No fundamental rights do exist beyond those codified, defended, and practiced by societies and governments. However, the larger point was that there has never been a time when speech without consequences was an accepted norm. My point was not the established norms that exist today must have been in existence forever for them to be currently thought of as rights.
First, you are not ceding your rights per se, you are ceding the option of expressing* them to a limited extent.
A situation where you would want to cede all your options doesn’t seem likely to me, but philosophically your options are yours until you cede them, so I suppose it is within your rights to cede all of them .
*“expressing” in the widest sense of the word, not just speech.
What the OP says is true in how some people use the term. The problem is, I’ve never met a single person who truly wants a moral concept of free speech. Because it means I can walk into your house and call your children horrible names and you can’t kick me out. That would be infringing on my freedom of speech, since you’d be punishing me for my speech.
You just can’t really use it outside a political context. There may be things you think you should be free to say, but it’s always going to be restricted to the point that calling it freedom of speech doesn’t make sense.
Often, I think what people want is “freedom to participate in any lawful activity when not on the clock.” Well, that and “freedom to be a jerk without consequences,” but that’s just stupid.
In respect to which I could understand and support.
In which I agree with you.
Here’s a First Amendment (or not) issue on the campus of a university which receives federal funding - the University of Missouri.
In this instance, a student journalist attempting to take photos of a campus protest is told by protestors that he has no right to do that, and a mass media professor, Melissa Click 1) urges protestors to block the student journalist’s access, and 2) gets outraged when another member of the news media attempts to interview her, calling on student “muscle” to take care of the reporter.
Apart from students not respecting press freedoms, one wonders whether the ACLU or other enterprising organization might perceive a First Amendment issue here with a university employee attempting to suppress press coverage on campus.
*gotta love the academic credentials of Prof. Click: “She holds a Ph.D. in communications from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her current research focuses on consumers of the 50 Shades trilogy of erotic novels and fan culture surrounding pop star Lady Gaga.”
The gravitas is overwhelming. 
Nobody has the right to shut me up. But nobody has to lend me their property as a forum for me to assert beliefs that they disagree with. If a politician gets threatened by the Klan for making speeches about equality, his right to free speech is being infringed. But if the Klan merely refuses to let him speak at their next cross burning (or publish a critique of the politician’s views), the politician’s rights are not being infringed.
People think it’s about government, when it’s really about force. I don’t have the right to force you to be quiet. But I do have the right to tell you to take it elsewhere if you’re on my property (which includes, but is not limited to, web servers and domains I own). And in a public forum, I have the right to disagree with you. “I disagree” and “Not on my property” are not infringements on the right to free speech. “I’ll physically harm you if you keep saying that” is. It’s not a subtle distinction, but many miss it.
Simon and Schuster rejected my novel. Censorship!
You think that the academic left has any interest in intellectual honesty or consistency? No. They don’t. They care about power.
Again, no his rights are not being infringed upon by the Klan as the Klan has no standing or ability to grant, protect, or violate those rights. Threats are a separate, distinct matter altogether. The Klan threatening someone for making speeches about equality is no different than an abusive husband beating his wife for saying something he didn’t like. Most wouldn’t classify the latter case as a matter of speech rights being violated, but rather someone making threats of violence. The same logic applies to the former.
I disagree. The relevant distinction between the government (including people and entities operating on their behalf or with their resources), and private citizens is that the relationship between individuals and government is by its nature coercive in many respects. Force is not really relevant.
The Straight Dope Message Board has the right to censor certain speech on its servers.
Such an action runs counter to the ideal of free speech.
The Charlie Hebdo attack wasn’t about free speech, since the attackers weren’t government agents. The dead artists and newspaper staff suffered the consequences of their speech. Market of ideas at work.
Disagree. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, has zero force of law. It was written because the signatories were asserting that there were universal rights that existed for all people everywhere, even if they were under governments that did not honor them.
Agreed, as explained in the OP.
No. They are opposed to free speech – or only tepidly supportive – within the bounds of their authority.
Consider two non-governmental groups; they could be churches, HOAs, clubs, whatever. Assume that both groups support the First Amendment.
[ul][li]Group A allows and even encourages open discussion by members of its goals and processes. Members are allowed to publicly question the decisions of leadership. [/li]
[li]Group B forbids criticism of its leaders, and has a large body of rules and regulations limiting the expression of its members. Violators are expelled.[/ul][/li]
Notwithstanding their shared support of the first amendment, there is an obvious distinction between these groups. It seems to me that in describing that distinction, pointing out that the first group values “free speech” much more highly than the second is a pretty good way of putting it.
The notion that the distinction is sterile rests on the assumption that the government is the only societal institution that matters, that so long as the government does not. This is a very foolish thing to think. In a democracy, the government reflects the people; and in any event, culture is more than the government.
As a thought experiment, imagine a culture in which the majority of nongovernmental groups – the dominant religions, the schools, the voluntary associations, all the little platoons of society – functioned like group B. It’s absurd to think that a culture that raised its citizens to embrace authoritarianism in every other aspect of life would not inevitably embrace authoritarianism in the government, one way or another. It’s even probably wise to be wonder if, should the members of group B rise to governmental power, they might bring their attitudes with them.
It’s a meaningful distinction, and one to be aware of.
Of course not. But you can point out that that person is thin-skinned and intolerant of opposing viewpoints, and that they are not, in this instance, supporting free speech.
How much people care will probably vary depending on other circumstances. Everyone understands that schoolteachers need to restrict student speech … but we also understand that teachers can go too far. Everyone understands that religions must define their own dogma … but we also understand that a religion that forbids questioning is creepy and wrong.
And for almost all of human existence, it was taken as a given that some humans had the right to own other humans as property.
And note that I said nothing about “some deeply held inalienable right understood by all to exist.” Some people do indeed reject the idea, even today. Some people also support the humans-owning-humans thing, even today. Call me judgemental, but I think both are wrong.
You’re right – “violation” was a poorly chosen word in the OP, carrying as it does the implication of a rule. “Infringement” or “encroachment” captures the idea better.
It depends on how narrowly you define “issue.” In the immediate instance, there is no damage. But I submit that a society in which free expression is routinely met with punitive measures – even when delivered by private actors – is not a healthy one.
It’s unsurprising that many fear free speech and implicitly condone violence in response to it. The surprising thing is so many of these people want free speech for their own narrow points of view.
That’s ridiculous. The state does not have a monopoly on force or power. Would you say that an armed group cannot deprive one from freely exercising the rights to assemble? Or freedom of press with the fear of a bombing? Voter intimidation by mob rule a fantasy?
You missed the point. The issue isn’t whether private actors can apply force or have chilling effects. Obviously they can and do. The issue is whether they can infringe upon a right guaranteed by and only meant to apply to the government. They generally cannot. Just as someone stealing your gun isn’t infringing upon your right to bear arms, and a husband looking through his wife’s purse isn’t performing an illegal, warrant-less search. Threatening someone for their speech is an independent criminal act completely independent from the “precipitating event” (eg. the speech).
Who cares? That is not the issue you raised, nor is it the thing people get called out on. First, I don’t know ANYONE who supports free speech without consequences in any absolute sense, so pointing out something most people don’t believe makes no sense. Second, this thin-thinned person’s response is perfectly legal and not at all violative of one’s rights.
In what sense is it better?
But society isn’t any closer to that reality than it ever has been. In fact, society is FAR more permissive generally speaking in what can be said, expressed, and communicated. Your argument seems to basically be thinking a few acts of people getting smacked down or fired for saying something racist, sexist, or generally ignorant means society is becoming some police state while ignoring that the opposite is generally true. Look at the media landscape: fifty years ago, seeing a married couple in bed together was someone risque, and now you can openly show sex on national TV.
In almost every realm, individuals have more latitude to express controversial or provocative ideas in public. What you seem to be objecting to is not the infringement of free speech, but rather the erosion of the power the privileged have to not be judged or affected by the masses. Most of society collectively shrugs when some powerful idiot gets chopped down for saying something racist, but you seem to think it the end times because people judge them when they call Mexicans rapists or imply Obama is a Kenyan Muslim. The issue is not free speech, it’s that success today means building your personal brand, and brands are more vulnerable and are subject to constraints in a world where the impulse for collective action and information dissemination is minimal. Even so, there was NEVER a time when speech without consequence or judgement was the expected norm.
But more to the point, your OP is nonsensical because it’s addressing a strawman.
I’m afraid you’re missing the point. This declaration is specifically directed at governments, not at NGO’s. Specifically:
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words “fundamental freedoms” and “human rights” appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states.
[/QUOTE]
That’s member states, who are the ones being addressed by the declaration. In other words, governments.
To re-phrase and particularize back to the topic of the thread: the right of free speech is inherent in all humans (and presumably other sapient species, should we discover any). The right exists whether or not governments recognize or defend it. Governments, or other organizations acting *in loco governmentis *(I made that up) such as the Catholic Church in some cases during the middle ages, are unique in that they can apply force against that right.
I don’t find your thought experiment persuasive; ultimately, even on your terms, it is the state that has to abrogate free speech rights to make it effective.
Huh. As I understand it, “free speech” means that the government may not use coercive power to limit the speech of those over whom it can wield that power.
You clearly have a different definition of “free speech.” I’m not being trifling by asking you to define the concept as you use it. I’m genuinely unclear how you’re using it. For example, in which of these scenarios are you seeing “free speech” violated?
-I am at a party. You’re there, too. You say that all cats are assholes. I, a cat lover, leave in disgust.
-I am at a party. You’re there, too. You say that all cats are assholes. I say that you’re an asshole.
-Same party. You say that all cats are assholes. I go tell other people what an asshole you are and convince them they shouldn’t talk with you.
-Same party. Cats are assholes again. I convince the host to throw your ass out.
-You keep saying cats are assholes. I organize a boycott of your business.
I’m unclear how you apply the concept of free speech to voluntary interactions in which coercive power doesn’t appear.
The point of the OP is that support of lack thereof free speech as a general principle is not identical with support for it as a legal restriction.
As others have pointed out, it happens on these very boards: A wants some speech restricted/someone banned; B responds that that they don’t like censorship; and then A responds that since it’s a privately-owned message board, there’s no censorship or free speech issue.
Of course there is: such censorship would be entirely* legal*, and it may even be desirable and prudent. But clearly banning someone is a restriction on their speech on these boards, and is an instance of the Mods valuing something else over free speech. To repeat: that is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is not a meaningless statement to say that “The mods at SDMB are more committed to free speech than the mods at (insert very tightly moderated board here), but less committed to free speech than the mods at (insert unmoderated board here).” And the same can be said for other kinds of voluntary organizations.
If you are truly unable to see that as a meaningful distinction, I’ve got nothing for you.
Legal, yes. Violative of rights, probably not. But responding punitively to a contrary opinion would indicate that they are not supportive of free speech.
Because it more accurately captures the idea I was expressing, for the reasons I gave.
You seem to assume that “permissiveness” is some kind of single variable, as if it’s not possible for freedom of expression to be broadening on some topics, but simultaneously narrowing on others, or expanding in some parts of society while contracting in others. I disagree.
Just the opposite. The restriction of speech - whether that power is exercised via law, via punitive actions by private actors, or even just by social sanction - will benefit the privileged more often than not.
And now you’re pulling things out of your ass and attributing them to me. Sorry, no.
Do you see no meaningful distinction to be made between the two groups I posited to you above?
If you don’t, then we’ll have to agree to disagree. If you do, what terminology would you apply to make the distinction?