He certainly did more than criticize speech in the case of the football players. He said they should be allowed to kneel. I believe he said they should be fired, but I’d have to look that up.
It shows a massive short sightedness to me. There is undeniable move away from democracy and civil rights, towards autocracy and repression, in the world at large. Trump, Brexit, Orban, Putin, Erdoğan, Bolsonaro, etc. etc. are all symptoms of that to a lesser or greater degree IMO.
Given that, the (widespread) idea that its OK for the government to punish free speech that it finds offensive, is stunning to me. Even more so that it’s prevalent among intelligent well meaning people who are vehemently opposed to the rise of authoritarianism. That they can say “yup, this or this is OK”, and expect the same system of laws to protect them in 20 years time, when Premier McTrumpogansonaro says that advocating for homosexual lifestyles (or advocating for unemployment benefits, or pictures of the presidents, or anything else) is offensive and punishable by prison time, is crazy to me.
I’ve heard commentary along the lines of “oh well the alt right fascists don’t really want free speech”, to which my response is OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DON’T! That’s why its bad! If the right of free speech doesn’t protect their right to say shitty offensive things, it won’t protect your right of free speech they find what you say offensive!
The Trump campaign and president are, in modern times, pretty much the nadir of US constitutional system. The constitution hasn’t prevented Trump from doing hideous things, but in terms of freedom of speech its held up pretty well. Trump has explicitly threatened the right of free speech(and other fundamental rights) the fact they have remained just threats. (despite holding both houses of congress, and appointing two supreme court judges) is a testament to that. He has definitely made it easier for the next wannabe dictator to push over the next domino, but right now most of them are holding up if wobbling.
Everyone who watches the news occasionally, and is horrified by the rise of authoritarianism and the alt-right, should be pushing for absolute protection for free speech and religion in their country. To do the opposite is self defeating.
Do you somehow think that the ACLU has infinite resources? Of course they have to be selective about the cases they take, how else are they supposed to select the cases to take? Are you saying that they would be hypocrites if they do not take every single free speech case?
While it did mention that it was not going to take on cases that involve violence or weapons mixed with speech, it did not do so to avoid defending rightists, it did so to avoid encouraging violence.
What selection criteria would you have them take up?
Except that the memo was not intended for public release, so that wouldn’t make any sense at all.
I read that as though people were expecting the ACLU to sign onto and follow through with a suicide pact, and the ACLU chose not to.
That some can read hypocrisy only means that they either do not understand the ACLU’s actual mission, or they do, and want to see it fail.
It sounds like people are reading into the memo what they have chosen to read into the memo. If you want to see it as them no longer supporting free speech, then that is your choice.
Please cite this (widespread) idea that it is okay for the govt to punish free speech.
A few college blogs here and there is not (widespread).
I have heard it said that the fascists don’t really want free speech, but I don’t know that I have had it in an argument that we should agree with them.
I think that idea that there is an opposite is massively overblown. What sometimes happens is that someone is criticized for saying hateful things with their free speech, and that criticism is considered to be an attack on their freedom of speech.
You are right, the Nazis don’t want free speech, because free speech means that their ideas will be criticized. It is their playbook to get people to react exactly as you are reacting, in taking their side in trying to shut down criticism of their speech, under the false impression that criticism of hateful speech is prohibition of hateful speech.
Just as free speech means the freedom to have hateful speech, it also means that you can have criticism of that hateful speech, and that is the part that they just cannot stand, and they will rail and cry and persuade you that criticism of hate speech should be prohibited.
Nope.
The government censors free speech by allowing people and groups it dislikes to be harassed, intimidated, assaulted, treated illegally, and persecuted by people and groups it favors. The attack by the Antifa against Tucker Carlson and his family is a perfect example. Every person who participated in the attack should have been arrested but nothing happened. The calls for violence against the children of Covington have yet to be properly addressed and likely never will. Where’s the FBI?
When people feel the government refuses to protect them from criminal behavior, you can be assured that freedom of speech is restricted.
Cite that the government refused to arrest anyone who took part in criminal behavior? Or is this just a bunch of ridiculous hyperbolic bullshit about a bunch of speech that you didn’t like and you’re happy to call criminal?
As they destroyed property, the Antifa shouted, “Every night you spread fear into homes — we remind you that you are not safe either”
You call this free speech? I call it a terroristic threat not protected by the First Amendment. Even worse, the Democrats that control the town Carlson lives in refused to properly dispatch law enforcement to arrest this mob.
Well, at least we finally have someone in this thread that is actually anti-free speech. The OP and several others have been railing and railing about all this widespread anti-free speech, but could not come up with an example of it.
So, we now have one person that is anti-free speech in this thread. Did you want to address all of the arguments that are made against your position?
Property destruction and threats of violence are illegal. Do you have a cite that anyone involved in such illegal behavior was identified but not prosecuted?
In any case, the vast majority of the criticism of Tucker Carlson and the Covington kids were peaceful.
Again, do you have a cite that anyone involved in such illegal behavior was identified but not prosecuted? Or is this a bunch of cite-free bullshit that we can safely ignore?
How can I cite something that didn’t happen? Why don’t you cite that this criminal behavior was properly dealt with?
The existence and use of those laws that punish free speech in liberal democracies like Britain is proof of that(see those articles for the details, which are major British news organisations not college blogs)
If you search this site you’ll also see several threads where those laws have widespread support.
What criminal behavior? You’ve provided no cites for any criminal behavior that you say should have, but did not, result in arrests.
I guess you need to reminded, again, of the violent mobs such as at Berkeley that materialize whenever someone with a viewpoint they don’t want expressed is set to speak on campus.
To answer the OP, in many circles free speech is not considered a good thing today. And that is very troubling.
A very small number of violent assholes exist. They have always existed. They pop up on the edges of every political movement and ideology. The vast majority of protests and criticism today, on and off college-campuses, are peaceful.
And are themselves exercises of free speech.
Oh, I took this to be a US thing, and talking about the freedom of speech there. Sure, and if you look at Russia, you see even less free speech.
I’ve seen a few of those threads, and I am not sure that it is quite the widespread support that you are claiming. A very small number (2, if I remember correctly) agreed that Britain’s prohibition on hate speech was a good thing. Most others simply indicated that it was in fact, a different country, where they do things differently, and that it is neither influenced by, nor influences, the protections of free speech in the US.
Are you considering that anyone that was not railing against a sovereign nation’s ability to pass the laws that it deems proper for its citizenry to be part of that widespread support? That’s the only way I’m seeing anything remotely like your claim.
I would not want those laws here, but I support the right of a sovereign country to pass such laws if they want to, does that put me into one of the anti-speech circles?
Need to be reminded again about that one time that one guy had a bike lock? You don’t need to go to the trouble of repeating yourself, yet again.
I guess that you wold be more aware of what happens in those circles than those who do not travel in them. I still disagree with your notion that criticisms of hate speech should be prohibited.
Was Michael Brown’s stepfather arrested for inciting?
No idea what you’re talking about, and I’m not inclined to just go googling to play your games. If you have something to say, and it takes a cite, then I recommend taking the time to find and include such a cite.
I couldn’t tell you if he ended up being charged, but according to your own cite, it would be unlikely that he would be because of the difficulty a prosecutor would have proving the cause and effect relationship needed for an “inciting” charge to stick:
So it sounds like the prosecutor’s office would have likely decided that this case wasn’t worth pursuing as it was unlikely to result in conviction.
What’s your point?
nm