There is a small-but-significant portion of the populace that is disenchanted with free speech or considers it synonymous with “loophole that allows hate speech” and is very actively trying to move towards limited-and-censored speech instead.
Which has me thinking - free speech is something of an anomaly. For the most part of the past 6,000 years, most if not all societies pretty much forbade true free speech and there were serious (possibly fatal) consequences for expressing opinions that would be permitted today. In other words, free speech doesn’t exist unless there is a continuously active movement to keep it going. It is likely to die out and be replaced by censorship (which is the human norm) if not.
And 20 or 30 years from now, will society even consider “free speech” to be a good thing?
Define free speech. We do have some restrictions on speech – for example, I am not allowed to make false claims about you if those false claims cause you harm. That’s libel or slander, depending on how I make those claims.
I can’t go out and incite people to violence.
I can’t start spreading information that has been classified as confidential by the US government.
In the United States of America, you can try and recruit people to the Nazi Party or to the KKK. However, you cannot try and recruit people to ISIS.
I assume you’re taking about the US? Yeah, free speech only exists when there is no crisis. During (total) war time, the US has capitulated on free speech. Antiwar speech was prosecuted and likened to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Eugene Debs was tossed in prison.
Who on earth are these people? How small are their numbers, yet how significant? What do you mean by “free,” “hate,” or “speech?” Are we talking about pornographers and communists, or merely people who oppose people yelling “movie!” in a crowded firehouse?
I’m honestly not being all that facetious; I think there are a ton of begged questions in that single sentence.
:shrug: Nothing new. Americans have *always *moved all over the place on where the limits of speech should be drawn. The idea that this is “very actively trying to move towards limited-and-censored speech” is silly, as we already accept limits on our speech.
But hey, pushing back is part of the process. Be grateful your POV has power that HUAC’s victims never did.
Nor is it just the Millenials (or liberals). I do recall quite a bit of rancor (from the President no less) about not wanting football players to kneel during the National Anthem or insisting that saying “Happy Holidays” was somehow Unamerican.
No, see, that’s different, because Trump is just an idiot spouting off, but these college kids speak with the full authority of the United States of America, so it’s much worse if they are against free speech.
I mean free speech of the “I disagree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” type. I think that principle/ideal will be in serious jeopardy in the years ahead, if it isn’t already.
Free speech isn’t a “good thing”, it is a painful and tiresome duty. We are obligated to permit each to each other, just like we are obligated to accept the weirdo, the alien, and the pervert into polite company. As Fran Leibowitz shrewdly remarks “The opposite of talking isn’t listening, the opposite of talking is waiting.”
Its not inherently “good” to have a democratic electorate, to be governed by the dull-witted and firmly opinionated is a trial and a tribulation…but that is the ideal of justice, of power sharing. Power to the people. (Hey, that’s a good one, should maybe write that one down…)
Even the heady atmosphere of the SDMB, which reeks of Mensa, we steel ourselves to accept the opinions of dullards as worthy, in sufferance to the ideal. To do otherwise would be, in the words of Locke, “No fair!”.
Again it’s not a binary thing, or even a 2D spectrum.
Every country has numerous exceptions to free speech, including the US. And though the US skews on the permissive side, there are aspects of speech that are more restrictive in the US than elsewhere.
So it’s nuanced.
Personally, I don’t like people like Ben Shapiro getting blocked from speaking, say. He’s wrong about just about everything, but let him speak.
OTOH, from the point of view of the OP, you can consider me part of the enemy. One thing I would like to see is some accountability for news agencies that routinely make shit up. I don’t believe a “right to lie” is helpful.
That’s not quite correct: you are free to make those false claims. But you can then be sued for doing so. You bear the responsibility for what you say.