Free Speech

[lc69hunter]

The reality is that both sides only want free speech for ideas and thoughts they agree with. And the right is no better than the left in this regard. A pox on both of your houses. I am a libertarian, and feel free to trash both sides for their butthurt little stupidity

 

[FelHarper]

The reality is that both sides only want free speech for ideas and thoughts they agree with. And the right is no better than the left in this regard.

Sometimes I feel that way, but I try to remember that a small percentage is still a large group when you’re looking at millions on a platform. It helps to explain how most of the people you interact with in person are polite and reasonable. And even the real fire-breathers are probably being heavily influenced by the media they consume.

I think that the right has a valid point that you need restraints on free speech when it comes to children. Pornography, in particular, can have long term negative consequences, even for adults, and those effects seem to be worse for children. Likewise, using your speech to mobilize a mob to threaten and intimidate crosses a crucial line. We should not discount these concerns because of who cites them.

A pox on both of your houses. I am a libertarian, and feel free to trash both sides for their butthurt little stupidity

I used to be more in the libertarian camp, but I think that an over-reliance on the non-aggression principle and rational self-interest creates a large blind-spot in the ideology. I think that libertarianism has no good answer for what to do about evil, either denying its existence or reasoning that economic incentives will just take care of it in a radically free society. You have to prepare for the fact that some (few) people are irretrievably broken.

 

[Goldenfinger]

What some people don’t get is when you fight for something you have to fight for it as a whole. You have to fight for the worst of it.

 

[FelHarper]

What some people don’t get is when you fight for something you have to fight for it as a whole. You have to fight for the worst of it.

Think carefully about that statement, though. Complete free speech absolutism would allow child pornography. Sure, you could legally go after people that produce it, but if all speech is protected, how can you justify punishing people who own or distribute it?

You need some rules, but they need to be clear, specific, and binding. Not this squishy, arbitrary mess we have now.

 

[FelHarper]

There's another way to look at it. Perhaps there are people for whom that speech was never benign, but rather, was frightening or dangerous. What's changed is simply they can say something about it instead of keeping their heads down and mouths shut.

You will never please everyone. Some people will feel threatened by innocuous statements. You have to set objective standards that work for the majority of people most of the time. And you can’t allow a few people who get off on using mob tactics to control things.

It brings to mind the time I was trying to help my female friend transport her stuff from storage that she had left in another state. The woman who worked at the storage facility did not want to allow her to get her stuff and close out her account because she had a temporary driver’s license, even though it had her name and picture.

I told the woman in an even tone that we had driven eight hours to get here and there was nothing wrong with the license. I then started to say, “Look, I’m trying to stay calm, but this is outrageous.” As soon as I said the first part, she said, “If you’re going to threaten me, I’m calling security.”

I walked out to the parking lot without another word, my friend called the police, and twenty minutes later we were packing her things in my car. To this day I’m still dumbfounded that she would automatically assume that I was threatening violence, but I see the same kinds of claims from both sides of the political aisle.

 

[Goldenfinger]

Think carefully about that statement, though. Complete free speech absolutism would allow child pornography. Sure, you could legally go after people that produce it, but if all speech is protected, how can you justify punishing people who own or distribute it?

You need some rules, but they need to be clear, specific, and binding. Not this squishy, arbitrary mess we have now.

I agree there does need to be rules but it’s a slippery slope. I in general don’t agree with absolutes. I will give you an example of what I was referring to. In some states where they are trying to reform the criminal code, there are laws on the books that lump a lot of different crimes together. If one of those crimes is some sort of a sexual assault, when you lobby to repeal the law you’re fighting for the worst crime under that law. That is what the opposition will use against you. Free speech is the same. I’m fighting to say what ever I want but I’m fighting for someone else to say some crazy shit also.

 

[IrisAlthea]

In some states where they are trying to reform the criminal code, there are laws on the books that lump a lot of different crimes together. If one of those crimes is some sort of a sexual assault, when you lobby to repeal the law you’re fighting for the worst crime under that law. That is what the opposition will use against you.

Yes, that is not uncommon as a debate strategy and sometimes you need to watch out so you don’t end up defending things you never agreed with in the first place.
Some discussions can certainly mean that you make some strange ”bedfellows”, but I’m fine with agreeing with people in rather specific cases even if that may be the only thing we agree about.
I also feel ok about not agreeing with people I like and agree with about most other things. Not always too popular though…

Free speech is the same. I’m fighting to say what ever I want but I’m fighting for someone else to say some crazy shit also.

The thing is that my reasonable opinion is someone else’s crazy shit and vice versa.

Complete free speech absolutism would allow child pornography. Sure, you could legally go after people that produce it, but if all speech is protected, how can you justify punishing people who own or distribute it?

The thing is that even these things that seem like they should be easy, leave a lot of room for opinion.
Because what about drawn pictures that never involved a child, or grown ups role playing kids in a virtual world. Where is the line that makes it sexual vs just being pictures of kids, where is the line between art and porn and at what age do you stop being a child.
Those things are way more complicated when crossing borders and cultural lines. IMDB’s content warnings about sex and nudity are often hilarious to a Scandinavian, like this for example:

A female character is hung topless upside down, wearing only panties. She is sawed in half vertically, crotch first. Art also wears a woman's breast after cutting them off.

And to be clear, I’m not a free speech absolutist. I think you are right about any rules needing to be objective, specific and clear.

 

[IrisAlthea]

It’s better to be a free speech absolutist and deal with the very small number of REAL problems as they arise

I’m very absolutist about absolutism, which is kind of funny because I rarely am about other things.

How people think we should handle the real problems and what they think the biggest issues are, is exactly what I wanted people to talk about.

What I don’t like to see is the legal confusion we see now, where it is totally unpredictable how courts will treat cases of online slander or harassment online, in a way that would never fly elsewhere.

than to attempt to prevent a myriad of imaginary problems by empowering an endless hoard of petty tyrants… and some that aren’t so petty.

And this is another part of what I see as the problem.
Especially as what I see as petty tyrants have a not so petty influence in the rules and the enforcement on social media plattforms while what I see as real problems (mostly things that are actually already illegal but not handled when online) go unchecked.
And a lot of the attempts at handling things, petty or not, open the door for actions and rules that threaten privacy and accessability online.

 

[firmbutgentle]

The massacre at Club Q didn’t happen in a vacuum. There has been a dangerous escalation in hateful anti-LGBT rhetoric​

Over the past year there has been an escalation in dangerously dehumanising anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric. The idea that LGBTQ+ people are “groomers” and paedophiles has become a mainstream conservative talking point pushed by everyone from Fox News to Republican politicians. Christina Pushaw, the press secretary for the Florida governor Ron DeSantis, for example, said that a new law preventing Florida schools from teaching kids about LGBTQ+ people should be called the “the anti-grooming bill”. If you’re against it, she tweeted, “you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of four- to eight-year-old children”. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the average number of tweets each day using slurs such as “groomer” and “paedophile” in relation to LGBTQ+ people increased by 406% in the month after the Florida bill was passed.

(The Guardian, 23 Nov 2022)

 

[IrisAlthea]

People have been well trained to avoid any real answers. Somewhere along the way, “the exception proves the rule” became “the exception invalidates the rule.”

Not sure what you are talking about here.

A weak population that states its beliefs like lawyers looking to avoid liability or being pinned down is easy to control.

Agreed.

Speaking of privacy, a nonexistent “right” invented out of thin air to support a decision that had no other underpinnings… has it occurred to you to wonder why RvW was suddenly abandoned?

I suspect it has nothing to do with life or liberty and everything to do with bringing concepts of “privacy” in line with the modern state and the new reality that there is no privacy.

Sometimes I find that discussions are complicated when certain words become dogwhistles and provoke some kind of fixed defence positions, readymade lists of talking points and assumptions about other opinions.

I’m not in the US, so any right to privacy for me would depend on the European Convention on Human Rights (and some other regulations like GDPR but lets leave the details) which is a little bit more specific than your rather fluffy ”unreasonable” in the fourth amendment but totally unrelated to abortion rights.

When I mentioned privacy in this context, I was thinking of things like to what extent your ISP should be required to cooperate with law enforcement, under what circumstances your private conversations can legaly be listened in on etc.
The way we use the internet has changed very quickly and I think you are right about us all trying to catch up with what this all means to us.

And since you asked:
The legal reasoning behind DvJ is above my paygrade but ”suddenly” is not the word I’d use. It’s not the topic here though, so my personal thoughts on that matter are really beside the point.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

First off, there have to be some rules. People cannot for instance be allowed to shout, “Fire!” In a crowded theatre. But the exceptions should be exceptional and those attempting to curb such speech should have to meet very stiff standards. The onus is on the Bowdlerites and they should have to fight for every step, prove the probability of actual harm if said utterances are not silenced.

Second, those wishing to restrict free speech often miss a central point. For me to bar his speech, I must grant censorial powers to a third party, generally a major corporation or a government. The current political climate may at this moment be in favour of my own beliefs, but there’s no guarantee that it will stay that way. Sooner or later, that limitation will be used to bar me from speaking. If I want to safeguard my own right to speak, I had best be prepared to grant the same to others, to accept hearing some things with which I disagree or even make me uncomfortable.

As an aside and tied to my last, tearing down statues and such also misses a central thing. To judge somebody who lived hundreds of years ago by the moral and philosophical standards of today is a tender trap. “‘I’m so much better as a person than they were and I find their conduct wrong,” is the central theme. Yet humanity improves gradually, incrementally. One generation congratulates itself because it banned burning at the stake. The next generation pats themselves on the back because it banned hanging and condemns the earlier generation for being loath to bar flames. The next generation holds themselves morally superior for barring all executions and condemns everyone who ever had a part in one as beastial.

 

[PaxNurgle]

I, for one, tend to support free speech, but with consequences.
But one thing I have noticed, is that online discourse over social media is becoming increasingly toxic, especially over the last couple years.

It seems lately like there is a pattern: Someone will commit an atrocity, there will be tragedy, terror, and death.

Then, sometimes within hours, a whole platoon of keyboard warriors will jump online and post one or two things: Either it was all just a "conspiracy" of "The Left" (who seem to get an inordinate amount of blame for things they don't do) or- even worse, the victim or victims "Deserved it" because they were woke/gay/trans/athiests/female/liberals, etc. And then, even go so far as to call for MORE violence against the victimized group, or even threaten violence against those who selflessly braved danger and stepped in during, or after, the tragedy to offer assistence.

THIS, in my opinion, is clearly crossing the line of free speech.

Why? Because it is not only glorifying and legitimizing violence, but it is further instigating more violence. And this is where I think, while it is one thing for keyboard warriors to express such views, I would rather certain websites take some responsiblity not to offer these people a platform for such views. Because this is not, as they will invariably try to argue, about "Censoring the Conservative Viewpoint." But rather, it is about neutralizing those who pose a threat to the health and safety of innocent lives in a civilized society.

And yes, I have heard plenty of people on the politics forum on this board express this kind of violent and toxic rhetoric. It goes way beyond "I don't agree with their views" but rather, I believe this kind of rhetoric makes these people a true threat to society.

 

[magic_rat]

As soon as I said the first part, she said, “If you’re going to threaten me, I’m calling security.”

I walked out to the parking lot without another word, my friend called the police, and twenty minutes later we were packing her things in my car. To this day I’m still dumbfounded that she would automatically assume that I was threatening violence...

People in her situation often do get threatened. You aren't seeing both sides. It may be she got jumpy because she's been threatened on a regular basis for enforcing rules she didn't make.

 

[FelHarper]

People in her situation often do get threatened. You aren't seeing both sides. It may be she got jumpy because she's been threatened on a regular basis for enforcing rules she didn't make.

If I had said it in a threatening manner, I could see that. It struck me later as more that she hoped to manipulate the encounter in her favor, which it did. I was so disgusted by the idea that I walked out. But I suppose that makes sense that the thought would occur to her in the first place.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Sooner or later, that limitation will be used to bar me from speaking

Yup, this is what I was trying to say in the following quote but you were more clear.

The thing is that my reasonable opinion is someone else’s crazy shit and vice versa.

If I want to safeguard my own right to speak, I had best be prepared to grant the same to others, to accept hearing some things with which I disagree or even make me uncomfortable.

And to be honest I learn a lot when reading or hearing things I don’t agree with or that make me uncomfortable.

To judge somebody who lived hundreds of years ago by the moral and philosophical standards of today is a tender trap.

Yes, and even when it comes to people active today, I try to separate the artist from the art.
Statues are a bit special though as they take up a lot of public space and are hard to avoid. In general, I can understand why statues of Hitler and Stalin for example were removed, but I find it hard to se them destroyed as they are still works of art too.
Keping them elsewhere as a reminder of history however painful, but possible to stay away from, would be my preference.

Then, sometimes within hours, a whole platoon of keyboard warriors will jump online

There is a NGO here with legal experts who look for indictable posts on social media and hand them over to law enforcement, analyzing how it is handled and trying to raise awareness that you are responsible for your online ramblings.

The defence from the posters is usually that they don’t feel they are listened to as they believe they should, they were upset and frustrated and that everyone else was posting things like that.

When you look into how one of these storms start with web analysis tools you often find the same groups, accounts etc. behind and then the snowball grows, dragging these people with them.

If you can buy your way to this mechanism by troll armies who start the process or buying extra spotlight positions, paying for getting your content out to certain groups, you have a great way to influence the debate.

Handling this in an attention economy, when it’s well known that toxicity is contagious but also a huge driver behind engagement on plattforms, isn’t going to happen by itself.

 

[magic_rat]

The thing is that my reasonable opinion is someone else’s crazy shit and vice versa.

No.

There is opinion, and there is fact.

Sadly the internet has given people permission to be stupid, and stupid people somehow think their crazy opinion should be given equal weight as fact.

 

[IrisAlthea]

There is opinion, and there is fact.

Sadly the internet has given people permission to be stupid, and stupid people somehow think their crazy opinion should be given equal weight as fact.

Yes, that is a huge problem in my opinion.

When it comes to opinions though, there is no objective truth to go by.

If someone tells you that vaccination against rubella is wrong because it doesn’t cause congenital problems and miscarriages, they are plain wrong.
Accepting the facts, you can still have a lot of opinions on how to handle these facts, ranging from ”leave it in the hands of destiny/omnipotent creature” to
”mandatory vaccinations for everyone”.
Some of those opinions are going to be thought of as ”crazy shit” by others. These are just opinions though. When a great majority holds one opinion, we tend to make rules and laws based on that. These are still based on opinions and not facts though.

What I was talking about was that there is no objective way to sort opinions into right and wrong.
We could sort them into wildly impopular and generally accepted (”and yet it moves”).
We could try to sort them into objectively harmful vs not.
It has proven to be tricky.

 

[magic_rat]

It has proven to be tricky.

Not really. Stupid people tend to have stupid opinions. They use useful shorthand, though; if they use the words 'snowflake' or 'woke', you know there's a fair likelihood they haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

 

[PaxNurgle]

I tend to take offense at the way some people use those terms as a negative thing. Being "Woke" is all about having respect for people of different ethnic or cultural backgrounds, or different genders or sexual preference. Nothing more; it is about "Respect." Saying that it is a bad thing, or that there is some kind of "Woke Agenda," seems to imply that they would rather people go around yelling racial or homophobic slurs at people, and woe unto they that dare oppose people's right to yell racist and homophobic slurs. It's almost like saying "Racism is good, opposing racism is bad." Which to me is just sick and warped. Since I really want to give people the benefit of the doubt, I suspect that a lot of people simply misunderstand what being "Woke" is about.

 

[twister947]

I tend to take offense at the way some people use those terms as a negative thing. Being "Woke" is all about having respect for people of different ethnic or cultural backgrounds, or different genders or sexual preference. Nothing more; it is about "Respect." Saying that it is a bad thing, or that there is some kind of "Woke Agenda," seems to imply that they would rather people go around yelling racial or homophobic slurs at people, and woe unto they that dare oppose people's right to yell racist and homophobic slurs. It's almost like saying "Racism is good, opposing racism is bad." Which to me is just sick and warped. Since I really want to give people the benefit of the doubt, I suspect that a lot of people simply misunderstand what being "Woke" is about.

Yep I'm woke af.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Not really. Stupid people tend to have stupid opinions. They use useful shorthand, though; if they use the words 'snowflake' or 'woke', you know there's a fair likelihood they haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

Stupid opinions and objectvely harmful opinions are not a total overlap on the Venn diagram though.

Stupid also doesn’t reside only on one part of the political spectrum.

Stupid wouldn’t be the word I’d use for those inventing this form of doublespeak or those using it as a dogwhistle to manipulate their heard. They are entirely on the harmful side in my opinion.

I tend to take offense at the way some people use those terms as a negative thing.

While I understand your feelings, I think it helps to remember that this is their intention.
I do practice my teenage girl level ”Well duh” eyerolling skills at times, but usually you need to work a lot harder to even register on the radar.