And yet you assert (based on your citations) that the decline in the appreciation of free speech is a wholly liberal phenomenon.
Perhaps this thread should have been called “Will liberals destroy free speech?”
Freedom of speech, as I (and the First Amendment) understand it, is about legal consequences, not social consequences. It means that you can’t get arrested for saying the wrong thing, not that you can’t lose your job or your friends over it.
Huh? I didn’t see where his cites asserted that it was a “wholly liberal” phenomenon. In fact, when OldGuy said “Nor is it just the Millenials (or liberals)…” Velocity responded with “Yes…”
Every citation he provided of examples of, um, declining concern for freedom of speech (for lack of a better phrase) pins it on liberals specifically, or on college campuses where all the examples reported are of liberal students protesting conservative speakers.
So, considering that there are a number of significant and public examples of the right being up in arms about the wrong kind of speech, and yet none of them made it into the OP or his subsequent list of citations, I can only assume that he either actually believes that it is in fact liberals only who are resistant to free speech, or that he intentionally wanted to frame this as a liberal-created problem.
Yes but I am taking about it in the social sense as is the OP.
-
You almost certainly do not support unfettered free speech. For one, prison is an inherent restriction of the right to assemble and speak for the incarcerated. And that’s without getting into the more gray areas like “threats” or discussing detailed plans to bomb congress or whatever.
-
No-platforming is people determining what kind of speech they want in their community, it’s not stating people can’t say things, just not in their community. Note that for things like speaking gigs or debates these aren’t just neutral matters where someone is talking, like on the internet. There’s advertisement of the event, often pay for the speaker (or at the very least, covering travel expenses), and oftentimes even soft-endorsement of the speaker (usually the person introducing them at the event will fluff them up a little, plug their books, whatever). It also caters to the rich/powerful – Steve Bannon or Barack Obama or whatever is going to get more plugging and resources from almost any institution you can name than a student who wrote a book and wants to hold a panel on it.
Some speakers who complain about having been no-platformed also don’t mention the stuff they’ve done that may make it worth no-platforming. For instance, Milo Yiannopoulos drew explicit attention to local transgender students and essentially targeted harassment at them at some of his gigs. That’s not creating a safe environment.
People also ignore that the institution holding the event is necessarily protecting the speech of the speaker over others at the event implicitly by, say, removing protesters trying to shout over the speaker for the whole event, or literally steal the stage from them, and this is true whether the protesters are left or right (those protesters shouting are engaging in speech as well, and it’s not necessarily only shutting them down – they could be trying to spread a counter-message). You can argue that, in the limit, all viewpoints get equally protected through a series of individually protected speakers, but I’m… skeptical of that claim.
- Unfettered free speech includes groups trying to spread propaganda, even deliberately untrue propaganda (i.e. things that are short, pithy, and wrong).
Debates are not debate club, and they’re not dialectical tools most of the time. The presidential “debates” and such are not debates in this sense, they’re shows of force, dominance, and morality. They’re not factual matters where both people come in with opposing viewpoints with the hope truth will fall out of the conflict of ideas. They’re people trying to spread and reinforce a narrative among the viewers of the debate*. While political party debates need to be more neutral and not ban viewpoints, it’s absolutely reasonable for a (non-state) institution to recognize that not everyone is coming to the table in good faith, and that this facet of performative “debates” is mostly used to spread propaganda and recruit, it’s not as simple as the free marketplace of ideas in action.
- N.B. some people may go into it with that intention, but not everyone does, and I’d argue most don’t. Especially for debates between political candidates, I’d honestly argue you’re a fool and are going to get rolled, hard, by your opponent if you treat it that way.
How far do you think a “community” ought to be able to go in determining what people can’t say while within it?
I’d tack on that most “debates” you can think of are probably realistically under this paradigm, for better or worse. When high profile skeptics debate creationists, for instance, they’re not going in with the intention of there being a struggle of ideas, but whether they enter with a correct or incorrect viewpoint, the truth shall emerge. They’re going in with the intention of reaching the audience and debunking the opposing viewpoint. Again, in this case that’s arguably for the better, but perhaps it’s a less politically charged example for this board.
It’s really floaty question, honestly. I’m tempted to say “unlimited” but that’s not really true (and leaves me open to, say, arguments about stores allowing racial discrimination). It depends on quite a number of things like whether it’s denying resources to people, the type of people being shut down (e.g. viewpoints vs unchangeable characteristics), the size and power of the group doing the policing, whether it’s an arm of the state or not, etc.
Answer, not question
The United States is unique in its ability to tolerate free speech. Since we are so unique, it’s safe to say that our relative lack of limits on free speech are going to incline more towards the middle as time goes on.
I guess it’s fair to ask why the US has such an obsession with free speech and is that changing? I would posit that it’s the result of three things, revolutionary origins, independent states and religious diversity.
The first is self-evident. Revolutionaries tend to like to be able to recruit, so having robust speech protections is necessary for revolutionary movements. That won’t change. Our origins are our origins. People may place less emphasis on our origins, but they are still there with all of the baggage that the first amendment and early precedent bring with it.
The second is that we are a collection of 50 different nations under a single federation. As such, having the ability for each ‘state’ to voice its concerns was something that was extremely important and led to our cultural obsession with speech. There has always been a fear that Massachusetts might want to shut up Georgia or vice versa and that has led to a culture of all speech is good. I would say that this is largely a force that is fading. Fewer and fewer people identify with their state and transience and mass media has served even more to blur the lines. At the same time, we do see the rise of urban/rural divides which are the ‘states’ perhaps of our time, so that likely encourages speech protections.
The last is religious diversity. The US religious landscape has always been particularly diverse. We have largely wanted to exist within this marketplace of ideas where no religious tradition has ever had a monopoly. The largest religious denomination in the US of all time was Catholics at 28% in the early 80s. None of the others have come even remotely close. As such, speech tolerance was necessary merely to keep the peace between all of these diverse traditions. In addition, the lack of power of any particular denomination served as a check on any of their worse tendencies. I would say that this is fading culturally. Currently, the largest non-Catholic denomination is only 5% of the population. These groups are getting squeezed and it’s likely within the lifetime of today’s children that religious ‘nones’ will come to enjoy a monopoly that no other faith tradition has ever had before and they may already be at that point. I think that once they cross the 50% threshold, we’ll be living in interesting times. American nones are unique in their virulence. Sure, there are British ‘religious haters’, but largely the non-belief of Europe has been a collective shrug. Most of them still even participate in the cultural trappings of the church. I know a guy from Brighton that believes in God as much as I believe in unikitties, but he still had his kid christened and that’s not atypical of European non-belief. American non-belief is much more focused on the destruction of religion. How that’s going to play out in 40 years when they hold the reins of power is anyone’s guess. Of course, a lot can change in 40 years. Regardless, this change could end up impacting speech freedoms in ways we haven’t seen before.
Overall though, it’s very difficult to predict cultural movements. So it is hard to say what will end up happening. I think that largely the demographics point toward more speech limits, but demographics are only partly destiny.
I see where you are coming from. There is a surprisingly vocal contiginet that seems to think that criticizing bigoted speech or discriminatory actions should not be permitted. But it is a small group, even if they are a loud group.
Most of the time, we didn’t really have the ability to communicate with anyone further than our neighbor.
Widerspread literacy, along with the printing press, meant that speech could go out to more people, across longer distances and times.
That’s why the FF’s were specific in giving freedom to speech, to the press, and to assemble, as those are different specific enumerated rights that have been, as one or as all, been restricted by many governments over time.
Short of some apocalyptic event that causes a collapse of civilization and a complete reordering of social structure, I’d say yes.
I disagree with this entirely. I see many, many people complaining that other people use their freedom of speech to criticize what they have chosen to communicate, but I see very few people actually looking to have the govt prevent them from criticising them.
I don’t see that at all.
If you mean, “I disagree with what you say, but I will not criticize it,” well, that’s never been a thing.
It is possible that is the case. If you believe that pedophiles should be given children to have sex with, minorities should be exiled or killed, and women should have no rights not given to them by a male family member, then, no one will care, if you keep it to yourself.
If you publicly come out and tell everyone what you believe these things, and that they should believe them too, then I, as an employer, will not hire you, as a voter, will not vote for you, and as a member of an organization, will leave if they lower their standards enough to have you.
Do you, or don’t you, feel that I should have the right to choose who I associate with, and if I do not like the things that you have to say, I can choose not to associate with you?
Govt, yes. Your peers, no.
Right, which is why they are not censored. Can you give an example of what you are talking about?
Which some are looking to change by prohibiting the criticism of their speech, or the consequences thereof.
So, they don’t have the right to freedom of speech themselves? They must defend what you think that they should defend? They are not a govt entity, they are a private organization. They are not attacking or abridging your rights, they are simply working on causes that they feel are worthy and advance their agenda of equality and egalitarianism.
If they have decided that defending every racist who comes out of the woodwork and treads the line of speech/vs call to action is not a good use of their resources, who are you to say that they must do what you say?
And yet it is, and always has been, a show. The American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, largely consisting of rich and powerful colonists resisting the established aristocracy. Any “free speech” was ultimately centered around the wishes and ideas of revolutionary aristocrats. Let’s not forget that we banned the vast majority of black people from organizing and speaking in the South (because they were, y’know, barely considered “people”. Oh, I’m sorry, 3/5ths of a person), and the rights to speak by non-property holders were heavily curtailed.
Hell, some very real examples were during many suffrage or civil rights movements in the US, where the actual fucking US police, not just independent actors, actively broke up demonstrations. I mean, not to mention police enforcement of the segregation or Jim Crow laws to begin with.
During the Great Railroad Strike of 1922, the courts issued an injunction against striking, assembling, and picketing. (And this is just one example of union or strike busting in our history).
IP law is an entire body of law that curtails artistic speech to protect a monopoly and enforce artificial scarcity of goods that can be cheaply copied.
Let’s also not forget gestures vaguely at everything relating to Communism during the Cold War.
The FCC regulates speech on the channels it regulates.
Now you may disagree with me lumping these together. You may think some of these are justified. You (hopefully) agree some are heinous and were always missteps and an example of free speech and justice prevailing. But the fact is, Free Speech has always been highly conditional, and at best we define Free Speech in an amorphous way to ignore certain things, and at worst we outright justify flagrantly ignoring it.
Predicting it in detail is difficult.
Predicting it in general is trivial.
With new laws being made every day and far more rarely repealed it’s easy to predict we will likely get more restrictive.
What laws, specifically, are you talking about?
What I’m saying is that if the ACLU purports to be the defender of the First Amendment that it has historically been, then it pretty much has to defend just about everyone whose 1st amendment rights have been violated, not just the ones they agree with. It really is an all-or-nothing thing with respect to defending against governmental abridgement of free speech- anything other than nearly total freedom isn’t free at all.
Anything else is essentially endorsing differential application of the law- it’s not ok for the government to abridge the right for cause X to speak freely, but we don’t like cause Y, so it’s ok. It’s hypocritical for one thing- you’re not defending free speech, but just groups you like at that point.
As HL Mencken put it:
And I’m saying that you are extrapolating quite a bit form one sentence of a memo that was not intended for public consumption. If there were any actual veracity to the claim, they would release the memo fully, so that the context of that one sentence can be understood.
That, in a conversation that we are not aware of the context of, someone mentions that defending hate speech may sometimes be contrary to their greater mission, you choose to agree with the article’s author (which would have the full context, which they chose not to share) that “It’s hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of the First Amendment” is only because you are not in any way aware of the context of that sentence, who said it, or to whom. You simply make assumptions about what context it must have been in, in order to justify your biases. The article is specifically about taking things out of context to try to get a reaction out of its readers, and their manipulations are working quite well, I must observe.
They still do need to prioritize, they do not have infinite resources. If they take a case that is more in line with their greater goals, that does not meant hat they must take a case that is not. They are a private organization, not a government. Of course they can prioritize based on what they prefer.
They absolutely do, and still do, take on cases of hate speech. It’s not hypocrisy if they are not doing the hypocritical thing that you are accusing them of.
That they may devote some more of their resources to making sure that people’s rights are not violated based on who they are, vs what they do, is also not a sign of hypocrisy.
Missed edit:
Did find the link to the memo itself, and having read it, in context, it actually does not have the implications that the article’s author purported to it.
It did not say that, due to that, we will not take those cases. Not in the slightest. It just put that out as an observation, taht that is one of the costs of doing the work that they do.
In fact, the whole of the memo basically is to explain why they will continue to represent hate speech cases, even though it may conflict with their greater mission.
So, yes, taking it out of context is extremely dishonest on that article’s part. It presents the impression that they are saying the exact opposite of what they are actually saying.
Note that, while I disapprove of such dishonest tactics as the cited article attempted (and succeeded on several posters here) to pull, I do defend their right to keep trying.
That’s fair. If that’s their attitude, then I’m all for it. The article writers were in the wrong and dishonest.
Here’s the full memo.
I don’t see where Reason took its quotes “out of context” to be deceptive. The memo reads to me as guidelines (non-mandatory, supposedly), in which the ACLU would seek to be more selective in how it approaches free speech cases, placing a new emphasis on what its critics see as the harm free speech can cause to marginalized peoples*, pulling back from the organization’s historic emphasis on a more general fight to preserve free speech (another way of avoiding the need to defend some rightists’ free speech is to declare that carrying weapons, even if legal is grounds to disqualify the group from getting ACLU support). The memo stresses the ACLU’s limited resources, declaring that it needs to pick and choose its fights to balance competing rights, of which free speech is just one.
In the aftermath of all the heat the ACLU took over its defense of the Charlottesville marchers, the memo reads to me in large part as a means of appeasing left-wing critics whose support the ACLU deems essential.
This article strikes me as a fair appraisal of the spot the ACLU has put itself in.
*sort of a companion argument to the one that says “marginalized peoples” can’t be racist despite words and actions that demonstrate it, because they’re oppressed and powerless, ya know. :dubious:
It seems like people only like it depending on if it falls on their side… I’m a free speech absolutist, and not afraid of anyone’s opinions… I really hate the de-platforming of any kind, because there is no other fakebook, retwitter, etc., (not that I really use it)
For example, a Congresswoman can’t speak her mind, and because she’s Muslim, it’s a-ok for the media to attack her - no one will defend her. (she’s Semitic for christ’s sakes)
Those who control you are the ones you can’t criticize.