5 ms·

> Why is the converse also true? That those people who don't scream about discrimination don't rail against free speech? I dunno, maybe because they don't feel

by smegel 14y ago

> Why is the converse also true? That those people who don't scream about discrimination don't rail against free speech? I dunno, maybe because they don't feel the need to deprive others of the right to voice their opinions in order to advance their own cause. > I hear people spout off the most racist and sexist crap imaginable Then stop listening! > then complain their "free speech" rights are being trampled when others call them out on it I don't think they complain when others "call them out" - that is just called debate. I think their complain when they are censored, persecuted, jailed, or killed by the state for the crime of expressing their views. > It's so embarrassingly prevalent it's become a meme within the social justice community. By "meme" I assume you are talking about the lampooning and ridiculing of - and gasp even inciting hatred - towards those who stand up for free speech. I think you will find this is a fairly standard modus operandi of these insular, circle-jerking, agitating communities, but the fact these "memes" don't really escape to the wider world says a lot about the general palatability of these views... > Here in Canada we have the hate speech restriction. Good for you, although it would probably be more accurate to call it a free speech restriction... > No slippery slopes has been slid down In Britain police are rounding up people who say mean things on Twitter. In Australia, being a bit too flippant when commenting on certain racial issues will earn you a day in court. Maybe you Canadians are a bit more open-minded, or gulp, American, than you realize. > and also no Westboro Baptist Church And after you eliminate all the people who espouse views you disagree with, what do you have left? Some kind of super Canadian master race? > I for one happily take that tradeoff And I for one hope your own views do not one day become categorized as illegal by your state and subject you to censure and punishment.

ahelwer 14y ago
I view free speech absolutism as nothing more than intellectual cowardice. Why deal with all the grey areas when we can just declare it all permissible and move on? Boom, done, next. Absolutes are so simple. I'm your average white boy from the suburbs. There's not a lot people can say to bring me down. That isn't the case for a whole lot of people in this world, and I fully support the use of legislation as a tool for inhibiting those who would use their position in society to inspire hatred against others. Oh, and ignoring people spouting racist and sexist stuff doesn't help. I have the privilege of ignoring it; others do not. So no, I won't "stop listening". This is see no evil, hear no evil crap.
- airlocksoftware 14y ago
  If I'm taking any side in this debate, it's that the conference organizers should have put more effort into finding speakers from different backgrounds. That said, I feel obligated to step in and defend free speech. If we didn't have strong protections for free speech, it would have been far simpler to shut down the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and feminism. Because back then everyone "knew" those things were wrong. <sarcasm>What was the point of even allowing people to spout such dreadful nonsense like letting women and black people vote?</sarcasm>. Do you not understand that the powers you want to use against people you disagree with can be used against you? I get your point that it hasn't happened in your country yet, but history is rife with examples where suppressed speech eventually leads to atrocities. So yeah, I think "free speech absolutism" is a worthy cause. Do you think you can change the mind of a hateful person by arresting them for talking about what they believe? If you want to combat hatred, maybe you should just speak up.
  - ahelwer 14y ago
    These are good points. In practice in Canada, nobody seems to be running around criminalizing speech on contemporary issues; we as a society seem to be pretty sure that horribly racist stuff doesn't fall under the category of legitimate opposing views which deserve a platform. Who gains from that? I honestly haven't ever heard a good argument for it apart from the slippery slope. So when we have Rob Anders, one of our most prominent MPs, stand up in the house and essentially label trans* people wanting to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with as sexual predators, nobody throws him in jail. That's something which could someday be considered hate speech, but likely won't for quite some time. As far as locking up people for "dangerous political views", like we're under some kind of regime or a black-bag spy novel, well that just doesn't happen. I do understand it could someday be used against me. This is a spectrum, and I come down more on the permissive side than not. With regard to your last point, the very crux of the matter is it is not their viewpoints I aim to change - they are the only ones who can do that. It is the bystander, the person who hears it and sees those ideas are normalized, accepted. It's how hate groups spread. It's not like a bunch of people independently arrive at the conclusion they hate people of a certain race, then organize. It's something that spreads through rhetoric.

by smegel 14y ago

ahelwer 14y ago

I view free speech absolutism as nothing more than intellectual cowardice. Why deal with all the grey areas when we can just declare it all permissible and move on? Boom, done, next. Absolutes are so simple. I'm your average white boy from the suburbs. There's not a lot people can say to bring me down. That isn't the case for a whole lot of people in this world, and I fully support the use of legislation as a tool for inhibiting those who would use their position in society to inspire hatred against others. Oh, and ignoring people spouting racist and sexist stuff doesn't help. I have the privilege of ignoring it; others do not. So no, I won't "stop listening". This is see no evil, hear no evil crap.

airlocksoftware 14y ago
If I'm taking any side in this debate, it's that the conference organizers should have put more effort into finding speakers from different backgrounds. That said, I feel obligated to step in and defend free speech. If we didn't have strong protections for free speech, it would have been far simpler to shut down the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and feminism. Because back then everyone "knew" those things were wrong. <sarcasm>What was the point of even allowing people to spout such dreadful nonsense like letting women and black people vote?</sarcasm>. Do you not understand that the powers you want to use against people you disagree with can be used against you? I get your point that it hasn't happened in your country yet, but history is rife with examples where suppressed speech eventually leads to atrocities. So yeah, I think "free speech absolutism" is a worthy cause. Do you think you can change the mind of a hateful person by arresting them for talking about what they believe? If you want to combat hatred, maybe you should just speak up.
- ahelwer 14y ago
  These are good points. In practice in Canada, nobody seems to be running around criminalizing speech on contemporary issues; we as a society seem to be pretty sure that horribly racist stuff doesn't fall under the category of legitimate opposing views which deserve a platform. Who gains from that? I honestly haven't ever heard a good argument for it apart from the slippery slope. So when we have Rob Anders, one of our most prominent MPs, stand up in the house and essentially label trans* people wanting to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with as sexual predators, nobody throws him in jail. That's something which could someday be considered hate speech, but likely won't for quite some time. As far as locking up people for "dangerous political views", like we're under some kind of regime or a black-bag spy novel, well that just doesn't happen. I do understand it could someday be used against me. This is a spectrum, and I come down more on the permissive side than not. With regard to your last point, the very crux of the matter is it is not their viewpoints I aim to change - they are the only ones who can do that. It is the bystander, the person who hears it and sees those ideas are normalized, accepted. It's how hate groups spread. It's not like a bunch of people independently arrive at the conclusion they hate people of a certain race, then organize. It's something that spreads through rhetoric.