Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech
geoff.greer.fm
Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech
1–10 of 118 posts
Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech
#2Indeed, free society forms a fixpoint of ideas, where it protects itself from being eaten by The State by insisting that any person can stand up and speak about free society. It is unfortunate that it also shields so many reprehensible opinions, but as usual, if the best thing you can say about an idea is that it is allowed in a free society, then perhaps that idea isn't worth much.
Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech
#3This is spot on. Most people who are calling for censorship don't have an ideological backing behind their stance and just want to violently shut their opponents up, while somehow believing they are righteous.
Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech
#4Free speech is part of the natural right of individuals to live and think without being oppressed by society.
Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech
#5> The key question of censorship is: Who decides what to censor?
This is the problem. Sure, like most people I don't want to listen to ____. But the cost of silencing them, is going to be opening the door to silence me.
The old adage: "it's great while it works"
Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech
#6This is spot on. Most people who are calling for censorship don't have an ideological backing behind their stance and just want to violently shut their opponents up, while somehow believing they are righteous.
"Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
-- Walter in The Big Lebowski
Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech
#7I think a common failure (intentional or not) in discussing free speech is isolating free speech absolutism from the sort of free speech that we'd be happy to accept in a liberal, open society.
Speaking practically and from the absolutist perspective, there should be no legal penalty for inciting others to violence. However, I think that (nearly) all of us recognize the importance of motive in cases -- we rightfully recognize both the inciter and the mob and assign blame commensurately. Most of us, I think, would not want to live in a society where inciting panic or violence is at least morally neutral. If that's the case and we think that the laws should reflect such a judgement, then it follows that open societies must (counterintuitively) place restrictions on free speech.[1]
Geoff makes good points, and he uses good sources to advance those points. But we should not think that Paine or Mill would be comfortable with the absolutist rhetoric that they get applied popularly to today.
[1]: Karl Popper called this the "Paradox of Tolerance."
Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech
#8[deleted]
Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech
#9I think a common failure (intentional or not) in discussing free speech is isolating free speech absolutism from the sort of free speech that we'd be happy to accept in a liberal, open society. Speaking practically and from the absolutist perspective, there should be no legal penalty for inciting others to violence. However, I think that (nearly) all of us recognize the importance of motive in cases -- we rightfully…
You misunderstand me. I thought it was clear that I was talking about ideas, not threats or inciting mobs. You'll have a hard time finding any self-described free speech absolutist who thinks those should be permitted.
Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech
#10Free speech is part of the natural right of individuals to live and think without being oppressed by society.
Without being oppressed by law or legislation, not by society. It seems like a crowbar of distinction, I know, but it's an important distinction. You can still be ostracized for your speech and chided, as certain ideas should be given what the society values, but you shouldn't be jailed or prevented from speaking on public grounds, given proper permits/clearances.