Whilst these are undoubted challenges, I also think that there are more traditional challenges to freedom of speech. As majorities within societies have accepted liberal ideas, liberals have become increasingly censorious, threatening the freedom of speech of conservatives.
Conservatives increasingly emphasize freedom of speech, but are their arguments genuine?
'Though the attachment of some conservatives to freedom of speech is genuine, often reflecting Burkean elements of conservatism, I worry that conservative support for freedom of speech has weak foundations, many conservatives wielding the principle as a weapon against outgroups.'
'Certain liberals accuse conservatives of fetishizing campus debate, arguing that debate has little to do with teaching and research. Yet if one adopts a wider definition of debate, this position breaks down. As scholars have long known, values have a critical influence during the research process; even quantitative research reflects philosophical positions. If political balances are skewed, orthodoxies will tilt towards particular ideologies.'
Not only does the position exist, but it's a good example of a false belief. Identifying and excluding such beliefs from public debate is very important.
Of course not, society shouldn't be able to do this and constitutions should codify individual rights. But on the other hand, freedom of speech shouldn't cover public platforms for outright lies.
Agree that it's very important to distinguish between the various categories of people. Clearly, having doubts about the wisdom of lockdowns is entirely different from believing that Covid is a hoax.
Abstract: Denial of the existence of Coronavirus, a distinct position from respectable critiques of lockdowns and extensions of vaccine rollouts, might be dismissed as unreasonable. Notwithstanding this, arguments that right-populist attitudes are unreasonable have clear limits, failing to appreciate the functions of right-populist views. For example, opposition to immigration promotes continuity of local conditions, low-education voters valuing this. If we are to understand the appeal of right-populist positions and decide whether certain positions should be excluded from public debate, we must establish the limits of reasonable debate.
As I say in the post, I think it's very difficult to determine what constitutes a 'just' riot. For Trump supporters, the 6th Jan insurrection would be just!
Very interesting - I hadn't heard of the Battle of Athens. I guess that a riot isn't necessarily a sign of the need for change of government. In all polities, there are people who will riot against the government!
Yes - the different impact on private and public entities is crucial. Generally, I'm skeptical about almost all riots. Most can't be adequately controlled, entailing damage to the property/persons of private individuals.
Very interesting! As a social scientist, the replication crisis gets me seriously down, making me doubt the integrity of my field. It's good to see that there's not such a problem in maths...
Whilst the electoral programmes of parties in proportional systems tend to be more different, differences are often bargained away during coalition negotiations. Also, proportional systems tend to have more institutional checks and balances than majoritarian systems. Indeed, Schmidt (1996) argues that partisan differences are less pronounced in proportional systems.
Taxes are famously beyond partisan influences; lots of studies demonstrate this (see Imbeau et al for a review). It's a bit early to say on Covid lockdowns, but this also seems to be the case. On abortion/guns, Democrats may have very different positions than Republicans, but what degree of policy change have they secured?
On Covid, I suspect that partisan differences have been quite small, at least among mainstream parties! But of course, politics matters desperately in some circumstances. For example, the 2019 UK election and 2020 US election were extremely consequential, reflecting the issues at stake and profile of some of the candidates.