Just because the prosecutor declined to pursue charges doesn’t mean a crime didn’t occur.
And do you think that the prosecutor’s office in Ferguson, Missouri declined to press charges because they didn’t have enough evidence to convict, or because they’re part of some vast conspiracy to defend liberal agitators?
Feels like “Will rule of law always be considered a good thing” is fodder for another thread.
So how do we know if a crime occurred? Because D’Anconia says so?
No, they’ve given indications of greater selectivity. And it’s those suggested selection criteria that appear to have been nudged just a wee bit in the direction critics have demanded.
So, implementing revised guidelines would be meaningless from a public relations standpoint if the guidelines aren’t announced with public fanfare? I find it hard to follow your logic. :dubious:
The great irony is that the campus protesters feel their exercise of free speech is the right to curtail the free speech of someone they disagree with.
That’s silly. And not irony.
Not a conspiracy. They probably didn’t want even more riots.
Let’s say there was a video of a bank robbery, and the prosecutor’s evidence was tainted in some way. Would you still argue that no crime occurred? :dubious:
The standard that an actual conviction in court is the only way for a crime to have been committed is farcical.
This doesn’t answer my question at all. I thought you hated “argument by assertion”, but you engage in it all the time.
This is nonsense.
“Free speech is good” is a truism that basically everyone accepts, to the point where simply saying it is a pretty weak signal for, well, anything. Everyone is, in principle, in favor of free speech.
The problem is “I like free speech” has been hijacked as a rallying cry for those who want to see zero consequences (governmental or social) for certain bad-faith actors. As Scott Alexander puts it:
I think of respect for free speech as a commons. Every time some group invokes free speech to say something controversial, they’re drawing from the commons – which is fine, that’s what the commons is there for. Presumably the commons self-replenishes at some slow rate as people learn philosophy or get into situations where free speech protects them and their allies.
But if you draw from the commons too quickly, then the commons disappears. When trolls say the most outrageous things possible, then retreat to “oh, but free speech”, they’re burning the commons for no reason, to the detriment of everybody else who needs it.
(this is how I feel about everything Milo Yiannopoulos has ever done or said.)
There’s a lot of those bad-faith trolls whose interest in “free speech” isn’t actually any deeper than the rest of us (as evidenced when they’re silent on the far greater free speech abuses of people like Donald Trump, or when people they disagree with are silenced, see also Dave Rubin supporting Bolsonaro’s crackdown on academic freedom), but merely use it to defend bad actors and attack straw feminists. There’s a great many people who have made careers out of this - for example: literally anyone who criticized Anita Sarkeesian on “free speech” grounds; almost anyone who calls themselves a “classical liberal”; Dave “Gay Uncle Tom” Rubin.
It’s a signaling problem, and “I love free speech” as a signal has largely been hijacked by bad-faith actors. Is it any wonder that this causes some people to sour on, if not the concept as a whole, then at least certain implementations?
This is a phenomenally complicated discussion that is easily muddied in free speech with regards to government actions vs. societal action, in discussions of hate speech, different conceptions of free speech, et cetera. Oversimplifying it like this is not helpful.
What, you mean that if I go to a Nazi rally, and my picture ends up on the front page of the newspaper, my boss might not want to be associated with me? Or might not want to vote for me and put me in a position of power? Shit, we need to pass laws to protect people’s freedom to say and do whatever they want without consequences!
Social consequences for speech have literally always been a thing. It’s just been a question of what you get punished for; what society is willing to put up with. In the past, it was things like “being gay” or “supporting leftist ideas”. Now it’s things like “discriminating against minorities” and “being a nazi”. That’s an improvement in my book.
This is one of those things the aforementioned bad faith trolls (not calling you one of them, just pointing out that your behavior lines up with theirs in this regards) love to do - conflate “speech free from government consequences” with “speech free from social consequences”, and moan that anyone recommending social consequences for someone who did something shitty is against free speech. Which is nonsense.
(And tellingly, it almost always gets pulled out in defense of a certain kind of free speech, as typified by the - I’m loathe to call it discourse because holy fuck it does not even rise to that ground level, let’s just call it something more fitting - shitshow where Deadmau5, a 38-year-old world-famous musician, got banned from Twitch for calling someone a “faggot”, then went on an extended rant on reddit about how unfair and anti-free-speech that was. Lots of people on twitter defending him on “free speech” grounds, even though that’s totally not applicable. This happens every time someone gets in hot water over some slur or bigoted action; far more than for anything else. I wonder why.)
I agree; “Free Speech” should really only be relevant in the context of governmental action. That’s what the First Amendment is about, not a person’s right to say anything, anywhere with an expectation of no consequences or censure at all.
The government can’t restrict you from saying dickish things. But that doesn’t prevent private society from imposing consequences on you for being a dick via what you say. That’s fine- there is no, and has never been any legitimate idea that free speech means that you can say inflammatory or derogatory things without consequence. The whole concept revolves around the idea that the government cant control what you say, and it does so from the perspective that being able to constrain or control the flow of ideas and knowledge gives undue power to the people in power, and can be used for any number of nefarious ends- controlling what information is distributed, controlling who can distribute it, controlling what people are allowed to hear, etc…
But if someone decides to call someone a “faggot”, and that person is shunned by their message board, book club, online game, church or whatever, their right to free speech has NOT been violated. They’re free to say it, and outside of social opprobrium, face no consequences. I’d argue that the existence of social consequences is necessary for the free exchange of ideas in a democratic society. There needs to be that feedback mechanism that endorses some ideas and views, and boycotts others, and social consequences are that boycott.
Speech that has public safety aspects- shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there’s no fire, is an example of a place where your freedom of speech is limited because of the danger of injury to theater-goers, and because that shout doesn’t materially contribute to any sort of exchange of ideas, etc…
That was never stated anywhere. I would say its a pretty pointless discussion of the decline of the right free speech if it doesn’t mention the progressive liberal democracies (like the UK) that have recently passed laws directly contravening that right.
I can assure you it was more than than two people. But regardless the fact that a huge swath of the western world (not just UK) has passed laws in recent years that infringe on free speech, clearly shows that there is widespread support for its weakening or abolition.
Well speaking as a British citizen (currently living in the US) countries can pass whatever law they want. But if they pass a law that criminalizes speech the government finds offensive (such as the British hate speech laws, or the Thai Lese Majeste laws) then they can’t claim to have a meaningful right to free speech. There are of course lots of edge cases for fundamental rights like free speech (e.g. the famous ‘crying fire in a crowded theater’ case), but this is not one of them, if you can’t say things the government finds offensive, you don’t have free speech.
These aren’t medieval throwbacks they are recently passed laws (the UK law was passed in 2006). So yes, as the OP is correct that there is a movement away from free speech in the world as a whole. The fact that the hate speech laws in countries like the UK are used to prosecute racist douchebags on the whole, doesn’t change that. And that will only remain the case until the racist douchebags are the ones doing the prosecuting (and anyone who says that will never happen hasn’t opened a newspaper recently).
For all its faults free speech is safer in the US because of the constitution. It would take a very very radical shift in politics for that to change (more even than the insanity of Trump, which the right of free speech has survived, despite his best efforts). It is a amazing to me that well informed left-leaning progressive people can look at laws like the UK hate speech laws and go “this is fine, no problem there”, and not expect those exact same laws to be used against their right of free speech in the future (or ones very like them, that will go unchecked, because these laws were found to be constitutional)
I agree that the government has traditionally allowed social pressure to help control groups it does not like. As an example, the KKK has existed since 1869 and they have been happily harassing, intimidating, assaulting, and persecuting black folks ever since. Every person who participated in those attacks should have been arrested but nothing happened. Will this ever be properly addressed?
Most of America didn’t care when it was the minorities who constantly held the shit end of the stick. Now that things have changed and social pressure is being used against the other side everyone wants to cry about freedom of speech.
Can we please stop pretending this about freedom of speech and not about who is being (socially) policed?
So while I largely agree free speech only applies to governmental restrictions on speech (like the UK hate laws I mention above).
The technological side does bare talking about. Clearly anyone can chuck someone off their website for saying something they find offensive, whether they are running straightdope.com or twitter.com. No one’s free speech is being impinged when that happens.
But once a single company can shutdown your appor website completely without any recourse, then you its hard not to say it has free speech implications. Daily Stormer are fucking nazi arseholes but that a single private company has the ability to completely take down their website (with no recourse, they can’t just move to another hosting company) is a serious concern for everyone. As I said above, if you seriously think it is never going to be the nazi arseholes who are the ones making the decisions you aren’t paying attention to the news.
The solution though isn’t to force companies to host content they find offensive, but to ensure the system is set up so that no one company can hold that much power. I am pretty pessimistic anything like this will happen however, in fact the way tech world is moving in the opposite direction (with things like app stores). But I am also disappointed there isn’t a more widespread movement to oppose it, the fact we just accepted that now the company we buy our computer from has a right to tell us what software we can install on it is crazy to me.
I disagree. It’s no different having a website than a magazine, billboard, TV show, etc… And I don’t doubt that the assholes behind the Daily Stormer have a hard time finding publishers, broadcasters and billboard companies to let them spread their message.
And that’s how it should be. What’s to say that it’s not those entities’ free speech rights to choose NOT to engage with that garbage?
People can install apps without going through the Apple store or Google Play; it’s just a PITA. Boo hoo for those sad white supremacists. And those guys could go get their site hosted in the third world somewhere.
Again, it’s private enterprise. And in the case of China and the VPN apps, that’s NOT a free speech issue; Apple’s doing business in China, so they have to comply with the laws of *that *land, oppressive as they may be.
This is not the same thing at all. They are not “engaging” with them. There is not really a non-digital analogy to Cloudflare de-listing someone. The only vague equivalent would be a switch board or post office de-listing someone (which, as those are state-run on the whole) would absolutely be a free speech issue. We’ve created a digital media system where a single gate keeper can totally control access to almost all the world wide web and decide which software you get to run on your computer.
Actually to do so is technically illegal due to the DMCA (and equivalent laws in many other countries).
Here’s the shortsightedness comes in. Right now its happening to neo Nazis, fuck those guys. But we’ve set up a system where a single company can effectively stop an individual or organisation communicating to the rest of the world. Not just force to use another website (or publisher or whatever), just stop them being able to the release their app or website, no appeal, no comeback, just gone. Seriously, given everything happening in the world right now, can you honestly not see how that power IS going to be used to censor speech that you or I agree with sooner or later?
Well its definitely a free speech issue in China, but that’s not point. We’ve set up a system where the company we buy our computers from (Apple in this case) gets to decide what software we can run on them. That is awful for all kinds of freedom of expression. What about when Apple and Google decide (either because China ask for it, or simply for convenience when the vast majority of app purchases are made in China) that they are going to make the Chinese policy the default policy for the app store world wide? Or they decide (as that’s what the Premier McTrumpinaro tells them to do, or they won’t get a tax break) to remove homosexual content ? They are private companies its their decision to make. At that point it DEFINITELY effects my freedom of expression.
I agree that the First Amendment is only concerned with governmental restriction of free speech. But that is only half of the point. Society itself should value free speech and not take punitive private action against a person or group for free speech.
If free speech is good and helps promote the healthy exchange of ideas, then private action suppresses this as well. Just because I won’t go to jail for saying something, but will lose my job, my membership in social clubs, my SDMB membership, and half of my friends just for saying something, then the speech will be suppressed just the same as if the government did it.
I’m not asking for regulation of society, but if we as a society are committed to free speech, we should be able to debate intolerable ideas, but then still go to the steel mill and work together after the debate, not place a scarlet letter around the person and make him a societal outcast.
Let’s say my employee says something I’m super not okay with. Maybe I’m Jewish, and he posted a youtube video defending Adolf Hitler. Under this proposal, I can’t fire him for his speech. In what universe does that not abridge my right to free association?
Free speech does not mean “I get to say whatever the fuck I want with no social consequences”. If I go on a racist tirade against my boss, my boss should absolutely be allowed to fire me! If I use slurs against my friend, in what universe does it make any sense to say, “You shouldn’t be bothered by that and should definitely remain friends with that person”? If someone spends their time here being a shitty troll, how does that make this forum a better place? I feel like you really haven’t thought this one through.