I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern about the government and media suppressing Gaza protestors or LGBTQ books being banned or anything else that affects the left. Doesn't seem very principled to me.
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.
I absolutely object to suppressing Gaza protests and banning LGBTQ books, or any other books for that matter.
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.
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.
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...
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.