4 ms·

It's refreshing to see an article address the distinction between what might be called "tolerance of expression" and "freedom of expression". The latter, at lea

It's refreshing to see an article address the distinction between what might be called "tolerance of expression" and "freedom of expression". The latter, at least in the US, is protected by the First Amendment, but it's impossible to express frustration on this issue without being (often rather smugly) informed that such protection doesn't exempt you from the social consequences of your speech. [1] This is true, of course, but those social consequences still threaten "free speech," broadly defined. Historically, one of the core features of liberalism, especially Anglo-American liberal democracy, has been a tolerance of divergent opinions. And yet, the inheritors of this tradition have largely abandoned such tolerance. [2] Views that deviate even slightly from the reigning orthodoxy are frequently smeared as "hate speech"—an Orwellian term if ever there was one. The result is a world in which even the most banal observations risk condemnation for bigotry. [1]: See, e.g., http://xkcd.com/1357/ http://xkcd.com/1357/. [2]: I suspect the underlying reason is that "free speech" was an effective weapon against the ancien régime, but with the enemy defeated it is no longer politically advantageous.

baddox 12y ago
> One of the core features of liberalism, especially Anglo-American liberal democracy, has been a tolerance of divergent opinions. An interesting workaround attempt I've seen some self-proclaimed liberals use is the "intolerance of intolerance" argument [0]. "Hate speech," they would argue, is an expression of intolerance, so it's acceptable (some would say necessary) to be intolerant of such speech. I'm not a fan of the concept, because it essentially redefines the pejorative usage of "intolerance" to something more like "intolerance of things which I think should be tolerated." It becomes fairly circular, because now we're just saying that we ought to tolerate those things which we believe we ought to tolerate. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  In my social media, mostly friends of friends, the anti free speech drum is being beaten by avowed socialists and fellow travelers who reject free speech in principle as a "liberal fiction." For instance, in America the KKK has the free speech right to march down the street with police protection, but animal rights activist organizations are completely infiltrated by the FBI. These arguments mostly don't hold water with me, but that's what I'm hearing. Attacks on free speech have been steadily increasing on my social media over the last couple of years, and is very generational. It is emanating from college campuses. They are being taken over by these people.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

baddox 12y ago

> One of the core features of liberalism, especially Anglo-American liberal democracy, has been a tolerance of divergent opinions. An interesting workaround attempt I've seen some self-proclaimed liberals use is the "intolerance of intolerance" argument [0]. "Hate speech," they would argue, is an expression of intolerance, so it's acceptable (some would say necessary) to be intolerant of such speech. I'm not a fan of the concept, because it essentially redefines the pejorative usage of "intolerance" to something more like "intolerance of things which I think should be tolerated." It becomes fairly circular, because now we're just saying that we ought to tolerate those things which we believe we ought to tolerate. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

A_COMPUTER 12y ago
In my social media, mostly friends of friends, the anti free speech drum is being beaten by avowed socialists and fellow travelers who reject free speech in principle as a "liberal fiction." For instance, in America the KKK has the free speech right to march down the street with police protection, but animal rights activist organizations are completely infiltrated by the FBI. These arguments mostly don't hold water with me, but that's what I'm hearing. Attacks on free speech have been steadily increasing on my social media over the last couple of years, and is very generational. It is emanating from college campuses. They are being taken over by these people.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]