4 ms·

Silencing speech IS the oppressive regime.

by aydyn 1y ago

rose-knuckle17 1y ago
[flagged]
- aydyn 1y ago
  Yikes
oscaracso 1y ago
A regime is an organization.
jszymborski 1y ago
Most societies have decided that some speech should be illegal. The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. I think it is good and healthy to have conversations as to what should and should not be protected speech, but I think that there is this rote reaction that kinda boils down to free speech absolutism. But of course, all the free speech absolutists find at some point or another there is some speech they want made illegal. A great example of this is in the US where Republicans often outwardly took such as stand when they weren't in power, but recently tried to use the FCC to take a comedian who made light criticism of the regime off the air. So, silencing speech might not always be the oppressive regime, but it sometimes is. EDIT: OK, I get the fire/theatre example is a bad one. Instead, consider incitement more broadly. For example incitement to discrimination, as prohibited by Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
- psunavy03 1y ago
  > The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. This is from an overturned US Supreme Court opinion, has no basis in anyone's jurisprudence, yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason. Oliver Wendell Holmes created that example to support jailing a socialist for speaking out against the World War I draft.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > This is from a dissenting opinion of a US Supreme Court justice No, its dicta which neither was part of the substantive ruling nor an accurate description of pre-existing law from the Court’s opinion (which was unanimous, so there was no “dissenting opinion”) in a case that has since been overruled and is notorious for having allowed an egregious restriction on core political speech.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    > yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason Because they don't actually have an example of not imminently violence causing non-fraudulent speech that SCOTUS has upheld a ban of. And then when you call them out they'll say "but wait, it's metaphorical". If they had a better example they'd be using it.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      Child pornography
      - jszymborski 1y ago
        Child sexual abuse material is evidence of violence, and act of violence, all at once.
        Braxton1980 1y ago
        So are videos of people being punched and stabbed. Those are legal
        jszymborski 1y ago
        The sharing and owning of those videos aren't part of the violence as they are with CSAM. That feels evident, right?
        1y ago
- whycome 1y ago
  Imagine a situation where a person reasonably believes there was a fire (they saw smoke, but it turned out to be a vape or some sort of smoke machine part of the show). They're arrested for the false claim. Others know that it's too risky. Now, when there's a fire, people are reluctant to speak up just in case. It's the chilling effect that can affect speech. We have whistleblowers who are afraid to speak up. And when the means of speaking out or alerting others (ie via email or social media or smartphone) is controlled by a large corporation that may feel threatened...
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    >They're arrested for the false claim. This person would be able to provide evidence as to why they thought there was a fire, show why their belief is genuine and not a lie.
atoav 1y ago
It can be. But there can be speech where most reasonable people would agree that it should be regulated. E.g. if some dude walks up to your 5 year old child and starts to tell them in intricate detail about his violent sexual fantasy, pretty much everybody notices that the kids right not to have to hear this outweighs the adults edgy itch to do this to a child. And a lot of speech is like this, nearly no speech is consequence free. I am not saying we should ban any speech that has negative consequences. What I am saying is that with other rights we also have to way the active freedoms of one person ("the freedom to do a thing") against the passive freedoms of all the others ("the freedom to not have a thing done to you"). With other rights it is the same, you may have a right to carry a firearm and even shoot it. But if you shoot it for example in church, other peoples right not to have to deal with you shooting that gun in that church outweighs your right to do that. In the German speaking part of the EU we decided that the right of literal Nazis to carry their insignia doesn't outweigh the right of the others to not have to see the insignia that have brought so much pain and suffering in these lands. To some degree this is symbolic, because it only bans symbols and not ideologies, but hey, I like my government to protect my state from a fascist takeover, because they are kind of hard to reverse without violence.
Braxton1980 1y ago
A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. If the regime is able to do this because of speech then people are choosing the least worst option.
- tejohnso 1y ago
  > If the regime is able to do this because of speech Okay but that's a big "IF". I suspect a regime attempting to do that might be promulgating a significant amount of propaganda, but I doubt that they're able to be oppressive "because of speech". What about loss of upward mobility for the middle class, or loss of living wages, mismanaged public institutions, corruption, bribery, collapse of democratic process? All of this enables or sustains oppressive regimes and doesn't require any kind of speech from citizens. And without these kinds of serious problems, citizens barking nonsense won't result in much. Hindering free speech only makes it easier for a regime to continue to exacerbate these serious problems and continue oppression without being called out.
- txrx0000 1y ago
  > A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. Indeed. But one should realize that thorny words are precisely what replaces physical violence. Human nature doesn't change in a democratic society that allows free dialogue, what changed is the way it is expressed. If you erase the horrible parts of ourselves we worked hard to banish onto paper, they will eventually remanifest themselves in reality.
  - jgeada 1y ago
    Most people in the western world are more frequently harmed by words than by physical violence. Way more frequently. You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life. While I abhor physical violence, I do also realize some words are also a type of violence in and of themselves.

Silencing speech IS the oppressive regime.

by aydyn 1y ago

Silencing speech IS the oppressive regime.

rose-knuckle17 1y ago

[flagged]

aydyn 1y ago
Yikes

oscaracso 1y ago

A regime is an organization.

jszymborski 1y ago

Most societies have decided that some speech should be illegal. The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. I think it is good and healthy to have conversations as to what should and should not be protected speech, but I think that there is this rote reaction that kinda boils down to free speech absolutism. But of course, all the free speech absolutists find at some point or another there is some speech they want made illegal. A great example of this is in the US where Republicans often outwardly took such as stand when they weren't in power, but recently tried to use the FCC to take a comedian who made light criticism of the regime off the air. So, silencing speech might not always be the oppressive regime, but it sometimes is. EDIT: OK, I get the fire/theatre example is a bad one. Instead, consider incitement more broadly. For example incitement to discrimination, as prohibited by Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

psunavy03 1y ago
> The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. This is from an overturned US Supreme Court opinion, has no basis in anyone's jurisprudence, yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason. Oliver Wendell Holmes created that example to support jailing a socialist for speaking out against the World War I draft.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > This is from a dissenting opinion of a US Supreme Court justice No, its dicta which neither was part of the substantive ruling nor an accurate description of pre-existing law from the Court’s opinion (which was unanimous, so there was no “dissenting opinion”) in a case that has since been overruled and is notorious for having allowed an egregious restriction on core political speech.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  > yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason Because they don't actually have an example of not imminently violence causing non-fraudulent speech that SCOTUS has upheld a ban of. And then when you call them out they'll say "but wait, it's metaphorical". If they had a better example they'd be using it.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    Child pornography
    - jszymborski 1y ago
      Child sexual abuse material is evidence of violence, and act of violence, all at once.
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        So are videos of people being punched and stabbed. Those are legal
        jszymborski 1y ago
        The sharing and owning of those videos aren't part of the violence as they are with CSAM. That feels evident, right?
        1y ago
whycome 1y ago
Imagine a situation where a person reasonably believes there was a fire (they saw smoke, but it turned out to be a vape or some sort of smoke machine part of the show). They're arrested for the false claim. Others know that it's too risky. Now, when there's a fire, people are reluctant to speak up just in case. It's the chilling effect that can affect speech. We have whistleblowers who are afraid to speak up. And when the means of speaking out or alerting others (ie via email or social media or smartphone) is controlled by a large corporation that may feel threatened...
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  >They're arrested for the false claim. This person would be able to provide evidence as to why they thought there was a fire, show why their belief is genuine and not a lie.

atoav 1y ago

It can be. But there can be speech where most reasonable people would agree that it should be regulated. E.g. if some dude walks up to your 5 year old child and starts to tell them in intricate detail about his violent sexual fantasy, pretty much everybody notices that the kids right not to have to hear this outweighs the adults edgy itch to do this to a child. And a lot of speech is like this, nearly no speech is consequence free. I am not saying we should ban any speech that has negative consequences. What I am saying is that with other rights we also have to way the active freedoms of one person ("the freedom to do a thing") against the passive freedoms of all the others ("the freedom to not have a thing done to you"). With other rights it is the same, you may have a right to carry a firearm and even shoot it. But if you shoot it for example in church, other peoples right not to have to deal with you shooting that gun in that church outweighs your right to do that. In the German speaking part of the EU we decided that the right of literal Nazis to carry their insignia doesn't outweigh the right of the others to not have to see the insignia that have brought so much pain and suffering in these lands. To some degree this is symbolic, because it only bans symbols and not ideologies, but hey, I like my government to protect my state from a fascist takeover, because they are kind of hard to reverse without violence.

Braxton1980 1y ago

A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. If the regime is able to do this because of speech then people are choosing the least worst option.

tejohnso 1y ago
> If the regime is able to do this because of speech Okay but that's a big "IF". I suspect a regime attempting to do that might be promulgating a significant amount of propaganda, but I doubt that they're able to be oppressive "because of speech". What about loss of upward mobility for the middle class, or loss of living wages, mismanaged public institutions, corruption, bribery, collapse of democratic process? All of this enables or sustains oppressive regimes and doesn't require any kind of speech from citizens. And without these kinds of serious problems, citizens barking nonsense won't result in much. Hindering free speech only makes it easier for a regime to continue to exacerbate these serious problems and continue oppression without being called out.
txrx0000 1y ago
> A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. Indeed. But one should realize that thorny words are precisely what replaces physical violence. Human nature doesn't change in a democratic society that allows free dialogue, what changed is the way it is expressed. If you erase the horrible parts of ourselves we worked hard to banish onto paper, they will eventually remanifest themselves in reality.
- jgeada 1y ago
  Most people in the western world are more frequently harmed by words than by physical violence. Way more frequently. You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life. While I abhor physical violence, I do also realize some words are also a type of violence in and of themselves.