31–40 of 118 posts
the constitution is a construct of white supremacy. abolish now. impeach now. flag this post now. all republicans and conservatives are nazis. everyone who disagrees with me is hitler and must be silenced before people hear them, because I am the sole arbiter of virtue.
This 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.
I really don't think so. I don't think persons of color not want to be constantly assailed with racism online fall into that category. Women not wanting to be assailed with death and rape threats on line don't fall into that category.
This 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.
I really don't think so. I don't think persons of color not want to be constantly assailed with racism online fall into that category. Women not wanting to be assailed with death and rape threats on line don't fall into that category.
The only death and rape threats that account received were from the left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There does need to be some sort of sane standard for determining whether something counts as a threat/incitement if they're not going to be permitted. Say I'm very popular on twitter, and say I don't like somebody for whatever reason. If there's a reasonable expectation that this will result in them being mobbed by my less personable followers, does that count as incitement? Or at what point does aggressive banter in…
I 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 are operating/arguing from the neutral reality perspective-- that is to say, that "we as a society" exists as a concrete entity that can pass laws. But that's not the case. We are not the government, far from it. The government is a collection of people who have power over us. Many of them are corrupt and will do evil-- just imagine the worse member of the political party you disagree with as a dictator. Every ti…
Free speech in Canada does not allow for hate speech or inciting violence, and we're at least no worse than the USA for whatever violations of the right.
I 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 are operating/arguing from the neutral reality perspective-- that is to say, that "we as a society" exists as a concrete entity that can pass laws. But that's not the case. We are not the government, far from it. The government is a collection of people who have power over us. Many of them are corrupt and will do evil-- just imagine the worse member of the political party you disagree with as a dictator. Every ti…
Instead of a mob, what if I use speech to sic a dangerous dog on someone?
The incitement is no different – the dog isn't thinking rationally, nor is anyone in the mob ("mob mentality"). In both cases the inciter is directing the action.
Of course, you can't legally try a dog… but you can't practically try a mob.
Same with war crimes. Should generals not be held accountable for genocides under their orders, if they never personally murdered any civilians? After all, they were just saying words.
I 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…
Though tangential to the points in the article, there's also a common failure to distinguish between freedom from infringement of speech by the government, and freedom from infringement by private parties. The former is guaranteed by the federal government; the latter is not (though some states provide limited protections [1]). Not to mention failure to distinguish exercise of free speech (permitted) from discriminat…
The point your are making is against the strawman argument that the first amendment should prohibit private companies editorial decisions. I haven't seen anyone making that claim.
When the bill of rights was drafted, it was inconceivable that any company would have the level of control over speech that companies have today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> You misunderstand me. I thought it was clear that I was talking about ideas, not threats or inciting mobs. And who decides what's an "idea" and what's "threats or inciting mobs"? Would you be happy for the British government to say that of course the colonists have the right to free speech, but many of them are advocating threats and inciting mobs, which isn't allowed? Or for the king of Thailand to say the same th…
But really, who is advocating the government do anything other than the fringes? The discussion around "Free Speech" is the concept, not the government's role in regulation of it or lack there of.
Are you saying that "hate speech" is a concept that is only adopted by the fringes? Doesn't seem to be that way to me. 20 years ago, it was the fringe. Now it seems like if it isn't mainstream, it is close. Certainly we see Canada and the UK passing laws eliminating free speech for political minorities.
I really can't speak for the UK or Canada. The US has free speech enshrined in the constitution's first amendment; and I'm not aware other countries have such constraints that are as absolute as the first amendment.
Is this an actual proposal?
Most things I have seen in the discourse that seem to be objected to on free speech grounds are e.g. proposals to prevent certain speakers from speaking at colleges, proposals to prevent certain groups from having marches, proposals for certain discussion websites to ban particularly toxic/abusive users, etc.
This seems to me to be very different from banning Mein Kampf as a book. I think you can coherently believe in the above bans while also believing that Mein Kampf should be available on Project Gutenberg etc. for anyone to read and evaluate, for people to understand what is this scary book that people keep talking about, etc.
To take the example of banning speakers at colleges - I don't think any one of the people for whom no-platforming has been proposed lacks a platform of their own. They have websites. They have books. Their ideas are out there. If their ideas are in fact coherent enough for "the opportunity of exchanging error for truth," that debate can already happen.
If they aren't, the virtue-signaling approach of putting up "ideological minorities" in college lecture halls to say the exact same thing they've said 100 times before isn't going to help anyone reach truth.