Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
washingtonpost.com
Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
1–10 of 284 posts
Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
#2Is this stuff actually anything new? It seems like free-speech has been under constant assault as long as such rights have been recognized.
The precise details shift around a bit, but free speech has always been something that has to be actively maintained: formal guarantees aren't—and I think have never been—sufficient. I don't think there's ever been a time when you could just sit back and enjoy it...
[The reason I ask is because the article seems to written to give the impression that is some sort of worrying new development...]
Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
#3Is this stuff actually anything new? It seems like free-speech has been under constant assault as long as such rights have been recognized. The precise details shift around a bit, but free speech has always been something that has to be actively maintained: formal guarantees aren't—and I think have never been—sufficient. I don't think there's ever been a time when you could just sit back and enjoy it... [The reason I…
These assaults are absolutely not new, but from my limited vantage point, previous assaults have mostly revolved around vulgarity. The new wave seems to revolve around "hate", which is worrisome given how subjective and slippery the term is. The described tale of "Zombie Muhammed" is a perfect example: a light-hearted joke to one person is a vicious act of "hate" to another.
Protecting people's feelings should not be the role of the state.
Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
#4I'm always amused by the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument, mostly because most of the people who use it don't seem to know that it originated as an analogy justifying the prosecution of protesting the draft during World War I.
War protests obvious aren't of any real value, after all. They just endanger the public . . .
Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
#5I'm always amused by the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument, mostly because most of the people who use it don't seem to know that it originated as an analogy justifying the prosecution of protesting the draft during World War I. War protests obvious aren't of any real value, after all. They just endanger the public . . .
An analogy doesn't automatically become bad just because it was once used to support a bad policy. :)
Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
#6I'm always amused by the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument, mostly because most of the people who use it don't seem to know that it originated as an analogy justifying the prosecution of protesting the draft during World War I. War protests obvious aren't of any real value, after all. They just endanger the public . . .
An analogy doesn't automatically become bad just because it was once used to support a bad policy. :)
It does become suspect if the underlying logic is the same, though. I might call "clear and present danger" ethically problematic, but it was hardly unjustified.
Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
#7Is this stuff actually anything new? It seems like free-speech has been under constant assault as long as such rights have been recognized. The precise details shift around a bit, but free speech has always been something that has to be actively maintained: formal guarantees aren't—and I think have never been—sufficient. I don't think there's ever been a time when you could just sit back and enjoy it... [The reason I…
These assaults are absolutely not new, but from my limited vantage point, previous assaults have mostly revolved around vulgarity. The new wave seems to revolve around "hate", which is worrisome given how subjective and slippery the term is. The described tale of "Zombie Muhammed" is a perfect example: a light-hearted joke to one person is a vicious act of "hate" to another. Protecting people's feelings should not be…
I don't think that category is that new either, though it's hard to say if it's increasing in frequency. One very traditional category is desecration of cherished symbols: blasphemy laws are one very old example (still extant in some of Europe), and the U.S. has had recurring debates over whether flag burning should be outlawed, which it actually was for a time (basically the patriotic American's version of calling for Koran-burning to be outlawed).
I do think it's true that, at least since the 1960s or so, the U.S. has supported a basically unlimited range of political opinion (excluding the flag-burning issue). Perhaps something of a historical anomaly, though, since even in the U.S. that was generally not true earlier: between various sedition acts, laws suppressing communist and anarchist publications, laws suppressing anti-segregationist speech, etc., there have been significant restrictions on "fringe" speech through much of US history.
Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
#8> The much-misconstrued statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that free speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater is now being used to curtail speech that might provoke a violence-prone minority.
This is very incorrect to say it is misconstrued. In Schenck vs US, the Court was prosecuting a pacifist who distributed pamphlets protesting the involuntary draft in World War I, arguing that forced drafts constituted involuntary servitude and were therefore prohibited by the constitution.
The decision was an extremely bad one and the passage by Holmes was inflammatory rhetoric since the case was clearly never about shouting fire in a theatre, it was about peacefully and reasonably protesting unconstitutional action by the government.
The clear and present danger test was eliminated in 1969 when the Court established instead a "imminent lawless action" test as the line that speech must cross. Again though, interpretation of what speech will lead to "imminent lawless action" is not defined so this is a poor test as well. Clearly in some cases peaceful criticism of violent religious practices, as well as harmless cartoons that are not even disparaging have lead to imminent lawless action. A more reasonable view would be to note that those who engage in lawless action should be responsible for their own actions, regardless of whatever speech or opinions they claim made them engage in criminal behavior. No one makes you engage in criminality. It is something you choose to do.
Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
#9Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people.
The simple lesson here is that if you want to stop non-believers from doing blasphemy, violent reprisals work.
And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one. There is a terrible slippery slope here, not only in encouraging islamists to demand more from us (what's next? threatening farmers who sell pork?) but also to send a message to other put-upon groups that they can demand the same thing - if they want it badly enough.
Yes, I wish that people would grow a spine and stop worrying about getting killed for hurting someone's feelings. But when I wonder whether I'd be willing to take that risk, the answer is no.
Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
#10What I find chilling is in the age of the internet the comment sections on news sites are heavily censored (e.g. CBC). Which seems to allow a strange mix of viewpoints but what you don't see is what worries me.
As for insulting religions it's funny that most times it's religion against religion more than non-religious again religious.