The Westminster Declaration
westminsterdeclaration.org
westminsterdeclaration.org
You're ignoring second and third order consequences, and you're insisting people simply tolerate harassment, bigotry and threats of violence against themselves simply because you don't want the even the most excremental of ideals to "go to waste," or more likely because you simply find the chaos entertaining.
If you want the entire world to be run by the standards of 4chan, great. Go somewhere else, find a dark corner of the internet and piss in your own punchbowl. Adults are trying to have a civilization here.
First, nobody is ignoring second and third order consequences as evidenced by the discussion of consequences in the GP comment.
Second, nobody suggested "simply tolerating" because free speech absolutists see speech as a thing they can engage in, not just something that happens to them.
There is room for a more rational discussion of this, but please understand that I think you have every right to your style of discourse, too.
It's easy to wrap yourself in the nobility of someone else's words but you have your limits like everyone else.
Your comment is rather disrespectful and yet, if someone tried to shut you up, I would proportionately respond. You have a right to your disrespectful speech.
I highly doubt there would be any disagreement between signatories about the legality of CSAM in a free speech regime, to say that this is the issue to be focused on in the light of the loss of rights within the last century is misguided IMO.
Does that include hate speech? Does that include the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising? Does that include the right to "cancel" someone?
There is no single definition that everyone agrees on. That is what the CSAM example is supposed to highlight. Not that anyone wants to allow it, but that everyone agrees that this speech isn't actually covered by free speech. Once you admit that not all speech deserves to be free, you have to decide what speech should count because it isn't everything.
Yes.
> Does that include the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising?
Yes, although this is a bit tangential as this declaration is mostly concerned with freedom of personal political speech, and in most countries companies and individuals are distinguished from each other. Actually this is also the case for the U.S., except for in the case of political speech for reasons.
> Does that include the right to "cancel" someone?
If by cancel, you mean to fire someone for speech, that’s really a matter of employment law, which differs by country and even industry.
If you mean the right to “call out”, yes.
How did I ascertain this? By reading the UDHR, Article 19:
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The only part everyone (everyone here meaning every government and every tech company) hasn’t decided on is whether or not to enforce Article 19, which is why the declaration encourages them to.
I think in general there has been a kind of anemia combined with infantilization introduced into political discourse where people believe issues are too complex or too divisive to be resolved.
When we decide that issues are too complicated to be decided on by the polis, only the most extreme viewpoints will end up seeing their goals accomplished. Which is precisely what has happened on the issue of free speech, as governments ban protest, ban certain kinds of speech, all while ostensibly (but not really) “speaking for the people”.
So much for that clear international definition. Look at the countries that outlaw some form of hate speech. [1] The US is in the extreme minority in the idea that hate speech is protected under a general definition of free speech.
>Yes, although this is a bit tangential as this declaration is mostly concerned with freedom of personal political speech, and in most countries companies and individuals are distinguished from each other. Actually this is also the case for the U.S., except for in the case of political speech for reasons.
No, this isn't about Citizens United. The UK doesn't allow any political advertising on TV or radio for example.[2]
>If by cancel, you mean to fire someone for speech, that’s really a matter of employment law, which differs by country and even industry.
>If you mean the right to “call out”, yes.
I mean whatever a signatory like Bari Weiss means when she bemoans cancel culture[3]. She is a devoted free speech absolutist when it comes to her own rights, but when she is criticized suddenly people shouldn't have their reputation destroyed by backlash to their speech. That is an inherently anti-free speech mindset. If you have the freedom to say anything, I have the freedom to say anything in response including asking your employer to fire you. You can't have it both ways.
>When we decide that issues are too complicated to be decided on by the polis, only the most extreme viewpoints will end up seeing their goals accomplished. Which is precisely what has happened on the issue of free speech, as governments ban protest, ban certain kinds of speech, all while ostensibly (but not really) “speaking for the people”.
Pretending this issue is easy doesn't accomplish anything either. That was my original point. The term has become meaningless because everyone thinks of themselves as being pro-free speech. And no one in the political mainstream advocates against "free speech" even if their policies in actuality restrict speech.
[1] - https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F7...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2020:_Resignation_f...