I hate the implication you're making, especially since reality is exactly opposite. Israel's system cannot reasonably be classified as apartheid ... and Palestine's system cannot reasonably be classified as anything BUT apartheid. You definitely ARE legally segregated according to religion in Palestine, and you are not in Israel. Exactly the opposite of your claim. Yes, the current Israeli government is turning authoritarian (though again: not nearly as authoritarian as Palestine's governments), like so many others. That doesn't change reality though.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    There is less apartheid in Israel than in every other surrounding country with quite a large margin for that matter. You use words like fascism while decrying "framing". This is ridiculous. But no, I don't advocate you getting banned for a stupid opinion. Perhaps that can be the minimal consensus.
  - try_the_bass 2y ago
    > You’re free to support apartheid but I’ve never found slandering your opposition particularly useful You say, as you slander your opposition. If you proudly proclaim your hypocrisy like this, is it really any surprise that the rest of your moral argument falls flat?
soraminazuki 2y ago
This kind of response reinforces the parent's concern. Expressing concern for the erosion of free speech rights doesn't make one a right wing fanatic just because they don't mention every other political issue in the exact same comment.
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  The free speech absolutists were always criticized because of their hypocrisy, not because of their ideology. At least the people saying there should be limits to free speech are clear and impartial as to where those limits should be, supported by laws and regulations.
  - soraminazuki 2y ago
    > clear and impartial as to where those limits should be This is a big claim. The crux of the problem is that it's virtually impossible to set a clear and consistent line. That makes it ripe for abuse by those in power, as we are witnessing right now. I think it's hypocritical to fail to even acknowledge this fact.
    - spiderfarmer 2y ago
      Focus your energy on the clear abuses of power by the current regime, instead of hypotheticals and edge cases in the system you once had. The US had a great (not perfect!) system. Free speech with reasonable limits, set by laws and regulations. And helped by a certain amount trust in the system. When power hungry people, who started abusing the system with misinformation campaigns, ran into those laws and regulations, they claimed the system was treating them unfairly. Those people are now in power. And trust is now at a minimum. You could blame the past system for not being able to prevent this regime, but that wouldn’t fit your beliefs. I for one, am happy that we have more stringent rules in the EU.
      - soraminazuki 2y ago
        That current regime is using the exact same machinery that you're advocating for to suppress freedoms, and it seems to me that your solution is to make it more ripe for abuse. This doesn't make any sense. And no, we're not talking about "hypotheticals" here when the abuse is happening right before our eyes. Laws and regulations aren't a magical solution. You have to think about how they can be abused, or they'll be weaponized to achieve the exact opposite of what you intended. This has been abundantly clear for those who have been paying attention. See for example how lawmakers have been repeatedly pushing laws claiming to "protect children" that does nothing of the sort but does everything to erode civil liberties.
eli_gottlieb 2y ago
Then you're not looking.
milesrout 2y ago
Nobody is banning books. Removing inappropriate material from school libraries isn't book banning. Have you seen some of the books that are being removed? That books with graphic depictions of aren't appropriate for children is a view perfectly compatible with strong support for freedom of expression.
- selfhoster 2y ago
  [flagged]
- sham1 2y ago
  Okay, but counterpoint: why don't these school libraries also remove for example the Bible, a work known for extremely graphic content, eroticism, calls to kill based on one's tribe and doing stuff like working on the Sabbath. It's also a book explicitly meant for indoctrinating children into a given religion, or actually one of two religions! These principles of what is good and age-appropriate for children doesn't seem to be applied consistently.
  - spiderfarmer 2y ago
    Because the bible teaches hypocrisy, a very important skill that will help create future leaders.
  - milesrout 2y ago
    Because it is an historically important work that is necessary to have some understanding of to understand large parts of history. Its purpose also is not indoctrination or titillation.
  - DontchaKnowit 2y ago
    Counterpoint, they do. What public elementary school has copies of the bible? Schools are terrified of anything re ligious.
    - sham1 2y ago
      Well apparently at least public school libraries in Utah's Davis County[0]. To their credit, they did actually ban it due to vulgarity and violence, so at least they were principled in that sense, but then the book was brought back due to backlash. [0]: <https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/utah-davis-school-district-reversal-bible-school-libraries/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/utah-davis-school-dist...>
kopirgan 2y ago
Wasn't it the other way around for way too long and still is in places like UK, Germany?!
- nine_k 2y ago
  Neither of these countries has a free speech provision in the constitution. To the opposite, both explicitly ban certain kinds of speech.
  - gmueckl 2y ago
    Germany does guarantees free speech in article 5 of its constitution.
    - fahhem 2y ago
      Clearly except when it's about Israel
    - FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago
      It also states it might be limited by law. So you can’t promote nazism and call it free speech.
      - PartiallyTyped 2y ago
        And you can’t publicly talk about state secrets, so you can’t call it free speech.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        sure you can. You're likely not granted clearance or in the military. Private citizens don't have a concept of "state secrets". But yes, a court marshal is a completely different matter. You're speech is restricted if you take steps to work for the government in any capacity. As is your legal channels.
        muddi900 2y ago
rockskon 2y ago
That's speaks more to your social and news circles more than anything. I see plenty of condemnation of the Trump administration from free speech activists for their actions against Gaza Protestors and LGBTQ book bans.
- Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - cactacea 2y ago
    This is easy to find, precious. https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-florida-dont-say-gay-books-bed1a412f3efaa0f371da8e8c89f4975 https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-florida-dont-say-gay-books-...
  - ojbyrne 2y ago
    They've gone further back than gay rights. https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/article/trump-administration-reportedly-moves-to-ban-jackie-robinson-biography-from-naval-academy-library-235013259.html https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/article/trump-administration-re...
cavisne 2y ago
Glenn greenwald comes to mind.
acidmath 2y ago
For books depicting sex acts, banning such books from public elementary and middle school libraries is reasonable. Is it not? Does there exist any example of an administration (federal or state) successfully prohibiting the private sale of an LGBTQ book?
- decremental 2y ago
  [dead]
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  Books with rainbows are getting banned under the same policy. Rainbows!
  - acidmath 2y ago
    Where is this happening? URL?
    - spiderfarmer 2y ago
      Guess: Saudi Arabia or the USA? The fact that you have to ask says it all.
      - acidmath 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - navane 2y ago
      First hit when googling "Books with rainbows are getting banned" https://www.salon.com/2022/04/15/ohio-school-district-bans-childrens-book-with-rainbow-cover/ https://www.salon.com/2022/04/15/ohio-school-district-bans-c...
      - acidmath 2y ago
        [flagged]
Gud 2y ago
I wouldn’t call myself an “absolutist” of anything, except perhaps regarding free political speech. Child porn is pretty much where I draw the line, and frankly even that is a fuzzy line. I absolutely object to suppressing Gaza protests and banning LGBTQ books, or any other books for that matter.

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
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  I don't see the paradox. You can consider some people idiots and find it condemnable for idiots to be kidnapped in vans or have their visas revoked. If anything it's a slipperly slope logic. These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening. Unfortuntaely, the admin is proving all those fallacies before us.
  - try_the_bass 2y ago
    > These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening. These are unfortunately the only circumstances in which I ever see Popper's "paradox" invoked.
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    'Considering some people idiots' is intolerance. Tolerating that kind of intolerance in the name of free speech in the marketplace of ideas or whatever can allow that intolerance to gain traction such that intolerance becomes a dominant mode of thinking, via tolerating people. Is that not the paradox?
davorak 2y ago
> free speech absolutist An unfortunately overloaded term. 1) free speech absolutist meaning the government should not be censor private citizens speech in any way, 2) or twitter/similar is breaking the law by censoring X speech, 3) or twitter/similar should be considered a defacto public square and therefor the company twitter/similar can not legally censor speech on it, 4) or "I align with Elon Musk who calls himself a free speech absolutist", or etc. Likely sapphicsnail was talking about the less principled, or not understood by principles by me, variety of people calling themselves free speech absolutist, who seem to dominate, or least be the most vocal, the conversation around "free speech absolutism" in reason years.
- slg 2y ago
  You're still missing a good portion of the ambiguity of the term. Both "free" and "absolutist" are rather definitive terms with clear meaning. But what is "speech"? Does that count fraud, defamation, threats, or even the distribution of child porn? Almost everyone agrees at least some of that should be restricted. So an "absolutists" either needs to defend that type of harmful speech or debate the meaning of "speech" and once that happens the term has lost all meaning.
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    I'm not a free-speech absolutist but I've met some. Generally, I've only ever encountered discussion of free speech to be in regards to one's rights to voice their beliefs, opinions, and criticisms. That usually will apply to defamation (but with the right of the defamed party to sue, especially if the claims are false). There's probably some division about where threats cross from speech into violence, especially as threats can themselves be used to restrict freedom of speech. Likewise for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as copyrighted films, classified war plans, trade secrets, doctor-patient or lawyer-client privileged information, or intimate recordings of people taken without consent (or without ability to consent).
    - 2y ago
PieTime 2y ago
You’re free to support apartheid but I’ve never found slandering your opposition particularly useful. I don’t support any forms of violence, and framing is very important because it leads to peace activists being conflated with war mongering. Israel fascism is at the very heart of why free speech is being banned. https://youtu.be/9Z1NyTdhZ-U?si=9S4rOI-fQY0Yr0XD https://youtu.be/9Z1NyTdhZ-U?si=9S4rOI-fQY0Yr0XD
- spwa4 2y ago
  I hate the implication you're making, especially since reality is exactly opposite. Israel's system cannot reasonably be classified as apartheid ... and Palestine's system cannot reasonably be classified as anything BUT apartheid. You definitely ARE legally segregated according to religion in Palestine, and you are not in Israel. Exactly the opposite of your claim. Yes, the current Israeli government is turning authoritarian (though again: not nearly as authoritarian as Palestine's governments), like so many others. That doesn't change reality though.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  There is less apartheid in Israel than in every other surrounding country with quite a large margin for that matter. You use words like fascism while decrying "framing". This is ridiculous. But no, I don't advocate you getting banned for a stupid opinion. Perhaps that can be the minimal consensus.
- try_the_bass 2y ago
  > You’re free to support apartheid but I’ve never found slandering your opposition particularly useful You say, as you slander your opposition. If you proudly proclaim your hypocrisy like this, is it really any surprise that the rest of your moral argument falls flat?

soraminazuki 2y ago

This kind of response reinforces the parent's concern. Expressing concern for the erosion of free speech rights doesn't make one a right wing fanatic just because they don't mention every other political issue in the exact same comment.

spiderfarmer 2y ago
The free speech absolutists were always criticized because of their hypocrisy, not because of their ideology. At least the people saying there should be limits to free speech are clear and impartial as to where those limits should be, supported by laws and regulations.
- soraminazuki 2y ago
  > clear and impartial as to where those limits should be This is a big claim. The crux of the problem is that it's virtually impossible to set a clear and consistent line. That makes it ripe for abuse by those in power, as we are witnessing right now. I think it's hypocritical to fail to even acknowledge this fact.
  - spiderfarmer 2y ago
    Focus your energy on the clear abuses of power by the current regime, instead of hypotheticals and edge cases in the system you once had. The US had a great (not perfect!) system. Free speech with reasonable limits, set by laws and regulations. And helped by a certain amount trust in the system. When power hungry people, who started abusing the system with misinformation campaigns, ran into those laws and regulations, they claimed the system was treating them unfairly. Those people are now in power. And trust is now at a minimum. You could blame the past system for not being able to prevent this regime, but that wouldn’t fit your beliefs. I for one, am happy that we have more stringent rules in the EU.
    - soraminazuki 2y ago
      That current regime is using the exact same machinery that you're advocating for to suppress freedoms, and it seems to me that your solution is to make it more ripe for abuse. This doesn't make any sense. And no, we're not talking about "hypotheticals" here when the abuse is happening right before our eyes. Laws and regulations aren't a magical solution. You have to think about how they can be abused, or they'll be weaponized to achieve the exact opposite of what you intended. This has been abundantly clear for those who have been paying attention. See for example how lawmakers have been repeatedly pushing laws claiming to "protect children" that does nothing of the sort but does everything to erode civil liberties.

eli_gottlieb 2y ago

Then you're not looking.

milesrout 2y ago

Nobody is banning books. Removing inappropriate material from school libraries isn't book banning. Have you seen some of the books that are being removed? That books with graphic depictions of aren't appropriate for children is a view perfectly compatible with strong support for freedom of expression.

selfhoster 2y ago
[flagged]
sham1 2y ago
Okay, but counterpoint: why don't these school libraries also remove for example the Bible, a work known for extremely graphic content, eroticism, calls to kill based on one's tribe and doing stuff like working on the Sabbath. It's also a book explicitly meant for indoctrinating children into a given religion, or actually one of two religions! These principles of what is good and age-appropriate for children doesn't seem to be applied consistently.
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  Because the bible teaches hypocrisy, a very important skill that will help create future leaders.
- milesrout 2y ago
  Because it is an historically important work that is necessary to have some understanding of to understand large parts of history. Its purpose also is not indoctrination or titillation.
- DontchaKnowit 2y ago
  Counterpoint, they do. What public elementary school has copies of the bible? Schools are terrified of anything re ligious.
  - sham1 2y ago
    Well apparently at least public school libraries in Utah's Davis County[0]. To their credit, they did actually ban it due to vulgarity and violence, so at least they were principled in that sense, but then the book was brought back due to backlash. [0]: <https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/utah-davis-school-district-reversal-bible-school-libraries/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/utah-davis-school-dist...>

kopirgan 2y ago

Wasn't it the other way around for way too long and still is in places like UK, Germany?!

nine_k 2y ago
Neither of these countries has a free speech provision in the constitution. To the opposite, both explicitly ban certain kinds of speech.
- gmueckl 2y ago
  Germany does guarantees free speech in article 5 of its constitution.
  - fahhem 2y ago
    Clearly except when it's about Israel
  - FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago
    It also states it might be limited by law. So you can’t promote nazism and call it free speech.
    - PartiallyTyped 2y ago
      And you can’t publicly talk about state secrets, so you can’t call it free speech.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        sure you can. You're likely not granted clearance or in the military. Private citizens don't have a concept of "state secrets". But yes, a court marshal is a completely different matter. You're speech is restricted if you take steps to work for the government in any capacity. As is your legal channels.
      - muddi900 2y ago

rockskon 2y ago

That's speaks more to your social and news circles more than anything. I see plenty of condemnation of the Trump administration from free speech activists for their actions against Gaza Protestors and LGBTQ book bans.

Slava_Propanei 2y ago
[flagged]
- cactacea 2y ago
  This is easy to find, precious. https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-florida-dont-say-gay-books-bed1a412f3efaa0f371da8e8c89f4975 https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-florida-dont-say-gay-books-...
- ojbyrne 2y ago
  They've gone further back than gay rights. https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/article/trump-administration-reportedly-moves-to-ban-jackie-robinson-biography-from-naval-academy-library-235013259.html https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/article/trump-administration-re...

cavisne 2y ago

Glenn greenwald comes to mind.

acidmath 2y ago

For books depicting sex acts, banning such books from public elementary and middle school libraries is reasonable. Is it not? Does there exist any example of an administration (federal or state) successfully prohibiting the private sale of an LGBTQ book?

decremental 2y ago
[dead]
spiderfarmer 2y ago
Books with rainbows are getting banned under the same policy. Rainbows!
- acidmath 2y ago
  Where is this happening? URL?
  - spiderfarmer 2y ago
    Guess: Saudi Arabia or the USA? The fact that you have to ask says it all.
    - acidmath 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - navane 2y ago
    First hit when googling "Books with rainbows are getting banned" https://www.salon.com/2022/04/15/ohio-school-district-bans-childrens-book-with-rainbow-cover/ https://www.salon.com/2022/04/15/ohio-school-district-bans-c...
    - acidmath 2y ago
      [flagged]

Gud 2y ago

I wouldn’t call myself an “absolutist” of anything, except perhaps regarding free political speech. Child porn is pretty much where I draw the line, and frankly even that is a fuzzy line. I absolutely object to suppressing Gaza protests and banning LGBTQ books, or any other books for that matter.