That’s a peculiar way to look at it.
Also de-platforming has nothing to do with free speech per-se, but I doubt the rabid mobs that encourage it are drawing philosophical distinctions between private companies and the government. It could lead to government action in the future.
I meant 1D :smack:
Not really. The claims you make may not actually be false. If they are then the courts will impose a penalty.
I think in the United States, there will never be a criminal law against free speech (such as the Nazi bans in Europe) but we will “punish” indirectly what we cannot do directly. If you believe X, Y, or Z, then you won’t be arrested, but you will effectively be denied employment, public office, membership in organizations which I believe will unfortunately have the exact same effect of outlawing speech.
So there is no freedom to say and print false statements?
Fortunately, however, we have largely recovered from the Red Scare.
There’s no such thing as “I support freedom of speech, but only when it’s used to say nice things that I agree with.” Given that free speech means that people are free to say things that make you uncomfortable, I think that most people will always be at least a little ambivalent about it. They consider it a good thing in the abstract, but they may have to be reminded that it’s worth defending.
Twenty or thirty years is nothing. Free speech will still be considered a desirable thing in twenty or thirty years.
Two hundred or three hundred years, though, no one can say.
That’s ridiculous. That’s like saying – you are free to kill people. If it wasn’t self defense you might go to jail, but you’re still free to kill people.
I don’t know about that, you hear how Trump talks about Bernie and AOC? There’s a sizable part of the population that shits its collective pants if the big scary S word is mentioned.
Not really, one thing i see all the time here is a failure to make a distinction between an illegal act and one that can hold civil liability or that is just morally reprehensible.
In this case you are free to make those false claims and it is not a crime to do so, but you may be held liable in a civil action for damages caused.
Not even remotely like saying you are free to kill people but may go to jail for it…since murder is a criminal act …slander is not.
See above post.
All of the activist / SJW type arguments against free speech are rooted in the observation that the power to speak (and be publicly heard) is not equally distributed. If we assume social progress towards more inclusiveness and continue to make it increasingly possible for anyone to post / upload / otherwise share their perspectives with others, that argument weakens.
The fascist-style arguments against free speech have different roots, of course, but I don’t see them gaining lots of traction even via dirty tricks and excuses and whatnot. I should mention that some people who are nominally part of the radical left / SJW crowd utilize fascist-style arguments (i.e., that some ideas are so abhorrently wrong that their wrongness should be sufficient reason to forcibly silence anyone wrongheaded enough to try expressing them in words) but I’m including them when I say they won’t gain serious traction.
So far, the argument has flailed around without ever addressing the central issue:
The ACLU has already shown signs of backing away from its commitment to defend free speech.
*“Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed,” wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.
It’s hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of the First Amendment. Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the organization will consider “factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur.”*
Yeah, fuck that. It’s not a situational thing- either people are free to say what they want without fear of governmental censorship, no matter how offensive or wrong, or they’re not.
And the problem when the answer is “they’re not” is that what is considered offensive is at the whim of whatever party or faction or whatever is in control of the government at any given time. And stuff like critical news stories, certain points of view, etc… can be considered “offensive” to someone and censored as a result.
That’s the whole damn point of the First Amendment- with certain minimal exceptions predominantly centering around public safety concerns, people are free from government interference in what they say, and so is the press.
The ACLU is completely losing its way if this is how they’re approaching this; historically they’ve always been at the forefront of First Amendment defense, no matter how offensive- for example, they have defended KKK free speech rights in the past.
It’s a very European way of looking at speech, IMHO. And I think we are moving towards that too. It’s kind of hard to drum up sympathy or support for free speech for groups like the KKK or Nazi party (though not hard for Communists for some odd reason). People dislike those things, and think that, perhaps, the government SHOULD stifle it since it’s offensive…never seeing the slippery slope such a path takes.
As a poster up thread said, free speech doesn’t mean you are free from the consequences of your speech…just free, by and large from government interference or direct censorship. That’s the part I think many miss in these discussions. Just because the KKK is free from government censorship doesn’t mean private citizens or non-government organizations can’t protest or counter their bullshit. In Europe the government can and does stifle speech it deems offensive…and most Europeans I know think that’s great. Many Americans are starting to come around to this way of thinking too, at least based on this board as well as my own experience talking about this stuff (of course, what is or isn’t ‘offensive’ changes quite a lot depending on the audience). So, to answer the OP, I’d say that in the 20-30 year time frame the idea of free speech will still be popular or desired, but what it means will shift somewhat to something we, today, wouldn’t consider as free.
In 20 years the section of speech which is considered “taboo” will shift, but it always does. Even 20 years ago coming out publicly as gay could cost you your job (heck in some places today that will cost you your job).
People have always been concerned about what “the others” could say without social consequences, and what they themselves can say about “the others” without social consequences.
I disagree. It’s in no way similar.
Only if they can convince lots of people to be intolerant. Two klansmen drinking beer on a porch while bitching about the coloreds aren’t a threat.
“If civilization has got the better of barbarism when barbarism had the world to itself, it is too much to profess to be afraid lest barbarism, after having been fairly got under, should revive and conquer civilization.”
[Right]—John Stuart Mill[/right]