61–70 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After years of people being genuinely damaged in their careers and reputation it is disappointing that these disingenuous questions ("sealioning") are still asked in threads like these. Here's a start for you: https://www.google.com/search?q=cancel+culture+examples
Is “cancel culture” itself just not another form of free speech?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(At the risk of having my comment turn gray) The entire concept of "hate speech", the concept of "dead naming", anyone who thinks "words are violence" and therefore retaliation with physical violence is justified. These are all forms of attack upon free speech and there have been instances of these in universities for the past decade.
I agree that "dead naming" and other LGBT-related concepts are anti-intellectual, but it's not clear that any of your examples are at all related to free speech. A part of the problem is that "free speech" is mostly a buzzword, having no clear definition or meaning, except through case law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What books were banned by "the left"?
> What books were banned by "the left"? Not banning but altering would be one form of censorship, e.g., "Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive": * https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/18/roald-dahl-boo... "Why I Decided to Update the Language in Ursula K. Le Guin’s Children’s Books": * https://lithub.com/why-i-decided-to-update-the-language-in-u... "D&D: WotC’s New Batch Of Errata Remov…
The Dahl publishers have confirmed that they are only making changes to editions published for schools, and the original unedited books will still be published. Dahl himself authorized changes to his work to keep them marketable.
There's no evidence that the Le Guin books would have been kept from publication if those mild changes had not been made. It appears that we're only even hearing about it as a response to the Dahl controversy.
All together, this seems like piecemeal evidence of works being updated to satisfy contemporary mores, which is something that has been done continually for centuries, not a sign of a growing ideological trend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any examples come to mind? I feel most people are pretty free to voice their thoughts
(At the risk of having my comment turn gray) The entire concept of "hate speech", the concept of "dead naming", anyone who thinks "words are violence" and therefore retaliation with physical violence is justified. These are all forms of attack upon free speech and there have been instances of these in universities for the past decade.
A couple years ago, somebody remarked to me, "oh, you're one of those free speech guys, aren't you?" and I realized it was meant as an insult. Yes, I guess so! I'm not sure what changed, but I doubt that would ever have happened a few decades ago. You might have argued about the practical limits of free speech (shouting fire in a theater, Potter Stewart's obscenity test, etc.) but you would never hear someone say tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was commenting on "restrictions on speech", of which book banning is a historically symbolic example but less relevant in the modern age. In the West the left has dominated restricting speech.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The book banning and restrictions on content in classrooms in Florida are further examples of people being fine with restrictions on speech. At this point it's pretty disingenuous to lay the blame entirely on the left, or the young.
Different debate. Those authors were not restricted from publishing their books. The Florida issue is about what kind of material is suitable for children to access.
Really, the larger ideal of free speech is about the desired orthogonality of distribution channels versus content, and general tolerance for things we dislike. We see the results of its diminishing the strongest where the first amendment to the US constitution doesn't legally apply due to these kinds of distinctions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(At the risk of having my comment turn gray) The entire concept of "hate speech", the concept of "dead naming", anyone who thinks "words are violence" and therefore retaliation with physical violence is justified. These are all forms of attack upon free speech and there have been instances of these in universities for the past decade.
How is "deadnaming" an attack on free speech? It's always been considered discourteous to refer to people by a name they don't go by.