Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.
The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics.
And, for whatever it's worth, every vocal "free speech person" I know doesn't like the current administation. Some people actually just have principles!
Plenty of people happy to carry water for the admin as well. I just don't really have a great view of what people actually think about this issue.
[0]: to be clear, I do not believe there are normal people on that website.
Hi there. You are seeing one right now. Well, seeing the words of one.
I am a free speech absolutist. What this administration is doing is abominable. I have always seen anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots, but Trump's crackdown on them is, imho, unconstitutional and immoral.
The problem with free speech absolutism is that it leads to the 'paradox of tolerance'. We are now seeing the fruits of that line of thinking.
> The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
If anything it's a slipperly slope logic. These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening. Unfortuntaely, the admin is proving all those fallacies before us.
These are unfortunately the only circumstances in which I ever see Popper's "paradox" invoked.
An unfortunately overloaded term. 1) free speech absolutist meaning the government should not be censor private citizens speech in any way, 2) or twitter/similar is breaking the law by censoring X speech, 3) or twitter/similar should be considered a defacto public square and therefor the company twitter/similar can not legally censor speech on it, 4) or "I align with Elon Musk who calls himself a free speech absolutist", or etc.
Likely sapphicsnail was talking about the less principled, or not understood by principles by me, variety of people calling themselves free speech absolutist, who seem to dominate, or least be the most vocal, the conversation around "free speech absolutism" in reason years.
I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as copyrighted films, classified war plans, trade secrets, doctor-patient or lawyer-client privileged information, or intimate recordings of people taken without consent (or without ability to consent).
Does sharing a non-intimate recording of someone count as speech? Can the government make it illegal for me to share a photo that a government official thinks makes them look ugly? What about a photo of an official committing a crime? What if that photo was taken somewhere private and without their consent? Or what if it was actually an "intimate recordings of people taken without consent", but one of the people involved was the president and they were recorded in a drug fueled fling with a prostitute? Should publishing that be illegal?
How can you define speech so that it can be applied consistently to specific questions like this? Odds are you'll end up with a definition so full of nuances and caveats that the "absolutist" part of the term is rendered meaningless.
Is a free press not part of free speech? Are incriminating photos only protected speech in a court, but not when published in a newspaper?
I'm just trying to underline that people refuse to recognize the difficulty translating the philosophical discussion of free speech into the complexities of legal definitions. And "free speech absolutists" tend to only live in the philosophical sphere.
Exactly the opposite of your claim.
Yes, the current Israeli government is turning authoritarian (though again: not nearly as authoritarian as Palestine's governments), like so many others. That doesn't change reality though.
You use words like fascism while decrying "framing". This is ridiculous.
But no, I don't advocate you getting banned for a stupid opinion. Perhaps that can be the minimal consensus.
You say, as you slander your opposition.
If you proudly proclaim your hypocrisy like this, is it really any surprise that the rest of your moral argument falls flat?
This is a big claim. The crux of the problem is that it's virtually impossible to set a clear and consistent line. That makes it ripe for abuse by those in power, as we are witnessing right now. I think it's hypocritical to fail to even acknowledge this fact.
The US had a great (not perfect!) system. Free speech with reasonable limits, set by laws and regulations. And helped by a certain amount trust in the system.
When power hungry people, who started abusing the system with misinformation campaigns, ran into those laws and regulations, they claimed the system was treating them unfairly. Those people are now in power.
And trust is now at a minimum.
You could blame the past system for not being able to prevent this regime, but that wouldn’t fit your beliefs. I for one, am happy that we have more stringent rules in the EU.
Laws and regulations aren't a magical solution. You have to think about how they can be abused, or they'll be weaponized to achieve the exact opposite of what you intended. This has been abundantly clear for those who have been paying attention. See for example how lawmakers have been repeatedly pushing laws claiming to "protect children" that does nothing of the sort but does everything to erode civil liberties.
But laws or no laws, the biggest problem is that laws and regulations don't count for the current regime. There's nothing to protect the layman from your government with this conman in charge. Consumer protections have eroded, criminals have been set free and people have been abducted.
Rules don't matter anymore. Nobody trusts your government. It's a jungle now.
I am not inclined to defend any stupid opinion, but especially on topics like the pandemic people were cheering on others getting banned. There is a political cost to this and that does extend to people having little ground to criticise the current US administration on these grounds.
Right now, the government is suppressing free speech according to the very definition of that term.
How can you not see the difference.
I tend to prefer groups that understand the principle of free speech, but it isn't a hard requirement.
Culture formerly forced large commercial internet platforms to adhere to freedom of speech and we have lost that partially. And people are rightfully not too amused about that and it isn't necessarily team Trump they blame for that. That is the reality why he now can claim to defend freedom of speech, even if it isn't really true.
> It just protects you from government prosecution.
The first amendment of the US does, but the principle goes beyond that. It is a necessary requirement for independent research for example. There is no law for it and it still is essential.
https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-ped...
Free speech rights - The government shouldn't restrict speech
Free Speech culture - Private institutions shouldn't punish speech
Speech Decency - Individuals should judge others by their speech
Incoherence - Nobody should be judged for anything they say
There are no free speech absolutists. Only realists and hypocrites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Your interpretation is widely spread but also wrong. The government is only a relevant party if we talk about specific laws.
> As a moderator, I also ban people who are just obnoxious and loud without any substance.
You then don't follow the principle of freedom of speech, simple as that. That is no crime, but you aren't liberal in these cases either.
But that is besides the point. The criticism of free speech isn't new, the arguments are always the same and usually those that argue for more restriction do end up being wrong. I don't see the path developing differently here.
To ask why Trump can capitalize on these issues, a careful reading might be appropriate as the result wouldn't be too surprising without needing to much predictive capacities.
This is tiring. Have a good day.
These principles of what is good and age-appropriate for children doesn't seem to be applied consistently.
[0]: <https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/utah-davis-school-dist...>
> It’s shunning time in Madison County, Virginia, where the school board recently banished my novel The Handmaid’s Tale from the shelves of the high-school library.
Note: a school library. A student can go to a regular library and check out this book, if they are really interested.
If you want to see what real book banning looks like, read the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_govern...
This involves removing books from public libraries nationwide (not just school libraries of one county), banning of sale, and sometimes criminalizing and prosecuting private possession of the book.
The US is fortunately quite far from such a sorry state.
Thank you for the correction.
If you want to say removing these books from school libraries is an illegitimate constraint on freedom of expression, then so is the school curriculum. So is public education generally.
The people who are saying that excluding books from libraries isn't banning. It's straightforward. Discussing this reminds me of arguing with my narcissist father - he slips through conflict by redefining terms to fit his inability to take accountability and recognize that his actions have consequences.
It really is a bad look to argue like this for a group of people who are trying to accomplish a goal.
It's pretty clear that if the books they are banning from these places were unconditionally banned they wouldn't go to bat for them. Rather the sentiment would be "that's good actually." It doesn't take a genius to recognize that the playbook is to make incremental advances and argue over definitions in order to achieve this goal.
It absolutely is a coherent argument and you know that.
"Unconditional availability" inherently excludes "banning" and also "conditional banning" but the latter is a mere subset of "banning". Denying the distinction of the sub- and its superset is extremely intellectually dishonest when that's what the entire argument hinges on.
When I dump hundreds of tons of a book into a river a day and the government requires me to stop doing that, it's not banning the book from the people living downstreams, even despite the availability of the book being reduced for them.
Or just went totally off the rails in a couple of cases.
Do you have a list of those books so I can check if I see the same kind of inappropriateness?
Yes, and most of them do not fit your description in the slightest.
The justification was exactly the same at the time. "It isn't censorship, it is just not recommended anymore". Given, that was/is true for many literary expositions as well.
But yes, a court marshal is a completely different matter. You're speech is restricted if you take steps to work for the government in any capacity. As is your legal channels.
"Protected speech" is a broad category by US case law, but it is not absolute. Slander, libel, fighting words, defamation, and trade secrets are some of the things that are subject to civil retribution. "Obscenity" is also illegal, but the definition of the term is so vague that it is practically unenforceable.
As for “the other way around” - what I saw the right wing complaining about was “being canceled”. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences for your actions. A private business is well within their rights to fire you if you’re posting racist or homophonic slurs online.
The only thing the first amendment provides is freedom from the government impeding your speech. Doing things like, you know, threatening jail time for journalists who say things they don’t like. Or, in a functioning US government, pulling funding from colleges because they’ve got students protesting over the current situation in the Middle East.
Just saying that it might not be the best model.
Does there exist any example of an administration (federal or state) successfully prohibiting the private sale of an LGBTQ book?
Rainbows!
The fact that you have to ask says it all.
https://www.salon.com/2022/04/15/ohio-school-district-bans-c...
I absolutely object to suppressing Gaza protests and banning LGBTQ books, or any other books for that matter.
Right, but words like `absolutist` mean something really strong that is not achievable in reality, and I don't think you would disagree very much that the majority of self professed free speech absolutists like Musk, do not actually hold anything near such a view.
This is actually due to an attack on the weakness of free speech. The zone is being flooded with shit, as the phrase goes, to the point that words don't mean anything. The moment a term starts having some meaning that people can derive direction from, the propagandists start using the term incorrectly everywhere.
There's just a cohort of people who claim to be in favor of free speech, but also use it as a defense to associate themselves with people they really don't need to. Even the worst people in the world need _a_ lawyer, your local fascist doesn't need a booster on Twitter. There's a spectrum and subjectivity here of course.
"Free speech" has turned into a fun little bad faith thing to throw into arguments where it (for most people) doesn't belong. And even for fellow travelers, these people arguing in bad faith tend to throw in some other stupid garbage into their arguments! So it gets a bad rap, as an indicator that an argument is about to get stupid.
This isn't really a recent development but I think I understand what you mean. Authoritarians, regardless of their political leanings, try and sow distrust in free speech in order to garner support for advancing their agenda.
Currently, the "right" is using "free speech" as a tool to push back against the "woke agenda." So now "free speech" is becoming faux pas, at least in certain circles. Mentioning it as something you value without some long preface to explain yourself now associates you with a certain group of people, whether that group actually values free speech or not.
I think you can still believe that any political, religious or economic view is fair to say/publish/broadcast as an ernest expression of perspective, and that even potentially hateful views inevitably come along for that ride. We tolerate the KKK producing literature bc that's the cost for _everyone_ being able to speak. But it's much harder to make the argument that intentional lies and misinformation deserve the same protections as good faith expressions of minority views.
When a person asserts that we need to protect speech which is intended to mislead, isn't it natural to be suspicious?
Some opinions hurt many sensibilities and the result is lacking support for most essential freedoms. This justification might seem more relevant to you, but with perspective it is the same reason others used to prohibit speech.
> When a person asserts that we need to protect speech which is intended to mislead, isn't it natural to be suspicious?
There is enough literature here to really weight this argument and the sad result is that you often defend the speech of scoundrels but it still is the better result.
Some people say it is natural to dislike different skin colors. The logic of your argument would generally be seen as short sighted and it certainly is in regards to freedom of speech. Again, a bit of literature exposure helps.
> That is the usual degradation of freedom of speech and not at all different from other cases before.
That's a really sweeping statement and I think perhaps (fittingly) is an intentional mischaracterization of the history of attacks on free speech in the US. E.g. looking at a pretty generic source, whether someone is lying has basically never been the criteria that the government uses to suppress stuff. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State...
- In the 19th century the postmaster refused to carry abolitionist literature, because of its topic, not whether statements were true or false.
- The Comstock Law forbade the postal service from carrying even personal letters with sexual content -- again, regardless of truth or falsity.
- The Sedition Act of 1918 forbade "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" against the government/flag etc, again regardless of truth or falsity.
- Charles Coughlin lost his ability to broadcast and a newspaper mailing permit b/c of his Nazi-sympathizing views, but not specifically because of lies.
- The Smith Act of 1940 went after communists and others who advocate the overthrow of the government or even to affiliate with an association which so advocates. Again, no requirement of lying required.
- The current emphasis on banning queer books, identifying peace activists who called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as being "aligned with terrorists", or forbidding government agencies from mentioning "diversity" are all entirely indifferent on whether a person or agency is telling the truth.
Even in the colonial era, Alexander Hamilton's argument for freedom of the press, when defending newspaper printer John Peter Zenger emphasized the right to tell the truth: "nature and the laws of our country have given us a right to liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power ... by speaking and writing the truth."
We have civil legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in a manner which harms the reputation of a person or company (defamation, libel, slander). We have criminal legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in specific ways to enrich themselves (e.g. wire fraud). To my understanding, we don't have any kind of legal mechanism to bring to bear when someone knowingly lies for purposes of manipulating public discourse -- e.g. claiming that (unnamed) doctors are sitting on death panels, or that a large number of (unnamed) staff in the State Department are communists, or that the 15-minute city is a conspiracy (of no one in particular) to imprison people in their neighborhoods.
If you have literature you care to recommend that makes a compelling argument for why lies/misinformation specifically be protected, please cite specific documents rather than waving at "literature exposure" in general.
The once who claimed there is a speech police implement speech police and all what the vocal free speech persons do is don’t like it?
Did the address it at the president or do they fear consequences?
They don't need to do any denials anymore because they have won. That was part of arguing in bad faith, they never actually believed the arguments. Nothing being discussed on a message board is going to change that
You're right -- many people who claim to support free speech really mean they favor "free speech for me, not for thee." And typically these people want to be able to say controversial things without consequence. But how people respond to speech is orthogonal to whether or not we are allowed to exercise our rights to it.
The ACLU did "free speech absolutism" right back in the 90's and 00's. They defended everyone's speech, no matter the politics, no matter how socially right or wrong it was [1]. They'd step up to bat for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, and Satanists. Your views didn't matter. Defending the rights we all share was the point. Because when someone else's rights are degraded and not defended, it means everyone's rights are up for attack.
Unfortunately the ACLU doesn't hold these same views today. They're batting for one team only.
[1] They defended Westboro Baptist Church and NAMBLA, FFS. I definitely hate both of these organizations, but free speech is free speech. By defending even the most reprehensible speech, it ensures that mine remains free regardless of how the political pendulum swings. That's how it should be, anyway.
The most frequently quoted text I've seen is Karl Popper's writing, where he states that we must reserve the right to suppress intolerant philosophies, not that we should always suppress them.
Now, some people might have the opinion that we should be completely intolerant to intolerance and that might be a defendable position in its own right, but the paradox of tolerance is not intrinsically condoning that sort of response.
No, that would probably end up in a logical paradox, if one were intolerant of any degree of intolerance.
> It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold.
I don't know enough to have a particular position on the ACLU, but at least in theory an organisation defending free speech might decide that conditions have become such that defending certain things will lead to the inability to defend other things and choose to proceed differently on that basis.
Without a lot of context from Popper this principle isn't even a very good one and Popper certainly would agree here.
It just displays that you didn't put time into it thinking it through, especially if you just distribute links.
Suggesting a group is in some way a failure now because they don't use their speech how you think they should is, of course, at least a bit iffy while we're talking about this :) but FIRE is probably the group you're looking for today.
Part of Free Speech is that it does not matter to have it if nobody hears you, maybe because your voice is drowned out by powerful media, serving the interests of the few. Therefore we need Equal Rights to free speech for everybody, especially when it comes to elections.
>Therefore we need Equal Rights to free speech for everybody
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are entitled to a publicly funded megaphone or that anyone is required to listen to you.
Also you're right that we can't give everybody the one hour of free speech on TV, can we?.
But it is in the interest of the country as a whole that all viewpoints are heard. But if one person can buy all TV-stations then he will have free speech and nobody else really does. If nobody can hear you because somebody else is speaking so loudly, it doesn't matter if you have free speech or not.
It used to be law that there are limits to how many millions one person or corporation can use to win elections. But seems that is no longer the case thanks to Supreme Court judges nominated by Republican presidents.
It is supporting their right to freedom of speech, not supporting them, in my view.
>But it is in the interest of the country as a whole that all viewpoints are heard. But if one person can buy all TV-stations then he will have free speech and nobody else really does.
Did nobody have freedom of expression before television? Broadcast media is just one way of communicating ideas, and TV is a decreasingly relevant part of the media. TV is worse than it used to be largely because nobody really watches it anymore except for sports.
>It used to be law that there are limits to how many millions one person or corporation can use to win elections.
There is very little evidence that spending more on election advertising actually does anything. Hillary and Harris both spend much more than Trump and lost. Biden spent more and won. Obama spent less and won. The statistics across a wide range of elections at different scales don't show it having much effect. It is probably important to even be an option, but it doesn't win elections.
For example if you search for the "ACLU lost its way", you will find a lot about their behavior. I think the opinion pieces are often well argued.
Been a lot more hysterical on here as of late. Methinks there's less reason to discuss political things now.
Your insinuations isn't really a good faith argument either but I gladly join that group of "these sorts of people" because they are obviously more sensible than the others.
Whenever conservatives talk about "free speech" just substitute "hate speech" because that's what they mean. Elon Musk has called himself a free speech absolutist while banning people from Twitter for hurting his feelings, for being journalists who are remotely critical of him, for making fun of him, for reporting ATC public data on the location of his private jet and for making jokes.
The media is absolutely complicit in not challenging the countless lies told by Republicans.
What didn't get a lot of attention is how Trump sued a bunch of media outlets (eg ABC/Disney) to defamation. These are cases he absolutely could not win on the merits. ABC presenter George Stephanopoulos made the on-air claim Trump was "liable for rape" after he lost the E. Jean Carroll case. Disney agreed to pay ~$16 million in what has all the apperances of a payoff.