I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

by breck • 3 years ago

261 714 3 years ago

belltaco• 3 years ago

Voltaire? François-Marie Arouet? S. G. Tallentyre? Evelyn Beatrice Hall? Ignazio Silone? Douglas Young? Norbert Guterman?

There was no online social media back then.

Overtonwindow2• 3 years ago

This has always been my view of speech. I believe that every human being has The right to speak their mind without fear of government reprisal.

I wish it also meant a right to speak your mind free from the judgment of your employer, or university, but that is a slippery slope. Just because I will defend a person's right to speak their mind no matter what, does not mean I have to listen to it, or agree with it.

I wrestle with this, because if I had an opinion, pick any social issue, I don't think an employer should be allowed to fire me because of that.

However, we have freedom of association, and a business may not want to associate with someone who has opinions counter to their own.

eddieroger3• 3 years ago

However, I understand we have freedom of association, and a business may not want to associate with someone who has opinions counter to their own.

That's really the heart of it, isn't it? Forget employer for a moment - if you said something really offensive to one of your friends, and they decided to stop being your friend, you'd be upset, but should they be allowed to no longer be your friend? Of course they should. People get to choose with whom they associate, and companies (who are not people, but that's a different post) get to choose who they hire, because those people are a reflection of them. Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.

Overtonwindow2• 3 years ago

It is. There is no freedom from consequences, unless you are a politician maybe. I think if America continues on its current path, people will increase exclusive association into "us versus them."

I don't think that will help us in the long term.

leereeves• 3 years ago

There's also the freedom to criticize and choose not to associate with a company that fires people for expressing their opinion.

puffoflogic• 3 years ago

Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.

Freedom from consequences is the only possible thing freedom of speech could be, other than not having your mouth sewn shut.

What you meant to say was, what we value is freedom of speech from government consequences, not private actors. And that is a value judgement, not definitional. The incorrect statement you used is spread by people trying to hide the former as the latter.

tomohelix4• 3 years ago

The problem comes when the very act of non-association with someone effectively silences them.

If everyone is allowed to speak through a megaphone, except people with certain ideologies because the megaphone maker refuses to do business with them, then you can argue that is a form of censorship, or at least, have the effect of censorship.

This can happen to anything and anyone, regardless of whether such ideologies are correct or not. What we would end up with are echo chambers. And I sincerely believe that those are the cause of many social issues right now.

Georgelemental7• 3 years ago

How far do you take freedom of association though? Should a company be able to discriminate based on race? Refuse to hire women unless they have sex with the CEO? Etc…

idi_amin• 3 years ago

Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.

"There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech."

refurb2• 3 years ago

“Not free of consequences” is a cop out.

What are consequences?

Being ignored? Sure.

Being physically beaten? That’s a consequence too.

sattoshi• 3 years ago

Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.

How I hate the proliferation of this idiotic phrase.

Freedom of speech is a concept, an ideal. Not whatever the US constitution says. The idea is that powerful forces won’t punish you for speaking your mind.

If saying “I don’t like blue party” gets you fired, debanked and slandered in the media; it’s not really freedom of speech.

You also have “freedom to murder”, but you need to suffer the consequences.

A freedom like that is no freedom at all.

throwaway1777• 3 years ago

Yeah all too often people forget the first amendment applies to the government not to companies or ordinary people.

ralusek• 3 years ago

Freedom of speech is an ethic, the first amendment applies to political bodies.

2OEH8eoCRo0• 3 years ago

What does it mean to speak your mind? Does lying count? Is it your right to lie under oath?

alldayeveryday• 3 years ago

we have freedom of association, and a business may not want to associate with someone who has opinions counter to their own.

Yes and no. Take the Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in the baker's favor on the grounds that forcing him to bake the cake would violate his religious freedoms. I wonder, if the baker had refused purely as a personal preference not to do business with gay couples (freedom of association), would the court have ruled differently? As far as I know the Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on such a question.

ghaff2• 3 years ago

a business may not want to associate with someone who has opinions counter to their own

I'm not sure it's so much that exactly as businesses don't want employees who make a lot of other employees uncomfortable or who hold loud (whether deliberately or because social media made something go viral) opinions or make stupid jokes in public that get associated with the company and cause PR issues.

The fact is that if someone employs/sponsors/advertises with/etc. you they can and will cut ties fast if you embarrass them.

Ekaros• 3 years ago

Question really is what counts as association?

Is being partnered and prominently showing branding for example such thing?

Or what about being able to buy things and services from?

Later is actually more critical point. Let's take some minority group. We generally think that discriminating against them for being member of group is wrong and should be illegal. But what if we took stance that we do not discriminate against the group, but against those that voice they should have equal rights? Entirely fine surely for many people now? Effect would be same, other one is just due to their speech.

drewbeck• 3 years ago

However, we have freedom of association, and a business may not want to associate with someone who has opinions counter to their own.

I think this part is why there’s so much angst about this these days: businesses have captured a huge part of our commons and our support systems, pieces that might have been (or could be) the purview of government at other times. If we’re all paying dues to BigCorp in order to live, is it fair to say “businesses can choose to not associate with whomever they want”?

livueta3• 3 years ago

This line of thought always reminds me of Marsh v. Alabama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town

Are we at that point of broad-spectrum BigCo dominance yet? I'd say probably not, but sometimes it just seems like a matter of time.

maybeitshim• 3 years ago

"I disapprove of what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it"

Hahaha this reminds of a Romanian politician who had returned to Romania after the revolution and wanted to become president. He was recognizable by his style of wearing a bowtie amongst a sea of ties. He used to utter this same quote to the people but it fell on deaf ears because people wanted products not rights. He never won and is all but forgotten even in the country he wanted to steer in the right direction.

archon1410• 3 years ago

The politician referred to here is Ion Rațiu.[1][2][3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Ra%C8%9Biu [2] https://transylvaniantours.com/ion-ratiu/ [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/Romania/comments/9m3sds/voiam_s%C4%...

xoa• 3 years ago

Ken White, a well known former prosecutor turned defense lawyer and first amendment law expert/speaker (amongst other things), did an interesting article towards the end of last year talking about the importance of being clear about terminology in these discussions ("In Defense Of Free Speech Pedantry" [0]). I think that's very important in these online debates because "freedom of speech" has become a somewhat overloaded that people can use to mean different things. I tend to think of "Free Speech" specifically in terms of what he calls Free Speech Rights (FSR), the actual legal rights afforded by the 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment and subsequent court rulings and precedent, with what people do with it and my own opinions a separate sphere. A lot of people though are bringing in what he terms Free Speech Culture and Speech Decency as well. Just because we legally can do something doesn't mean it's good to exercise that power. Norms sometimes should be challenged, but also are usually worth a bit of thought and discretion. And legal FSR apply to everyone and preserves a forever ongoing cycle of discussion and culture, that's part of the point, and in turn protect criticism and counter criticism, exclusion as well as inclusion. The right to speak necessarily entails the right to not speak.

I don't know if his proposed terms will ultimately catch on and make the most sense, but I do think it's worth some effort in being more precise with our language because FSR vs FSC and SD involves extremely different applications of power and risk, and separating out the domains can help everyone think more clearly about the topic. In the case of this classic saying, it involves all of them in a compact manner. Someone can think speech is just plain wrong, disgusting and evil even, but not want to see force used upon the speaker or any other speaker for a variety of good reasons.

----

0: https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-ped...

jawns• 3 years ago

I've been watching some First Amendment Auditing videos, and it is amazing the degree of ignorance there is not only among the public, but also public servants, including police officers, who should absolutely know that constitutionally protected activity can't be turned into a crime just because someone finds it unpalatable. In fact, that's precisely the reason why First Amendment protections exist. We wouldn't need them if there weren't speech, religions, journalists, or protests that some people didn't want.

I understand your point about "just because you can doesn't mean you should," but on the other hand, we will never know whether constitutional protections have real force unless we see that they work for rights that other people would rather we not exercise.

0xcde4c3db• 3 years ago

Many police officers do know, they just see respect for rights as an impediment to their "real" job of enforcing order. The culture largely teaches them that they're in a war against criminals and that anything they do to win that war is justified [1].

[1] https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/law-enforcements-warrio...

nailer8• 3 years ago

I tend to think of "Free Speech" specifically in terms of what he calls Free Speech Rights (FSR), the actual legal rights afforded by the 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment and subsequent court rulings and precedent, with what people do with it and my own opinions a separate sphere. A lot of people though are bringing in what he terms Free Speech Culture and Speech Decency as well.

This is a very American take. Which might be reasonable as in the UK and Australia for example, the government has much more control of speech. But it feels odd, like when Americans generalise very odd things about 'white' and 'black' people they when only mean Americans.

But I think even before the constitution, the moral value exists. And that's the thing people all over the world have fought for.

Free Speech Culture and Speech Decency as well.

I don't think the ethics/values of free speech are summarised by either of these terms.

Rather I'll keep using 'free speech' to mean the moral value, and 'US constitutional law' to mean US constitutional law.

nemo44x5• 3 years ago

The UK and Australia will use violence against you if you say something in particular or write it down. Think about that. It’s insane.

trabant003• 3 years ago

Just because we legally can do something doesn't mean it's good to exercise that power.

What does "good" and "bad" have to do with this? We have laws specifically so we are not at the mercy of moral judgement. We tried that already, it didn't work. If it's legal you either accept it or try change the law. Anything else is mob justice.

klyrs15• 3 years ago

You can legally share every last detail of the poop you just left in the toilet, pictures and all. If you choose to do that at the lunch table at work, nobody is obliged to remain seated with you. Ergo, sharing such details is not a good idea. Even though it is perfectly legal.

Those co-workers who vacated the table are exercising their rights in walking away. Call that "mob justice" if you will.

glial• 3 years ago

It's legal for an adult to drink a handle of vodka every night. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's legal for you to tell your neighbor you hate them. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

chadash• 3 years ago

I think that this is a dangerous attitude that leads to more laws and the clawing away of rights.

The supreme court explicitly held that people have the constitutional right to hold an anti-gay rally outside of military members' funerals [1]. I think that the vast majority of people (including the overwhelming majority of people holding anti-gay views) would find this behavior atrocious and immoral. But it's protected free speech.

The problem though is that enough of this kind of stuff happens and laws begin to change. Sure, it's one crazy group in this case, but if this sort of behavior were prevalent enough, peoples' views on free speech would change. Sure, this is an extreme example, since something specifically mentioned in the constitution is very hard to change. But there are plenty of examples of laws that only exist in response to some idiot(s) who decided to ruin it for everyone else (as a very simple example, I no longer have the right to buy more than one pack of Sudafed at a time where I live... they didn't just dream that law up out of thin air).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps#Alito's_disse...

sourcecodeplz• 3 years ago

If I summarized what you said into one word: decency. Would that be okaysh?

thagsimmons5• 3 years ago

My heart sinks when I see this sort of parochial US-centric definition of free speech. The vast majority of the world is not protected by and has no interest in US constitutional rights. The principles of free speech are universal, much more important and much broader than the US constitution. There are many ways to foster and promote free speech that has nothing to do with US law. Yes, we're often discussing US companies when this topic comes up, but you should realise that people outside the United States are not covered by US constitutional guarantees, and US companies don't treat us like we are. We must foster a discussion where the principles of free speech are seen to be important outside of this narrow, legalistic, US-centered sense.

cscurmudgeon2• 3 years ago

has no interest in US constitutional rights

Not sure about that. I know friends outside the US who know more about US laws than their own countries' laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

hodgesrm2• 3 years ago

This is a fair point but any discussion of free speech should be grounded with examples of systems that help maintain it, of which the US constitutional regime is one. Not all such regimes have worked, as the French Revolution demonstrated starting 2 months after the adoption of the US constitution. [0, 1]

So my question would be, what other practical examples would you introduce to the discussion?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Sta...

sabarn012• 3 years ago

This is a fish don't know they are wet phenomena. Government protected free speech is taken for granted here that people cannot contemplate what it means for the rest of the world.

JenrHywy2• 3 years ago

I'm not sure if many people realize the the UNHCR has the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[0], ratified by ~180 countries. Unlike the First Amendment, the preamble the the ICCPR makes it clear that it is concerned with the responsibilities of States and citizens:

    Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,

    Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms

    Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant

Article 19 of the ICCPR deals with freedom of expression, and states:

    1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
    2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
    3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
    (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
    (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

This frames freedom of expression as a positive right, whereas the First Amendment is about negative rights. Also in contrast to the First Amendment, the power to curtail these rights is explicitly given to law-makers, in a limited fashion. Non-legal restrictions on free expression constitute a violation of rights.

[0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...

WalterBright20• 3 years ago

There are fundamental rights of man. Government can recognize or abrogate those rights, but cannot invent those rights.

For example, if rights were invented by the government, there would be nothing about slavery that was wrong. If we say slavery violates the right to liberty, then we are saying that the right to liberty is inherent.

sneak6• 3 years ago

The assertion of the US' founders is that such rights are inherent to all people, natural rights, and inalienable.

The fact that it was codified into law in a specific country is an implementation detail. The concepts of liberty in the US documents are philosophical assertions and not related to any nation.

They also happen to be law in the US, but even there they don't really hold force; such "rights" are violated constantly.

judge20206• 3 years ago

The reason is because the audience is likely majority US-based, US-adjacent, or their work focuses on compliance with US laws and customers more than other laws.

Unless you mean the source piece by Ken White itself, which is a specifically about the first amendment and not human rights in general.

s1artibartfast2• 3 years ago

The framework applies equally turn on US country so I'm not sure what you are objecting to. If you read the link they provided it provides definitions for different types of free speech ranging from those that are legally enshrined (or not depending on your country), to how individuals socially react and common custom.

jimbokun19• 3 years ago

US companies power to enable free speech culture is strongly proscribed by the laws of the countries where the content is being accessed. I don't see how US tech companies could over come China's Great Firewall, for example, without the cooperation of the Chinese government.

ecshafer• 3 years ago

I disagree with this idea, that we are talking about Free Speech Rights. When I see people say Free Speech, it is in the lens of the inalienable right that we all have. The US constitution does protect some specific scope of Free Speech, but any limitations legally are still infringements upon the Natural Right of Free Speech. Rights do not come from the Government, they are innate and natural. The government can merely infringe or protect those rights. A company or government infringing on those rights is unethical, because infringing upon any other's rights is unethical, regardless of what the US government says.

SketchySeaBeast10• 3 years ago

Rights do not come from the Government, they are innate and natural.

I don't understand this philosophy. Who decides these rights? Wouldn't whatever rights that you consider to be innate and natural be the ones important through your own cultural lens? Isn't it possible others disagree with what rights one should be granted?

Dudeman1127• 3 years ago

How can a right possibly be innate and natural?

As in, what mechanisms binds what you think rights are (what do you think rights are?) to the laws that govern the natural world?

EdTsft• 3 years ago

That interpretation of rights is not universal and in my experience seems to be a philosophy mainly coming from the US (presumably reinforced by the language in the American bill of rights). I view rights as describing the actual (implicit or explicit) contract between a people and their government, not as an absolute metaphysical or moral concept. In my view, a person in a developed nation has a stronger right to clean water than a person in an impoverished nation as statement of fact observable from the effort their government goes to to ensure they have clean water. I prefer this view of rights divorced from morals because it lets a population pressure their government for rights based on what they want rather than getting bogged down on whether it is morally right to e.g. have access to guns or silence in criminal proceedings.

roody153• 3 years ago

Quote sadly has not held up will in the last couple decades. We are now led by a louder more extreme minority that aggressively police’s discussion points.

For example I am mostly liberal and was a fan of Bernie Sanders. However in my personal case I don’t believe transgender and gender identity roles are something that should be pressed on still developing minors.

The problem here is you may agree or not agree but the point I am making is just my view on this equals bigot / hater .. etc. Any deviation from a strict all or nothing approach is silenced through bullying and harassment.

No room or in there is not even any desire for real discussion … it is just accept these things as “truth” or be labeled some form of hater.

It wasn’t so long ago that real discussion still happened on platforms like reddit and others …now it is curated to the point of nonsense.

greenhorn3602• 3 years ago

So you want to raise children without gender?

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS• 3 years ago

That sound you hear is OPs point flying over your head

omgomgomgomg6• 3 years ago

Well, I sometimes wish I was born an eagle because I like travelling, flying and chasing the sun.

I am not going to try to have a surgery to make it happen.

There is nobody with no gender, there are rarities with natural double gender features, but strictly speaking, nature assigns a gender during early pregnancy.

All the ideas about gender changes occur to people later on and based on personal feelings/factors. The mind is something that develops by education and experience, not genetic urges as far I am aware.

If schools and parents would educate kids saying theres no such thing like gender and you get to choose and society lets the promoters of such go rampant, I imagine this would not lead to a net positive outcome.

bauruine• 3 years ago

I'm from Switzerland so I may get "gender" wrong but yeah that is the progressive take here since the 2000s or so. That just means that you shouldn't force gender stereotypes on children. Let boys play with Barbies and wear pink if the like it and stuff like that. But nobody thought about their gender because of this, they are still boys. Nowadays, at least from what I read online, it feels like your gender depends on these sterotypes and if you don't conform to them you're trans.

klyrs15• 3 years ago

However in my personal case I don’t believe transgender and gender identity roles are something that should be pressed on still developing minors.

I don't think those things should be pressed on developing minors either. But I see people of all stripes dressing their boys in pants and their girls in skirts; blue for boys, pink for girls; encouraging boys to hang with boys and play with "boy things" and girls to hang with girls and play with "girl things" and romanticizing cross-gender interactions between children as young as a day old. I don't think we should be forcing these norms on children of this age.

But I suspect that what you're actually saying is that we should not tolerate transgender expression in children. Which, I submit, violates the rights of that child to express themselves.

And, by the way, freedom of speech includes the freedom to respond to deplorable speech with criticism and even shunning. If somebody thinks that you're a bigot or a hater, will you defend their rights to say so?

nailer8• 3 years ago

But I see people of all stripes dressing their boys in pants and their girls in skirts; blue for boys, pink for girls; encouraging boys to hang with boys and play with "boy things" and girls to hang with girls and play with "girl things" and romanticizing cross-gender interactions between children as young as a day old. I don't think we should be forcing these norms on children of this age.

I don't think we should be either. But asides from the well known differences in brain size and white / grey matter ratios which I'm sure you're already with, I encourage you to visit your local Lesbian Mother's Group where I am sure you will find many parents who absolutely believe in year-0 of sex differences and who, based on my sister's experiences, are often very surprised about how boys and girls act.

But I suspect that what you're actually saying is that we should not tolerate transgender expression in children.

There is no reason to say this. Many people against gender theory are former 'tomboys' that are healthy adults, don't conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as children.

omgomgomgomg6• 3 years ago

I do not know if you habe children, but this is for good reason.

Children are brutal when it comes to peer pressure and such. They do not engage in white lies, they say it as they think it is.

If you send your boy in a pink mini dress to school, you will not be doing him a favour.

There should be some rules on how humans present themselves when in public and in groups. I mean, if society would be such that ypu could walk down the city center naked with all reproductional organs exposed with nothing but a kkk t shirt, this simply would not find acceptance.

In summary, kids minds and kid environments like school are fertile grounds for bullying under peer pressure etc. It is good if a school promotes freedom of expression and tolerance, but some very vocal minority groups want everything yesterday and are pushing it down everyones throats.

Having had a close family member losing 5 years of his life and his savings to a fortuneteller crook has made me realize that people with too much of an open mind, in a crisis situation, will believe the most ridiculous coping strategies told to them by others. Kids are often insecure and easy to influence, I think they should be kept away from people promoting irreversible things like gender changes. Cigarettes , gambling and alcohol are forbidden to be promoted to minors, so should be this.

tsimionescu5• 3 years ago

I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you believe there any possible opinion is legitimate, and that there is nothing that someone could believe in that should get them labeled a hater and socially ostracized? Should we feel a need to become friends with klansmen to prove that we are open minded?

And if not, then how do you draw the line? If there are people who find your own opinion abhorrent or othering or whatever and wish not to associate or discuss with you, by what authority are they wrong? Do you personally feel the need to debate every opinion you hear? How many times should you defend your own opinion before it becoming acceptable not to want to discuss it again?

And just to engage a little bit with your particular opinion, I for one am immediately suspicious of any argument that says "non-sexual non-violent behavior X is acceptable, but not around children". Of course, I am open to the idea that in principle you may have some compelling arguments that I haven't heard before. However, I don't think it's very likely, so my prior would be that you are indeed not very trans friendly. If I were trans, I would be quite inclined to avoid you because of that, and very disinclined to debate this particular point with you in any setting where a more hostile discussion might reflect poorly on me (say, in the workplace). I don't think this reasoning is overly emotional or thought-ending. It's a rational way to respond to speech that may become confrontational.

roody153• 3 years ago

Identity formation is an complex and fascinating subject in human development. As an educator and father of three can also chime in with my own personal experience.

I believe that many (if not most) people do not have a fully formed identity around gender or around sexuality by the age of 15-16.

So asking questions to this group on whether they identity as this or that may actually cause some psychological harm because they are still in the process of forming an identity on multiple fronts.

Imagine being a 15 year young women just out of middle school. You are extremely uncomfortable with you’re body, appearance and just now discovering things of a sexual nature. This period is difficult for many regardless of sexual orientation or gender.

Now imagine going into your freshman english class and the first question asked by your teacher is introduce yourself and your preferred pronoun. This may seem progressive and tolerant but consider it may also be harmful to minors at this stage of development.

Now as an adult if you feel you may have gender dysmorphia and start to identify as a deferent gender than birth .. by all means. In this case I am fully supportive and want people to feel comfortable and find happiness, I also believe we live in a mostly free society so as an adult this is absolutely within your rights.

If you read this far I thank you and am fine is you disagree. Just my thought is my perspective (and many others) as a father of three girls and educator for 20 years should allow for some nuisance in discussion.

My issue is not wether you and I agree on this topic as I assume you have your own valid perspective and experience .. my issue is that this topic is put off limits in many cases and it’s an all or nothing acceptance on supporting trans rights and what that entails.

Spivak• 3 years ago

Where it gets complicated is dealing with dog whistles. Because you’re not actually expressing an opinion that liberals disagree with. No one wants a kid who expresses some gender nonconformity to be pressured into identifying as trans or transitioning. The liberal position is and always has been such things should be made available to everyone with appropriate medical and psychiatric supervision.

But in our shirty new world online discourse the game is now to say something that is obviously true “kids shouldn’t be forced to transition” but then actually mean something else “kids shouldn’t be allowed to transition” and then introduce legislation to that effect. So if you go on the internet and say these kinds of things that no one really disagrees with like it’s a hot take then people pick up pretty fast what you mean. The people caught it the crossfire are unfortunately those folks who actually hold the literal opinion that got appropriated because bigots realized it they could use it as a whistle.

omgomgomgomg6• 3 years ago

They absolutelly should not. Nobody is fit for conrracting while underage. I would go as far and invoke my own freedom of speech and say kids should not be allowed to be targeted by any dog whistling or promot material period Wonder how tolerant these folks would be with my view.

nopelane• 3 years ago

The term "transition" as used here is a euphemism that covers interfering with a child's puberty in a way that is likely to sterilize them for life if the treatment persists, and surgical destruction of breasts, and in some cases, genitals.

I think most people, understanding the reality of this in stark terms, would be dead against children transitioning.

trieste926• 3 years ago

but then actually mean something else “kids shouldn’t be allowed to transition” and then introduce legislation to that effect.

Minors aren't capable of consent. The treatments have permanent side effects and lead to sterilization. One of the drugs used to aid in "transitioning" is lupron, which is also used to sterilize sex offenders

The only reason why any of this is allowed to happen is because the general population doesn't see what's happening. Criticism or "explanations" aren't necessary, all that's needed is visibility so that everyone can see what's being done and vote accordingly

omgomgomgomg6• 3 years ago

I agree with you, same for religion imposed on kids, it plain brainwashing. Religion has a few good things like the ten commandments at least, though.

Pushing gender identity on teenagers who do not even know how to urinate in a straight line and had no sexual intercourse yet is just plain wrong, always will be.The teens do not come up with these things themselves usually its often an external influence by highly irresponsible people pushing theit agenda. To me this is more controversial than the abortion issue.

And thats right, I will openly oppose anyone who claims otherwise and I will certainly not die on any hill defending that.

I can agree to disagree and that is that.

All these who did the gender changes recently appear to be still unhappy and frustrated. Show me the success stories.

This is nothing new by the way, there have been a number of thai boys for example undergoing hormone therapy and gender change more than 25 years ago, they often would work in prostitution. The difference is, they perhaps liked the idea and did it for sexualbor monetary reasons and came up with the idea independently, not via social media.

jancsika• 3 years ago

Any deviation from a strict all or nothing approach is silenced through bullying and harassment.

I don't agree, so let's test my hypothesis right here!

I come armed only with a single, short article about trans desistance that was aimed a general audience, let's have a short but real discussion. Before that I was tabula rasa.

IIRC the researcher Thomas Steensma quoted in the piece produced both of these results in the same set of published papers:

1. There is a high likelihood that some number of patients in his clinic will no longer identify as trans when they are older

2. There is a set of predictors which can be used to help identify minors in his clinic who will persist as trans when they are older

Reading between the lines, it also appears this is one of the more conservative researchers-- i.e., his clinic waits to socially transition kids longer than other clinics do.

Even so, what I read is that a) the guidelines for diagnosing gender dysphoria have become more stringent/accurate over the past few decades, and b) more research will reveal more predictors for persistence.

Given that, your position at the very least is under-specified. You could be saying that you favor waiting to do social transitioning per this clinician's guidelines. Or, you could be arguing that you want the predictors and indicators fleshed out more before you'd be comfortable with the kinds of treatments these clinics provide. Or, you could mean that you reject (out of hand or otherwise) the research on these predictors and/or the accompanying body of research.

All of those positions invite differing qualities of argumentation. And again, I've only read a single article here, so you may very well be privy to knowledge that would sway me in a different direction. But unless that single article was complete bunk, it appears that both the diagnosis of and treatment for gender dysphoria has improved over the past few decades, and that at least a part of the treatment is social transition where the costs and benefits of those who persist and desist need to be weighed.

With my incredibly small amount of knowledge in this area, zero of this particular treatment option for everyone who is a minor certainly seems excessive. If that is indeed your position, then what is the evidence for it and why aren't experts in the field taking that evidence into account?

In any case, I believe I have fulfilled the requirements for at least a single anecdatum that shows lack of bullying/harassment for your stated position.

[1] https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/441784/the-controversial-re...

trieste926• 3 years ago

why aren't experts in the field taking that evidence into account?

Money. Build your entire career around treatments for trans minors, and without them you have no career

renewiltord5• 3 years ago

People are allowed to call you bigot or hater. That's freedom of speech. Even if you disagree with it.

UncleMeat9• 3 years ago

The problem here is you may agree or not agree but the point I am making is just my view on this equals bigot / hater

Yes, some beliefs are inherently bigoted and hateful. The people holding those beliefs often don't see it that way. Slaveowners often thought they were doing the right thing for black people. I see no reason why presenting your beliefs about trans people in a kind way should make your beliefs land any softer. I see no reason to discuss these beliefs with you, as they bring nothing new to the table that has not been discussed before.

Oras• 3 years ago

These days you can offend people by saying anything. Talking to people became kind of a mine field.

Such quotes are close to fiction.

greenhorn3602• 3 years ago

Like saying what? I dont feel like this talking to hardly anyone

antirez• 3 years ago

I friend of mine used to say: I disapprove of what you say, but I would kill myself to avoid hearing it again.

SapporoChris• 3 years ago

I always heard it as: "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to go fuck yourself"

mellosouls• 3 years ago

In recent years has become the rather less inspirational:

"I disapprove of what you say and I will do what I can with a mob to ruin your reputation and career as an example to make sure nobody else says it"

tsimionescu5• 3 years ago

If you take a look at historical media, the breadth of opinions you can find written today, especially if we include online media, is staggering compared to the past. For example, defending homosexuality as a legitimate life choice would have gotten you packed and sent away to the crazy house, and no paper would have ever written about this before the late 80s or so. Same with overt atheism in much public discourse, with respect for native rights, black rights, Irish and Italian rights and many others. Opposition to Israel used to be swiftly boycotted in any public forum. Opposition to the Vietnam War could get you in jail when it started. Communist sympathies too.

Apart from overt racism (which you can still easily find online, even among pretty popular figures in New media), virtually no position that used to be expressed in public discourse has disappeared, and many many ideas that used to be unthinkable and definitely unspeakable are now common place.

So where exactly is this terrible mob?

tmn3• 3 years ago

Right now they’re having a fit over hogwarts legacy

klyrs15• 3 years ago

For example, defending homosexuality as a legitimate life choice would have gotten you packed and sent away to the crazy house, and no paper would have ever written about this before the late 80s or so.

Quite to the contrary. The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft [1] was a research institute dedicated to human sexuality. Histories have long been "cleansed" of records of gay and transgender people; look no further than the bible for evidence that homosexuality was quite normal in society a very long time ago. After all, there's no need to invent a rule against something that people don't want to do.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissen...

maxerickson• 3 years ago

Weird to bring reputation into it. The original formulation doesn't say that saying whatever should be from from social consequences.

royaltheartist• 3 years ago

Seems like a lot of people who want to be heard but don't like it when people actually listen

NewEntryHN• 3 years ago

Social consequences is a cute term for savage justice.

renewiltord5• 3 years ago

That's also speech, and even though I disagree with it, I will defend it.

lolinder2• 3 years ago

It's the kind of speech that borders on the proverbial "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater".

expazl• 3 years ago

Free speech does not mean free from consequences. Its perfectly understandable to want to protect the freedom that allows nazi sympathisers to speak about their hatred for the Jewish people, while still wanting for no-one to chose to do so, and also there to be social consequences for the people who do so.

The anti-freedom of speech path would be to ban any pro nazi speech entirely.

twblalock7• 3 years ago

“Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences” can just as easily be used to justify imprisoning critics of the government as it can to justify shunning people. Not all consequences are justified.

Plus, let’s be honest — most of the “consequences” of speech, like cancelling people, are not really targeted at the person being cancelled. They are really happening because people want to suppress speech they don’t like by scaring other people into silence.

Government is not the only source of oppression. We should be very careful about excusing social consequences for people speaking their mind, or we will lose free speech because of a cancel-culture mob mentality rather than because of government oppression. The end result is pretty much the same and we shouldn’t let it happen.

sabarn012• 3 years ago

I think the issue is that you have people that are trying to apply new norms via small group social pressure amplified via social media. We have some social norms for certain attitude that no one will tolerate in polite society, but those norms are well known. In the last five years a host of new norms have been created that are enforced by small groups that don't mesh with general societal consensus.

healsdata7• 3 years ago

Can you help me understand what rights you'd take away from others to change this situation?

1. If everyone has free speech, then people are free to criticize the speech of others.

2. If everyone has free speech, others are free to publicize the things you said.

3. If everyone has free association, others have a right not to associate with you based on your speech.

dnissley3• 3 years ago

Whoa whoa whoa, why are we immediately jumping to solving this problem through legislation / talk of rights?

josephcsible3• 3 years ago

I'd go with 3. Overturn Citizens United and then take away freedom of association from corporations (let human persons keep it though).

bandofthehawk• 3 years ago

Maybe take away the right of businesses to fire employees for comments they've made in their personal life?

karaterobot2• 3 years ago

Nobody talked about changing rights. People have the right to speak, and others have the right to reciprocate. We should voluntarily practice tolerance toward each other because the fragile apparatus of society breaks if we don't.

syrrim• 3 years ago

in general, the concept of "taking away rights" is ill formed. my rights end where yours begin. in particular, i would take away the right of companies to fire people based on their speech outside of work, and i would take away the right of social media companies to censor people's political views. these can both be phrased as awarding new rights to people, namely a right to employment, and a right to internet expression. both of these come across as much more foundational rights than the alternative.

wvenable2• 3 years ago

On the other hand, the definition of free speech has changed from speech is not criminalized to speech without any negative consequences.

People who speak out want to influence people or policy, which to them would be positive consequences, and yet immediately label negative consequences as being "cancelled".

qu4z-22• 3 years ago

This has not really changed. There are negative consequences we should accept, such as criticism and disagreement, and negative consequences we should not, such as an online mob getting you fired from your job or the government sending goons to disappear you.

ropable• 3 years ago

That's literally the absolute-free-speech feedback loop in action, isn't it? Someone making a statement that a person disagrees with, the second person making an argument against it, and the first person suffering a social consequence as a result. Substitute "a mob to ruin your reputation" for "educating a number of other people about how your argument is a bad one" for a less-hyperbolic result, maybe.

ChrisMarshallNY2• 3 years ago

A lot of these quotes are actually inventions of translators or researchers.

Another one that I'm pretty sure was not actually said by Aristotle (and that I love), is:

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."

boredhedgehog• 3 years ago

I would differentiate between inventions and encapsulations. It's one thing to adorn any random idea with a famous name to give it more traction. But to summarize the thoughts of an influential thinker with a pithy saying, even if he didn't actually say it, is usually not harmful and a normal part of localization.

divbzero• 3 years ago

Reminds me of this quote from another philosopher though I can’t remember which one:

“It’s not who I am underneath but what I do that defines me.”

JieJie• 3 years ago

—Bruce Wayne

https://phind.com/search?q=who+said%2C+“It’s+not+who+I+am+un...

ChrisMarshallNY2• 3 years ago

"What you do speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you're saying."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

snapcaster• 3 years ago

Mewtwo?

Amorymeltzer• 3 years ago

A classic. It's Will Durant. Recently discussed on the ever-excellent Defector: https://defector.com/as-a-wise-man-once-said-aristotle-didnt...

trabant003• 3 years ago

The idea was useful in the past when humanity was still experimenting with different ideas about morality, forms of government, religion, philosophy, etc.

Now that we have settled all that there is no need any more to allow wrong think and wrong speech. /S

In seriousness though, this fight is not new at all. The fact that somebody felt the need to state that quote means the same debate existed back then.

int_19h7• 3 years ago

"One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."

- George Orwell, "The Freedom of the Press" (1945)

jimjimjim• 3 years ago

to the death? really? What about your family? your dependents? Sorry love, it looks like you'll have to pay the mortgage.

quickthrower2• 3 years ago

not his own death, of course.

blindriver5• 3 years ago

I've always been a free speech absolutist. I don't think there's any speech, including hate speech, that I would ban. If I don't like it, I can offer my own opinions and try to educate people, but banning speech outright is wrong.

The problem that has occurred is that some people on the extremes now think "All the other people/children are so stupid that they will get tricked into believe all these lies. We should shut down that speech so that these poor idiots don't fall into this trap." This is thinking that I strongly disagree with. Some people may believe hate speech but I think that's a reflection of who they are, ie. they will probably believe it with or without the convincing. I personally believe that most people are smarter than this and banning speech based on "protect the children!" is a terrible excuse that both the left and right are using nowadays (more by the right a decade ago).

There is no system better than complete free speech, because it allows the most amount of information to be passed back and forth and gives people the opportunity to decide for themselves.

WalterBright20• 3 years ago

I suspect the theory is if one controls others' speech, thereby one also controls their thoughts. Is this really true? How many people adjust their speech to fit in, and change their thoughts to match?

rexpop4• 3 years ago

This is certainly true to some degree, or else all advertising expenditure is wasted.

wrycoder3• 3 years ago

There are people, who, if you kick them into the ditch, will lay there thinking, "I must have done something to deserve this."

carlosjobim2• 3 years ago

If they adjust their speech and their behavior, it doesn't matter anymore what they actually think but dare tell no one.

yibg3• 3 years ago

It seems fundamentally it comes down to whether or not speech can directly cause harm. Canonical example of yelling fire and all that. But lately it’s also been about misinformation, lies etc. should for example defamation be a thing, or fraud etc.

sneak6• 3 years ago

Misinformation does not directly cause harm. The actions or inactions of those so affected is the thing that causes the harm; misinformation thus indirectly causes harm.

WanderPanda• 3 years ago

I almost agree. But there seems to be speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence. I would argue that just the threat of physical violence changes the expected value of the future and hence can force someone to alter their behavior. I think this is one of the few cases where "your freedom stops where the freedom of the other begins" actually applies. I would be interested if you would also argue against prohibiting this kind of speech

bentley7• 3 years ago

Under US law, the standard (established in Brandenburg v. Ohio) is whether the speech is likely to result in imminent lawless action.

MrLeap• 3 years ago

Banning the speech doesn't prevent the violence. Frankly I'd prefer the verbal warning to the surprise attack.

I also don't like the idea of receiving multi-part prose shouted at me from the sidewalk on what someone is going to do with my entrails if they have no intention of actually trying to follow through.

I can't imagine a perfect rule regime, personally. Humans are slippery when it comes to being jerks.

ptero4• 3 years ago

Not the person you asked, but I would not prohibit even that. It's not that I like this, but I do not see any way to prohibit the hate speech in a way that is practical and will not be broadened and misused.

We should stop and punish actions, but the state should not punish the speech. My 2c.

tomp• 3 years ago

Surely a verbal threat of violence is better than just violence?

Like, if I want to kill you, surely it’s better that I tell you, than if I just do it without warning? The expected value of the former is strictly better.

blindriver5• 3 years ago

Sorry you're right, I missed that (I spent all of 5 mins typing up my comment). I wasn't considering all those cases like threats, inciting riots, etc. Those are already crimes and I agree with that. What I meant was regular speech.

super2562• 3 years ago

I almost agree. But there seems to be speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence.

I would not ban that either. However, if you decide to make a serious threat, which takes a significant amount of energy, like doxxing and calling me on my phone to tell me you will kill me, you will have to live with the consequences of the legal system.

If you just tell me in HN comments that you will kill me and my family, I would certainly not give a damn because that's low effort.

Georgelemental7• 3 years ago

My thinking is, promising something about your actions is itself an action that goes beyond mere speech. So threats of violence can be regulated, and so can contracts, product labeling, and so on.

AnthonyMouse6• 3 years ago

But there seems to be speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence.

The thing being prohibited there isn't the speech. Prohibiting threats is really prohibiting coercion. The words of the threat are the evidence of the coercion, not the crime itself.

That's why the threat has to be credible. It's not a crime to say threatening things as an actor in a play because you're not actually threatening anyone even though the communicative aspect is the same.

commandlinefan2• 3 years ago

speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence

Not accusing you of doing this but... censorship is always justified through these sorts of extreme examples, but quickly devolves into banning, say, anybody who suggests that Covid originated in a lab in Wuhan. That's what makes me a free speech absolutist - if I had ever seen any evidence that actual "bad" speech (which I'm not 100% convinced includes threats of physical violence, but I can agree that such a thing could exist) could be banned without the mechanism being almost immediately abused by people with agendas.

rexpop4• 3 years ago

Some people may believe hate speech but I think that's a reflection of who they are, ie. they will probably believe it with or without the convincing.

I just don't know where you got this idea. "Hate speech" isn't just a vague, negative sentiment towards universally recognizable characteristics. It constitutes particular themes and narratives regarding identities constructed arbitrarily out of a constellation of human characteristics that mean nothing outside their context. The absurd story, for example, that Jews bake their Matzah bread out of Christian childrens' blood isn't something that would ever be reproduced on a desert island, any more than it would be reproduced by a thousand monkeys hacking away at typewriters. It's a particular trope invented by a particular powerbase (Christian princes) for economic purposes (maintaining Feudalism despite plebian uprisings).

No one would "probably believe it... without the convincing," because it has to be invented first, and then it has to be introduced to the milieu. The same is true of basically any story or narrative.

Here is where you might be right: maintaining the political economy of medieval Europe necessitated some kind of blood libel, and the Jewish communities were a conveniently vulnerable minority. So at that point, Christian princes needed no convincing themselves, and "that's a reflection of who they are:" Christian, and princes. (I leave it to the reader, as an exercise, to determine whether it was more material that they were Christian, or that they were princes.)

Here is where that's limited: Christian princes do not, themselves, need to believe the libel. They do need, however, their economic powerbase to believe it. And their economic powerbase of Christian commoners has no reason to think up the blood libel themselves when the facts of their exploitation under feudalism ought to cause them to resent, primarily, princes.

I am not suggesting that "complete free speech" is infeasible, or undesirable, but, to reiterate, I simply don't understand where you got the idea that people all over the world somehow spontaneously, perhaps genetically, simultaneously author with identical wording, the very particular tropes that constitute hate speech.

remarkEon• 3 years ago

What does modern debates on free speech in the US have to do with Jews in medieval Europe? I’m struggling with the connection here because it almost seems like you’re implying that the proponents of unfettered free speech are coming from a place of some sort of generational pattern of blood libel and free speech is just an excuse, but that can’t be what you’re saying can it?

Dudeman1127• 3 years ago

personally believe that most people are smarter than this

Every single time someone's uttered those words they were eventually proven wrong

Not that I think we should be banning speech, mind you. Just figured a reminder on that tiny bit was warranted. Assuming people aren't morons is the doom of many endeavours

sneak6• 3 years ago

Assuming that you are smart enough to decide what other adults aren't clever enough to be allowed to read is the same kind of error.

BLKNSLVR3• 3 years ago

Education education education. The silver bullet.

I know silver bullets don't exist, but educating just doesn't seem to get the societal positive attention it so thoroughly needs and deserves.

Where the silver bullet fails is the "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it realise its thirsty" analogy.

School and education have been conflated in a detrimental way, and the reputation of schooling needs urgent repair. During Covid it seemed as if teaching was on the brink of earning more respect, but it was very quickly forgotten and probably only got the attention for reasons of childcare as opposed to education.

All implications of the above are a sad indictment of where society has found itself.

Additionally, if we follow the path of assuming everyone is a moron, we very quickly reach The Nanny State. This is the current pendulum swing.

harry8• 3 years ago

Every single time someone's uttered those words they were eventually proven wrong

[citation needed]

heavyset_go8• 3 years ago

A corollary to this is that it doesn't matter how "dumb" people are or aren't, being affording democracy, free speech, etc. is better than other options.

At the end of the day, autonomy to be dumb morons, and the autonomy to not be, is what people deserve.

sundvor2• 3 years ago

Tangentially, what's truly the difference between banning speech and cancellation culture, I wonder?

If you can lose your job and thus your ability to provide food and shelter for yourself and your family for daring to speak up against the prevailing group think, is that much different from being sent to jail for saying the same?

Political correctnes people and "minority" interest groups have turned into the biggest bullies, it's so darned scary - I for one fear this slippery slope to a very totalitarian society.

jdbernard2• 3 years ago

The problem is that inevitably "but they're morons" becomes the excuse to deny them agency and freedom. And then it's just a matter of who gets to decide who is "smart" enough to deserve freedom. Every single time we've gone down that path it's led to oppression and abuse.

jimbokun19• 3 years ago

I suspect currently most people still aren't morons, but the morons have been given algorithmically amplified megaphones that are drowning out all the other voices.

brazzy13• 3 years ago

I, on the contrary, believe that free speech absolutism is morally and intellectually lazy, naive, and wrong. Banning some speech is in fact necessary to preserve freedom.

Speech has real consequences, otherwise why would you consider it important to defend? Hate speech is a real problem. It is poisonous to society and results in real people getting killed for real. And no, the "marketplace of ideas" where you offer your own opinion to disprove lies is a hopelessly naive concept. That's not how the world works. In reality, people prefer to stay in echo chambers. And fascists laugh about how you're working towards making it easier for them to abolish all freedoms.

When our enemies say: well, we gave you the freedom of opinion back then- yeah, you gave it to us, that's in no way evidence that we should return the favor! Your stupidity shall not be contagious! That you granted it to us is evidence of how dumb you are!

-- Joseph Goebbels, 1935

And no, there is no slippery slope here. Many European countries have well-designed, robust hate speech bans that have worked well for decades to protect freedom against those who would destroy it.

silisili2• 3 years ago

How does one definite hate speech? Who gets to decide? That's my entire problem with this philosophy. Some one or some group feel holy enough to be the arbiters.

A lot of religious texts, beliefs, and/or sermons would probably be considered hate speech to a not insignificant number of people.

shrimp_emoji• 3 years ago

Joseph Goebbels, 1935

So be like the Nazis (because that worked so well for them).

nxm2• 3 years ago

And how do you define hate speech? Speech that you don’t like? That offends you? It’s an extremely slippery slope until you don’t get to say what you want because someone with more power than you decided it’d be “hate speech”

redeeman9• 3 years ago

Many European countries have well-designed, robust hate speech bans that have worked well for decades to protect freedom against those who would destroy it.

And we know this because we stopped anyone who disagreed with the system from talking... oh wait lets try again: And we know this because anyone who disagrees is a lousy criminal thats in jail or silencing themselves for fear of such

super2562• 3 years ago

And no, there is no slippery slope here. Many European countries have well-designed, robust hate speech bans that have worked well for decades to protect freedom against those who would destroy it.

The country where I live only banned hate speech in 2017, and I think the world was fine before it. The issue is not that we need more laws to ban any kind of speech, but we need to actually enforce the existing laws instead. Before 2017 we only had a law for “instigation of the people”, which worked fine and did not ban "hate speech" per se.

Georgelemental7• 3 years ago

Many European countries have well-designed, robust hate speech bans that have worked well for decades

... to attack democratic debate and suppress those who dare oppose the powers that be with endless SLAPP lawsuits.

jimbokun19• 3 years ago

It is poisonous to society and results in real people getting killed for real.

On the contrary, Twitter is full of people claiming this or that speech is getting people killed, with absolutely no evidence.

There are a growing number of people who truly and deeply believe exposure to opinions they disagree with, or even empirical data, is "violence" against them or even "genocide".

Making these claims is a great strategy for forcibly silencing anyone who disagrees with you.

bee_rider4• 3 years ago

I don’t get free speech absolutism. In particular, there’s the old obvious conflict: most conversation takes place online nowadays, on privately owned platforms, like this one. In ideal free-speech land, these platforms are relaying our speech, and the decision to do so or not is part of their freedom of speech.

It isn’t obvious to me that there is an absolute direction. It seems like an interplay of the speech interests of various entities which may push against each other.

shkkmo2• 3 years ago

the decision to do so or not is part of their freedom of speech.

If this is true, then they should also face liability for that speech. As it is "platforms" are given the rights of free speech with none of the responsibility.

Personally, I don't think that platforms are people and thus don't have the same rights to speech which is why we allow them to escape some of the responsibility. There are big benefits to allowing platforms to do some level of moderation without accepting full liability for all speech on their platform. However, in exchange these platforms lose the right to arbitrarily ban and censor people.

torstenvl2• 3 years ago

the decision to do so or not is part of their freedom of speech

Well, you're not entirely wrong, but I feel perhaps like you're missing some nuance. I'm not a First Amendment attorney, but I don't think hosting is necessarily speech; and if Facebook ever claimed that their hosted content was a matter of their own speech, that could undermine their claim of immunity under Section 230. There's also the concept of private property becoming a public forum, which is well-supported by case law, but whose application is unclear in the virtual world.

Anyway, apart from all that, free speech as a value is much broader than the legal requirements of the First Amendment. I'm reminded of Alan Berg, hosting and debating bigots on his radio show, because limiting expression always ends up hurting minorities, and because suppression of such thoughts just drives it underground; sunlight is the best disinfectant.

wrycoder3• 3 years ago

Graham: What you can't say

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

vpilcx13• 3 years ago

I think that's really easy to believe in - when you're not at risk in any kind of way.

I mean, if you're a white guy, what do you give a fuck about someone turning America into a white ethnostate? Sure, theoretically, it's morally bad, but you're not really going to be directly affected.

If you're not trans, being characterized as a groomer pedophile has no effect at all to you.

I think it's easy to take a stand in favor of free speech when speech is only speech, but that's a remarkably naive and gullible viewpoint to have. Do you think white supremacists that lynch black people don't use hate speech beforehand and talk about exterminating non-whites beforehand?

"But that's violence. That's diferent.", you might say. How do you think these people meet each other and collaborate with each other and normalize this kind of behavior? Through 'free speech'.

blindriver5• 3 years ago

So are you saying we should outlaw letting people gather and say disagreeable/racist things privately among each other? Boy that escalated pretty quickly. What's next? Should we outlaw people thinking racist and hateful things as well?

BxGyw22• 3 years ago

Actually there are a lot of black supremacists etc, people who absolutely hate me and want my whole race to die and I'll still listen to their podcasts and stuff just because it's something interesting. People who aren't scared to be labelled extreme are usually saying the interesting stuff that needs to be said. You should stop taking everything so serious and just go with the flow

balderdash• 3 years ago

The other side of that coin (which is far more prevalent historically) is that speech restrictions are used to stifle dissent and repress minority groups. I.e. illegalizing anti-war or minority rights speech.

You make the mistake of assuming that those in power will only be preventing speech you agree with rather than muzzling you.

colordrops4• 3 years ago

The problem is that these hate movements aren't necessarily linearly correlated to the level of free speech. If there is less free speech, then indirect speech, euphemisms, and dog whistles are used. It doesn't stop it. Once any rule is made, it can be worked around. Even worse, the additional rules often anger and energize these people due to a perceived feeling of persecution. And lastly, the rules always get misinterpreted and abused to shut down significant amounts of speech that should not have been censored.

Unless you can prove with certainty that free speech causes an increase in violence and death, then it's better to default to openness.

The KKK and white supremacists marched in their clown parades regularly for decades and we laughed at them. Is it a coincidence that their movements grew significantly with the amplification of messages against them and social media censorship against them. Various right wing figures used this as leverage to increase their virulence.

vlunkr2• 3 years ago

I don’t think this is considering the full picture. It would be great if we could magically eliminate nazi ideology, but is the best way to do that really to hand the government extra censorship powers? Do you think the government is going to use that power to benefit the minority groups that need defending, or to advance their own agenda? Even if you have the right elected officials in place to censor things the way you want, what if the next round of elections gives that power to the other team?

Dan Carlin had a great example of this when there was lots of strife between MAGA and antifa groups. Lots of antifa people were calling for censorship of nazi speech while carrying communist flags. Carlin pointed out that if you give the government the power to eliminate that far-right speech, your far-left speech is next to the chopping block.

tekla3• 3 years ago

Man, I hate doing this, but im going to use identity politics because its fun to use it against the people pushing this shenanigans.

So as someone who is Asian, who thought that claiming the lab leak theory to be racist against Asians to be incredibly stupid, and as someone who has been on the receiving end of multiple insults related to COVID and possibly one violent interaction, I am still a Free Speech Absolutist.

My family knows what its like to live in a world where speech is censored, not by the government, but by everyone you know for saying something out of line with the official narrative. I despise the fact that the current left seems to be all ok with living in a authoritative world where everyone is expected to socially push the current narrative and suppress dissent. The worst part is that since its not directly coming from the Govt, its used as an excuse to continue to push these anti-liberal agendas.

I don't care if I'm on the receiving end of threats or actual violence because of free speech. Giving up your rights due to being scared is cowardice and allows actual authoritarians to take over your mind.

redeeman9• 3 years ago

now I might be naive, but I would tend to think that if I hated someone, for whatever reason, and he lobbied the biggest organized crime syndicate(government) to restrict my ability to talk about my hatred with anyone else, it might just be that I choose to talk with my fists instead of lips.

Surely you cannot think restricting speech helps you in any way? Do you think it helps turn those that dislike you on your side?

negidius4• 3 years ago

I think it's the opposite. It's the people who are at the greatest risk of violence who have the most to fear from censorship. If you are anywhere near powerful enough to commit genocide, you are also powerful enough to ensure that it's your opponents and not you who are censored.

Consider what kind of books are being banned from American libraries. It's books portraying trans and gender-nonconforming people in a positive or neutral light, not books calling them "groomer pedophiles". It's books telling American history from the perspective of America's exploited minorities, not books calling for ethnic genocide or pretending the US actually upheld the principles of freedom and equality it was allegedly founded on.

To support censorship, especially state censorship, is to support the powerful in imposing their version of the truth on everyone else.

twblalock7• 3 years ago

I think it's easy to take a stand in favor of free speech when speech is only speech, but that's a remarkably naive and gullible viewpoint to have. Do you think white supremacists that lynch black people don't use hate speech beforehand and talk about exterminating non-whites beforehand?

What's naïve is thinking that they would stop the lynching if someone told them they weren't allowed to talk about it. It would make zero difference.

"But that's violence. That's diferent.", you might say. How do you think these people meet each other and collaborate with each other and normalize this kind of behavior? Through 'free speech'.

Conspiracy to commit crimes is illegal for a number of reasons and covers this problem adequately without needing to infringe on speech per se. But you should also remember that it is not words that kill people, it is the actual violence that follows that kills people, and that kind of violence is already illegal.

Plus, racist speech is how we find out who the racists are. David Duke basically outed himself as a Klan member by making racist political speeches in public, for example.

skizm3• 3 years ago

What about: yelling "fire" in a crowded room, deliberately lying on the internet in a way that leads to deaths (ex. 4chan's "how to grow crystals" post), targeting kids or at risk groups with ads or content for things like gambling, alcohol, etc., calling for someone's death, posting instructions for making a bomb?

bentley7• 3 years ago

What about: yelling "fire" in a crowded room

Yep, that’s pretty dangerous, and people could get hurt. That shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment.

Oh yeah, and protesting the draft. That’s pretty dangerous too. Government military recruitment is a necessity when we’re at war, and advocating against it is tantamount to sedition and espionage. It’s basically the same situation as shouting “fire” in a crowded room, and should not be protected by the First Amendment.

Now, I don’t actually believe this—I’m merely sharing how the US Supreme Court used exactly the same analogy you did, in 1919. Schenck v. United States is the most important use of the “‘fire’ in a crowded theater” analogy in history, because it shows how, in practice, such common‐sense ideas actually get used by the powerful.

UnpossibleJim2• 3 years ago

At that point, why bother to allow gambling or alcohol a place in society. If people truly have no self determination, why not let a state or federal agency dictate all of their rights and wrongs. Eat only what's good for you because if it isn't healthy and slimming, you can't say anything about it because obese people are an "at risk" population. No more addictive medications of any kind. Doctors aren't agents of the state and couldn't possibly be as educated as a government representative, like your congressman. And intimating that your government officials lied to the public at large would be strictly verboten, I'm sure.

jltsiren2• 3 years ago

Most people are not free speech absolutists. They may support free speech if they believe it will make the society better. It's means to an end, not the end itself. For them, the extent speech should be free is an empirical question and not a matter of principles.

From this perspective, the worst kind of speech is not hate speech or calls for violence. It's the speech that deepens political divisions and lowers trust in the society. When people see how free speech is making the society worse – when they start seeing their political opponents as their enemies – they want to police speech to make the society better. Especially the speech their enemies.

If you engage in speech like that, or if you support people who do it, you are undermining freedom of speech. You may believe you support freedom of speech, but in practice you may be opposing it.

cm21873• 3 years ago

It's the speech that deepens political divisions and lowers trust in the society

So when Fauci lies on television, I can't speak out because it would deepend political divisions and lower trust in the society? That's a terrible standard. And completely subjective. This is the very definition of the absense of free speech. Free speech is the freedom to disagree, to challenge. Not to only say what is consensual.

Retric5• 3 years ago

Political speech isn’t a problem, but I object to people spreading objectively false information. Convincing people to take alternative medicine for serious diseases is just as harmful as yelling fire in a theater or hate speech the victims are simply the believers and their dependents.

This isn’t a new problem, it’s been illegal to pretend to be a doctor for decades. The difference is simply the reach we are giving charlatans.

PS: I can’t wait until a flat earthers start defunding GPS because it’s spreading lies…

AnthonyMouse6• 3 years ago

The problem with this logic is that censorship is divisive. Whoever is being censored will resent it. They'll build their own networks and partition themselves, which only deepens the divisions.

Whereas if you debate them and they lose in front of everyone, their ideas become discredited and the viewers become inoculated because they've now heard an effective counterargument instead of encountering bad ideas for the first time in a place controlled entirely by their proponents.

danans4• 3 years ago

Some people may believe hate speech but I think that's a reflection of who they are, ie. they will probably believe it with or without the convincing. I personally believe that most people are smarter than this

The genocides of recent history debunk the idea that people are "smart" enough to dismiss hate propagandists. Also, it doesn't have anything to do with being smart, because lots of "smart" people also join hate-motivated movements. They do it because hate serves their inner needs, the same reason that so-called "not-smart" people do it.

Believing in people's better angels is great and all, but outside of contexts where they feel safe, humans don't instinctively love or even tolerate their fellow humans, especially when their fears and insecurities are targeted.

Fear, intolerance, and hate are unfortunately much simpler and more default than nuance and tolerance. That is why hate speech is inordinately effective compared to tolerance-speech.

fortituded00022• 3 years ago

There is no system better than complete free speech, because it allows the most amount of information to be passed back and forth and gives people the opportunity to decide for themselves.

I used this think this, but then I figured out that I live in a world where I'm not always welcome by the "majority" and have seen first hand how these things can go sideways. Now I view this attitude as a privilege and that it typically comes from someone whose rights aren't all that impacted by the tyranny of the majority.

redeeman9• 3 years ago

but then I figured out that I live in a world where I'm not always welcome by the "majority" and have seen first hand how these things can go sideways.

and if they cannot say what they think, they will simply welcome you more?

devnonymous• 3 years ago

I personally believe that most people are smarter than this

You've grossly overestimated the willingness (not the capacity) of people to reason and gravely underestimated the power of propoganda.

Everything in history from religion to politics, from sports to war, yes even the history of science, points to the capacity of humans to willfully ignore knowledge.

krsdcbl• 3 years ago

I think you're misinterpreting the motivations to oppose hate speech.

Thinking it "might convince stupid people of wrongs" is something we might think of as a trope, but if you think about it it's an elitist fallacy.

It stems purely from the idea that I, smart and educated as I am, must preserve the common idiot from making mistakes.

The reason it's a debatable topic is much more banal und real: It's doing harm and impacting the lifes of the minorities targeted by such hate speech. No need for gullible fools to mistake it for a rallying call and do physical or otherwise subsequent harm. Hate speech is very well suited to hurt, oppress, silence and alienate all by itself.

So yes, free speech must prevail any counterargument! But so does the moral principles not to hurt others, and the logical necessity that my freedom ends when it would diminish the freedom of others.

And freedom of speech does not mean right to threaten others indemnity. If it would, that would do nothing but enable this very freedom of expressions downfall.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

acyou• 3 years ago

Communication is a two way street. Speaking and listening. I'm not sure if free speech is currently restricted so much as listening is restricted. Censorship could be said to place limitations on both.

Free speech absolutism - are you going to force people to listen? Who has the right to decide what content is available, and where? Are media platforms then compelled to not de-platform? I am literally censoring the TV when I turn it off. You think that's wrong?

Don't understand what you mean by free speech absolutism, concept doesn't make too much sense to me.

AnthonyMouse6• 3 years ago

Free speech is violated when someone interferes with a willing speaker talking to a willing listener because of the content of their communications.

Alice doesn't have to listen to Bob, but if Carol interferes with Alice listening to Bob, that's censorship.

Causality1• 3 years ago

I would call myself a 99-percenter. I still believe in the restriction of credible violent threats, fraud, and pornography featuring real children.

chrismsimpson• 3 years ago

So if people are handed coolaid and are stupid enough to drink it there should be no burden of responsibility placed on the community? No regulation banning the handing out of said coolaid? I don’t want to live in such a society. I think most reasonable people want commonsense restrictions in place for everyone’s safety.

Free speech absolutionists can try their petri dish ideas, I’d just prefer they do it far away from the rest of us trying to live in a decent (and improving) society.

tkwj• 3 years ago

Safety is often the first reason given when removing freedoms. It would be a fallacy to compare a poisonous coolaid or more precisely, Flavor-Aid, to speech even when yelling fire.

ambicapter• 3 years ago

it allows the most amount of information to be passed back and forth

It also allows for the most amount of noise, and there are tons of people who don't want to spend their lives filtering through a bunch of noise produced by bad actors and would rather trust someone reputable to do it for them.

human_person• 3 years ago

Is there really any such thing as free speech absolutism? Let’s say there are no rules about what you can say on Twitter. Carol tweets about not liking video games. In response 100s of trolls/bots start threatening to rape her. Alice sees the threats and decides not to tweet her own opinions about video games for fear of being on the receiving end of that vitriol. In my opinion, at this point Alice’s freedom of speech is being impeded. You could argue that she’s choosing not to speak because she doesn’t want to deal with the consequences but how is that different than not shouting fire in a theatre because you don’t want to be arrested? Every society decides what speech is acceptable and what isn’t. And then enforces that via social norms, laws and regulations. Personally I’d rather live in a society where people are able to share their opinions without being threatened. I think that society is actually maximizing the flow of information while a society focused on “No rules free speech absolutism” is simply delegating the choice of who is free to speak to mob rule.

TLDR - free speech absolutism sounds simple until you think about who is actually free to speak/which voices are heard on platforms that have no rules

fennecfoxy6• 3 years ago

Have you ever been a target of hate speech? Have any of your friends?

You act like everyone is super strong and can deal with hate speech. As if a gay or trans teen can always handle being told again & again that they're a disgusting monster, that they don't belong in this world and that people like them should die. Not everyone is strong enough to refute these opinions with their own. And then they kill themselves.

M2Ys4U2• 3 years ago

What about other rights that are in direct contradiction with freedom of speech?

Take, for example, privacy. In a free speech absolutist world, nobody can ever have privacy, for anything one says in confidence can be repeated for all to hear. Or I could completely doxx you, and you'd have no recourse.

Free speech absolutism is complete garbage

lm284693• 3 years ago

There is no system better than complete free speech

Yet it literally never existed

deanCommie2• 3 years ago

Independent of the other threads here (talking about freedom from prosecution from government vs private companies vs individual reputation)

And everyone talking about their own limitations on free speech (I support Bernie Sanders, but I draw the line at Trans rights)

I think it's also worth noting the changes in expectations of magnitude of reactions and reprisal for free speech today vs say Voltaire's age.

Reputation and shame used to drive so much of our public discourse. Whenever you hear about people challenging each other over some disagreement or disapproval, it's always the most benign stuff.

In that context, saying "not only will I not challenge you to a dual for disagreeing with me, but I will actually fight to PROTECT your right to say it" is pretty revolutionary stuff.

We should ask Voltaire (or whoever was actually responsible) if he would feel the same way if the person who he disapproved of was a person of significant means and power and was calling for the destruction of Voltaire's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

So when people today scream about cancel culture because of some heinous shit they said about black or trans people, then use this quote to suggest that we should be defending to the death their right to call for systemic discrimination and repression of others....it's just not the same.

Biganon• 3 years ago

Voltaire? François-Marie Arouet?

Ha! Voltaire is François-Marie Arouet! Oh dear!

einpoklum• 3 years ago

Some fashionable variants on that maxim these days:

* I disapprove of what you say and will label you a terrorist / communist / traitor / Putin-puppet / etc. regardless of whether those epithets actually have anything to do with it.

* I disapprove of what you say and will demand you be silenced or canceled in the name of creating a safe friendly environment.

* I disapprove of what you say and use my social media company connections to make sure the algorithm suppresses you. Eh, why even bother? They probably do it automatically already anyway and just direct everybody to safe vetted opinions.

skeeter20202• 3 years ago

> I don't think there's any speech, including hate speech, that I would ban

How many times do we have to experience a charismatic (or just populist) leader using hate speech to compel great evil though? I don't want to wait until after the act to try and hold them accountable.

ed25519FUUU• 3 years ago

It’s interesting that some people see freedom of speech as a weapon to commit crime, and others see freedom of speech as a weapon to prevent crime.

karaterobot2• 3 years ago

I'm sure everybody read the article before commenting, but just to summarize: Voltaire probably never specifically gave this quote, it probably comes from a historian writing about him. Likely due some ambiguous quotation marks, people took it as a direct quote and ran with it.

daxfohl• 3 years ago

"I don't care what you say, but I will defend to the death my right to comment on what I think you might have said."

selcuka2• 3 years ago

I don't care what the article says, nor will I read it, but I will defend to the death my right to comment on it.

yrro• 3 years ago

"he didn't say it but the fact that it could have been said says A LOT about society"

neverrroot• 3 years ago

This! This is what freedom of speech is really about!

refurb2• 3 years ago

The rationale for free speech is easy to articulate - “if you restrict speech you open the door for your opponents to do the same”.

Everybody wants to restrict speech they dont like, but with that comes the ability for others to restrict speech you do like.

Hence, the optimal outcome is no or minimal restriction.

trgn5• 3 years ago

While I agree with this, it's sadly a game theoretic reasoning, that is to say, fearful, relativistic, utilitarian.

Again, not being dismissive at all, but it says something about the state of our thinking and quality of our ideals, when we cannot make arguments on absolute grounds anymore. Or if we do, they seem quaint, passe, naive.

rqtwteye4• 3 years ago

I really hate it that so many people these feel the need to immediately push back when somebody says something they don't agree with. I remember years ago you could have a discussion and express your opinion and it was fine. Now with a lot of people it's better to say nothing.

samtp19• 3 years ago

I remember years ago you could have a discussion and express your opinion and it was fine.

I also remember when racism, xenophobia, slandering women, and generally ignorant talk was accepted and chuckled at. Thankfully, women are now expected to express opinions at dinner parties and minorities aren't run out of town for having the audacity to exist in the same neighborhood.

SheepSlapper2• 3 years ago

It only took 7 minutes for someone to come in and do... almost exactly what the above poster was describing. There's no way this isn't a simulation.

maxdoop• 3 years ago

And what about if they said “COVID might’ve been a lab leak ?”

You have valid examples, yes, but GP comment has a point as well.

PathOfEclipse2• 3 years ago

GP: I remember when this good thing still existed.

You: I remember also when this unrelated set of things existed at the same time.

That's a great non sequitur you just spewed out. In case your Latin is rusty, that translates to "it does not follow".

seneca• 3 years ago

Yes, this was when we had a liberal society. Western countries have rapidly trended toward authoritarianism in the last couple of decades, unfortunately, and liberalism is in its death throes.

slg7• 3 years ago

I remember years ago you could have a discussion and express your opinion and it was fine.

I’m always curious what time period people are referring to when they say something like this. Because it seems to me that there have always been things that you would have been shunned for saying. The only difference is that collection of things changes over time and people are uncomfortable when those changes outpace their own opinions. That has been happening throughout recorded human history, every generation thinks the generation or two after them are destroying the moral fabric of society. It wasn’t true when the ancient Greeks complained about it and it probably isn’t true today.

brightball3• 3 years ago

We did have the dark ages…

wyldfire• 3 years ago

This sounds similar to the Overton Window:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

jimbokun19• 3 years ago

It was completely true when the Greeks complained about it and it's true still today.

The younger generations are constantly in the process of destroying the moral fabric established by previous generations and weaving their own.

mdorazio• 3 years ago

I would argue that in the social media space, trends in "cancel culture" and just generally shaming people for saying something not supported by whatever is the current "woke" / "social justice" viewpoint du jour are a relatively recent phenomenon. At least in my experience, conversations online were more open 10 years ago than they are today.

charlieyu1• 3 years ago

My lifetime is limited but early internet era was the time where the people were far more open-minded than both the generation before it and now

koonsolo• 3 years ago

Yeah I agree. My parents were born in the 40's and 50's, and they always taught me not to discuss politics publicly. It was just the smarter thing to do that nobody knew your alignment.

It seems now online, the biggest discussions are about politics.

belorn2• 3 years ago

The answer to that question depend on what kind of quantity and quality that the shunning had on a person. At the extreme end we have massive discrimination of whole demographic because something a single person said or did, and at the other end we have zero reaction.

We can look at notable events in history, like say Monty Python's Flying Circus and the Monty Python films. Those were censored in some countries and got shunned by Catholics, but they did not get fired, their homes did not get turned on fire, the shows did still air on TV and movie studies in the UK, they continued to get employment later in life and in general was not that shunned by society at large. How they treated Catholics was not compared to the Nazi. UK flags was not burned nor did anyone break into UK embassies.

So that is one level of free speech we can compare with. Catholics may disapprove of what Monty Python said and did, but as a society we should defend the level of free speech that Monty Python performed. We should avoid having consequences of Monty Python-level of free speech be worse than what Monty Python received back in 1979.

rqtwteye4• 3 years ago

I know that people always complained about the younger generation. That's not what I meant.

What I meant was that these days a lot of people feel the need to immediately push back on someone's opinion by framing it as ethically bad. They do this while offering no opinion themselves. For example I got in trouble because I questioned the way corporations are implementing diversity initiatives. I am completely on board with the intent but I think it's not done in an effective manner but more like a PR stunt. It's possible that I am wrong but I don't think I deserve to be called a racist by people who are not offering any thought of their own on the issue.

I think this has to do with the the way the US parties with the help of social media have managed to split the populace into two camps that live in separate realities where even listening to somebody who is on the "other" side is viewed as treason.

itdidhappen• 3 years ago

That has been happening throughout recorded human history, every generation thinks the generation or two after them are destroying the moral fabric of society. It wasn’t true when the ancient Greeks complained about it and it probably isn’t true today.

The Greeks and Romans suffered serious civilizational decay around the times that people were saying such things.

zzo38computer• 3 years ago

I believe that people should have the right of freedom of speech. However, it also means that you should have the freedom of speech to argue against them too.

(However, if you wish to state your view, it would be better to try to make an argument for it, if you can do so. (It is possible that it is just a guess, in which case you can say so; if you know why you made that guess then you might mention that too.) If a reasonable argument can be made on both sides then a better debate will be possible, rather than merely being ignorant and saying things without any good reason to do so. If you actually explain things, then you can learn better, isn't it?)

fennecfoxy6• 3 years ago

Of course they push back. You can't expect to express your opinion without them expressing theirs. Don't they have a right to as well, or is that yours, exclusively?

"I love the new Marvel film" "Eh, I didn't think it was that great". Why is the 2nd person in the equation not allowed to express their opinion?

It's only when it turns into an argument, where both parties refuse to accept the differing opinion of the other party that things go awry. Or frequently as I find with friends, they're prepared to try to change my opinion but aren't prepared to discuss it for as long as I am, where they get upset & overly emotional and it therefore turns into an argument.

Some people have a hard time separating the idea that's being attacked from themselves; personal attacks are not okay. "I don't think people should vote for x for y reasons" is a lot cleaner than "I can't believe you'd vote for x, what kind of person are you".

scns3• 3 years ago

"I think it was bad."

I was that person. Stopped it, better off for it. I realized how annoying that behaviour is. Nowadays i respond: "Ah, okay." Whats the value in disagreeing about taste? Negative. I remember how hurt i was in the past, when i showed people music i love and they dismissed it.

I even stopped wanting to be right all the time, since i grew tired of arguing over trivia. I think i disentangled my knowledge/smarts from how i feel about myself.

It's different with Hatespeech for sure.

janalsncm3• 3 years ago

If someone disagrees with me, I’d rather they come out and say it rather than pretend to agree.

andrepd3• 3 years ago

Why is stating your opinion free game, but getting a reply you don't like is not?

phendrenad2• 3 years ago

My observation about free speech: It's a cyclical thing.

"I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is one side, and "People must be protected from wrongthink" is the other side. Our democratic societies cycle back and forth between them, like clockwork. Often in the process, the "left" and "right" side of the traditional political spectrum swap stances on free speech (sometimes multiple times). In the 1950s, when McCarthyism was rampant, it was the left that wanted the right to free expression, even if it meant protecting communist agitators. Now, it's the left that wants strict rules on what can be said, because Trumpism made them think that wrongthink itself is a threat to democracy. It'll swap back, in time. It always does.

wcarron3• 3 years ago

This thread is an exercise in accepting disappointment in your fellow man.

permo-w• 3 years ago

today’s issues with free speech boil down to that historically there were huge barriers to communicating with a mass audience, and now there are not, and how we deal with the consequences of that

fennecfoxy6• 3 years ago

It's a silly idea, anyway.

People's right to free speech should be defended, for instance no more Galileo being silenced by the Church because empirical evidence fractured their fragile beliefs.

But at the same time, people can't just say _anything_. If society was still allowed to be legally publicly homophobic, I'd still be told to my face by various people that I'm a: monster, pedophile, going to hell, sissy and all manner of cruel insults & jokes just because I'm gay. That wears someone down, after a while.

recuter• 3 years ago

Frankly, my dear, I no longer care.

codeddesign• 3 years ago

Today’s left leaners: “I disapprove with what you say, so I will get angry and harass until you agree with me”

I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it

Related Stories