
Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech - exolymph
https://geoff.greer.fm/2017/10/05/freedom-of-speech-isnt-about-speech/
======
woodruffw
I think a common failure (intentional or not) in discussing free speech is
isolating free speech _absolutism_ from the sort of free speech that we'd be
happy to accept in a liberal, open society.

Speaking practically and from the absolutist perspective, there should be no
legal penalty for inciting _others_ to violence. However, I think that
(nearly) all of us recognize the importance of _motive_ in cases -- we
rightfully recognize both the inciter _and_ the mob and assign blame
commensurately. Most of us, I think, would not want to live in a society where
inciting panic or violence is at least morally neutral. If that's the case
_and_ we think that the laws should reflect such a judgement, then it follows
that open societies must (counterintuitively) place restrictions on free
speech.[1]

Geoff makes good points, and he uses good sources to advance those points. But
we should not think that Paine or Mill would be comfortable with the
absolutist rhetoric that they get applied popularly to today.

[1]: Karl Popper called this the "Paradox of Tolerance."

~~~
ggreer
You misunderstand me. I thought it was clear that I was talking about ideas,
not threats or inciting mobs. You'll have a hard time finding any self-
described free speech absolutist who thinks those should be permitted.

~~~
woodruffw
I understood you, but I think that you conflated freedom of conscience with
freedom of speech. Freedom of conscience seems pretty uncontroversial, and
it's what Paine is talking about in the quote you gave (on my interpretation).

I think everybody agrees that freedom of conscience is both good and necessary
in an open society. However, it's incorrect to think that _absolute_ freedom
of speech necessarily follows.

> You'll have a hard time finding any self-described free speech absolutist
> who thinks those should be permitted.

I've debated people who believe this. You and I don't have to agree with them,
but they exist.

~~~
ggreer
> I understood you

I'm sorry but you don't. (Also, don't I get to decide that, not you?)

> Freedom of conscience seems pretty uncontroversial, and it's what Paine is
> talking about in the quote you gave (on my interpretation).

Paine and Mill weren't just talking about freedom of conscience or thought.
Paine thought it crucial to hear others' ideas so that he could avoid being
wrong. That requires the ideas be expressed. Likewise with Mill. Chapter 2 of
_On Liberty_ is titled "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion"[1].
Throughout the text, Mill defends expression as well as thought, and condemns
the silencing of any expression of opinion:

> But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by
> themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The
> best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or
> more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in
> opposition to it.

1\.
[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Liberty/Chapter_2](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Liberty/Chapter_2)

~~~
woodruffw
> I'm sorry but you don't. (Also, don't I get to decide that, not you?)

Yes, you do. Sorry if that came off as blunt - I only _think_ that I
understood you.

You're right that Mill considers both thought and speech in _On Liberty_ ,
which is why I said Paine and not Mill.

That being said, Mill should be taken holistically -- he's a Utilitarian[1],
and is firmly committed to his version of the principle of utility (the
"Greatest Happiness Principle"). Reading a practical prescription of free
speech as a moral (or even lesser, legal) prescription would lead to a
contradiction in any circumstance where the GHP says that restricting speech
would promote happiness (e.g., where incitement leads to murder).

[1]: Specifically, on my interpretation, he's an act utilitarian. I've seen
him read as an rule utilitarian (and parts 4 and on of his _Utilitarianism_
can support that reading), but his first formulation of the GHP is pretty
unambiguous:

> [...] actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
> wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness [...]

------
colordrops
This is spot on. Most people who are calling for censorship don't have an
ideological backing behind their stance and just want to violently shut their
opponents up, while somehow believing they are righteous.

~~~
s73ver_
I really don't think so. I don't think persons of color not want to be
constantly assailed with racism online fall into that category. Women not
wanting to be assailed with death and rape threats on line don't fall into
that category.

~~~
gozur88
It's fine for people to not want to read things online. What's not fine is
giving them the power to prevent those things from being written.

~~~
s73ver_
In the cases I listed above, I cannot agree. I think it is perfectly fine to
prevent rape threats from being written. I don't believe things like that fall
under free speech.

And while we're on the subject of preventing speech, realize that, if you're
of the mind that we should allow those things, you're not preventing speech
from being silenced. You're just changing the speech that is silenced. Someone
who is constantly bombarded with racism or violent threats online is less
likely to contribute their voice to conversation.

~~~
gozur88
There's a big difference between "I stopped contributing because people said
things that upset me" and "I got arrested for saying something." I don't
accept the premise that people who are upset by what they read are somehow
shut out of the conversation.

~~~
s73ver_
Yet, they are. And as for the "I was arrested for saying something," I think
that can be pretty disingenuous, given that "something" can range from "All
(ethnic group) are a bunch of (ethnic slur)" to violent threats. I don't
believe the first one should be an arrestable offense, but I don't believe
that either of them have a place in polite society.

------
eesmith
"It’s commonly assumed that freedom of speech is about the right of the
speaker to express their ideas"

... without government interference. However, it is fully within the rights of
the audience to condone, chastise, avoid, and laugh at the speaker.

To prohibit the audience from that reaction would be to suppress their free
speech.

Freedom of association also requires that a group be able to prevent speech in
the context of a group assembly.

"Who decides what to censor?"

Who is calling for government censorship of which expression? This essay
sounds like a completely different discussion on free speech than what I am
used to hearing, and I don't understand the context.

"If you ask, “Who should decide which ideas you may hear or read?”, people
boggle."

Most people don't seem to boggle about porn filters or automatic spam
rejection. The books "Ulysses", "Lady Chatterley's Lover", and "Memoirs of
Hecate County" were once banned in the US.

While I don't agree with those bans, I bring it up to point out that people
_don 't_ always boggle.

"So we ban Mein Kampf."

Who is proposing that we ban it? I understand that it's rhetorical, but it
doesn't sound like a serious example of anything in the current discourse.

As I understand it, the question is, should organizations like a public
university have some ability to override a student group which has selected a
contentious external speaker to speak, given that the event uses university
subsidized facilities and security staff.

That's hardly calling for a ban on Mein Kampf.

~~~
eradicatethots
The point they made doesn’t just apply to government

~~~
eesmith
I know that's the argument, but it's not true.

The US First Amendment isn't just the right to free speech. It also includes
the freedom of assembly. There is a necessary balance between these two. Or,
to go back to John Stuart Mill:

> This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first,
> the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the
> most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom
> of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative,
> scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing
> opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to
> that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but,
> being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and
> resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from
> it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of
> framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like,
> subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our
> fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they
> should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this
> liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of
> combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not
> involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full
> age, and not forced or deceived.

That "liberty of expressing and publishing opinions" is the the freedom of
speech. The "freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others"
is the freedom of assembly.

The freedom of assembly - often seen as synonymous with the freedom of
association - means that a group must be allowed to expel people from the
group or prevent people from joining the group. A group must be allowed to
control who speaks at a group's meeting or uses a group's resources. (This is
not absolute, as you can see in civil rights laws prevent businesses from
certain behaviors.)

Without this freedom, a minority group can easily be overwhelmed by a majority
who decides to use the heckler's veto.

For all of the people who say that "free speech" is not restricted to
government restrictions on speech, why do you want to weaken the right to
assembly?

~~~
shkkmo
"Free Speech" is a valuable trait of a society. Government restrictions on
that speech were (and still are) the largest threat to that freedom when the
bill of rights was written.

We have reached a point where government is not the only entity with the power
to severely restrict the freedom of speech in our society.

Is the solution to this to pass a new law or make a new amendment curtailing
freedom of associated? I personally don't think we have the political
capability to write that law well, (even if it wasn't a horrible idea.)

But that doesn't mean we should should pushing, encouraging and shaming these
private entities into doing MORE censorship and doing our best as private
entities to limit the freedom of speech that exists in our society.

~~~
eesmith
Strong anti-monopoly laws which break up Google and Facebook would solve the
problem, yes?

Without touching the freedom of assembly or speech.

I'm not saying it's the best solution, but bring it up to point out that it's
important to also consider the economics which caused the problem to arise in
the first place.

Remember, unrestrained capitalism doesn't incorporate human rights - as the
slave trade shows.

~~~
shkkmo
> Strong anti-monopoly laws which break up Google and Facebook would solve the
> problem, yes?

While we do strongly need a revamp of our anti-monopoly laws, I don't think
that really solves the problem.

The core problem as I see it is that people's goto approach for combating
objectionable ideas is veering towards shaming, ostracizing, and censoring
rather than reason, discussion and facts.

~~~
eesmith
To be fair, "reason, discussion and facts" have always been malleable in the
hands of the powerful. "The Divine Right of Kings" was based on them. So was
"scientific racism".

You need to be careful because it's hard to define what shaming and ostracism
mean. I think James Watson is a both misogynist and racist and I don't want to
be part of a meeting where he is involved.

Am I shaming or ostracizing him, or am I practicing my rights of free speech
and association?

In general, by what reason and what facts do you determine that my actions are
no longer acceptable? If that happens, what can you do about it which won't,
in turn, be labeled "shaming, ostracizing, and censoring"?

~~~
shkkmo
> You need to be careful because it's hard to define what shaming and
> ostracism mean.

I don't think it is. In any case, I am not trying to write a law so a solid
definition is not necessary.

> I think James Watson is a both misogynist and racist and I don't want to be
> part of a meeting where he is involved.

James Watson was fired the way he was, not because of his words, but because
of the internet's reaction to his words and Google's desire to get ahead of
the news cycle. I suspect he will win or settle his court case against Google.

I don't know James Watson, you may be right. Do you know him? Have you talked
to him? How do you know meetings with him involved would be bad?

I definitely think we would be better served if people have focused on picking
apart his mis-used scientific terms, mistaken understanding of some
experiments and rather incoherent argument. Instead people decided to loudly
label him as sexist, push google into firing him, and push him straight into
the waiting arms of the alt-right.

> Am I shaming or ostracizing him, or am I practicing my rights of free speech
> and association?

Both.

> To be fair, "reason, discussion and facts" have always been malleable in the
> hands of the powerful. "The Divine Right of Kings" was based on them. So was
> "scientific racism".

I fail to get your point... other than you think reason is useless?

> In general, by what reason and what facts do you determine that my actions
> are no longer acceptable? If that happens, what can you do about it which
> won't, in turn, be labeled "shaming, ostracizing, and censoring"?

When you violate the law, we will prosecute you and send you to prison. If you
violate our organization's policy, we will discipline or fire you. If you say
mean things to our other guests and show no remorse, we won't invite you to
our house. If you tell me you think the holocaust didn't happen I will attempt
to use reason and facts to discuss it with you.

~~~
eesmith
"James Watson was fired the way he was"

Umm, pardon? I'm talking about the Nobel prize winner.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson)
. I think you're thinking of James Damore? What sort of meetings do you think
I would go to where Damore might speak?

"How do you know meetings with him involved would be bad?"

Watson's record is quite well documented. Some of them are:
[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119772&page=1](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119772&page=1)
, [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12835-james-watson-
re...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12835-james-watson-retires-
amidst-race-controversy/) and
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-
pione...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-
theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html)

Or for a personal report, at
[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/05/29/jim-
watso...](https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/05/29/jim-watson-needs-
to-retire-to-a-nice-remote-beach-somewhere-far-from-everyone-else/) :

> I had dinner with Watson at a small restaurant in New York several years
> ago. It was the most uncomfortable two hours of my life. All he wanted to
> talk about was race, and the conversation was all about our geneaology. He
> asked what my ancestry was, and when I told him half Scandinavian, half
> Scot/English/Irish he immediately judged me acceptable company, and started
> explaining my personality to me. Scandinavians are intelligent but cold and
> aloof, and share the same problems that the Japanese have: they are among
> the smartest people in the world, but they lack the passion and drive to
> accomplish great things. You know who may not be as intrinsically
> intelligent, but make up for it with their aggressive need to get things
> done? The Scots/Irish! Best people on the planet! The perfect combination of
> ambition and smarts! ... “So, Jim, what’s your ancestry?” “Scots/Irish!” he
> cackled.

His unfounded statements caused many others to avoid him ("ostricize" in your
terms) so he missed out on speaking fees. In order to maintain his life style
(which included buying some fancy artwork), he sold his Nobel Prize.
[http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/james-watson-
the-f...](http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/james-watson-the-father-
of-dna-is-selling-his-nobel-prize-because-everyone-thinks-hes-
racist-20141201-11y1f4.html) . Someone bought it $4.1 million and gave it back
to him.

You wrote "I fail to get your point... other than you think reason is
useless?"

I said they were malleable. I didn't say useless.

Facts are interpreted in a framework. Who gets to decide the framework? It's
usually those in power who pay for the scientists, and for "the facts", and
that influences how those facts are discussed.

Quoting
[https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/a-brief-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/a-brief-
history-of-everyone-who-ever-lived/537942/) on the controversy concerning
Kennewick Man, "We sometimes forget that though the data should be pure and
straightforward, science is done by people, who are never either."

------
artsnail
This also of course raises the question of what the rights of the audience are
in terms of their choice to listen or not. This becomes especially complicated
with situations like the internet (where the barriers to engaging in
conversation with other people are lower), or on property which isn't a
completely open public forum all the time. Ex. free speech rights might be
restricted in a library, even though it's government property, where that
interferes with the ability of other people to use it.

~~~
eesmith
"Ex. free speech rights might be restricted in a library"

These are "Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions. [http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time%2c+Place%...](http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time%2c+Place%2c+and+Manner+Restrictions) .
These are pretty well understood.

You also don't have the right to go through a neighborhood at 2am with a
bullhorn talking about your political platform in the upcoming election.

What's at issue is that most internet sites are privately held, and such
things as "free speech", which is a prohibition on government interference,
have no real meaning. Groups, including companies, also have the right of
association, and that includes the right to kick people out.

The government has some ability to restrict that right of association, as with
the various civil rights protections regarding businesses. However, none of
that analysis applies to, for example, one's ability to post videos to
YouTube. In the US, the government can't even prohibit private clubs from
discriminating on basis of race.

------
geofft
> _Imagine our society passes laws to ban the publishing of abhorrent and
> bigoted ideas. No longer are people allowed to express racism, sexism,
> homophobia, or antisemitism. So we ban_ Mein Kampf.

Is this an actual proposal?

Most things I have seen in the discourse that seem to be objected to on free
speech grounds are e.g. proposals to prevent certain speakers from speaking at
colleges, proposals to prevent certain groups from having marches, proposals
for certain discussion websites to ban particularly toxic/abusive users, etc.

This seems to me to be very different from banning _Mein Kampf_ as a book. I
think you can coherently believe in the above bans while also believing that
_Mein Kampf_ should be available on Project Gutenberg etc. for anyone to read
and evaluate, for people to understand what is this scary book that people
keep talking about, etc.

To take the example of banning speakers at colleges - I don't think any one of
the people for whom no-platforming has been proposed lacks a platform of their
own. They have websites. They have books. Their ideas are out there. If their
ideas are in fact coherent enough for "the opportunity of exchanging error for
truth," that debate can already happen.

If they aren't, the virtue-signaling approach of putting up "ideological
minorities" in college lecture halls to say the exact same thing they've said
100 times before isn't going to help anyone reach truth.

------
shkkmo
When we "suppress speech", we aren't actually suppressing the utterance but
rather limiting the audience.

This may seem like a good way to limit the spread of an idea and it will
definitely reduce the spread in the short term.

However, people will always find a way to communicate (e.g. side channels and
dog whistles develop). This means that eventually you've now only removed from
the audience those who are the least susceptible to the idea and have the best
tools for refuting it.

At this point, the idea is actually better able to spread within it's audience
because dissenting voices have been isolated.

As you broaden the criteria for what is suppressed (used to be use of the N
word, now includes mentioning any genetic component to differences in
distributions of traits between genders), you end up driving more and more
people into this isolated audience and encouraging the spread of very
objectionable ideas to people who used to just have mildly objectionable
ideas.

The more we allow private companies with monopolistic or oligopolistic
products to push these voices out of the mainstream the worse off we will be
in the long term as these ideas become more entrenched, isolated and difficult
to remove.

The more we rely on shunning, ostracizing and public shaming as tools to
battle objectionable ideas, the more we encourage the creation of communities
that are fertile ground for those ideas to grow in.

[edit: minor grammar fixes]

------
noobermin
But really, who is advocating the government do anything other than the
fringes? The discussion around "Free Speech" is the concept, not the
government's role in regulation of it or lack there of.

~~~
zeveb
> But really, who is advocating the government do anything other than the
> fringes?

Former senator Harry Reid called for the repeal of the First Amendment in
2014, in response to the Citizens United ruling which held that the First
Amendment protects the right to show a film critical of a political candidate
prior to an election. Whether or not one supports that action, I'd say that's
certainly not on the fringes.

~~~
noobermin
Googled it and the only publications who discussed this were right wing
publications. I think "repeal of the first ammendment" is hyperbole used
mostly by those sets of authors.

Politifact seems to say it was about campaign finance[0]

[0] [http://www.politifact.com/iowa/statements/2015/dec/22/ted-
cr...](http://www.politifact.com/iowa/statements/2015/dec/22/ted-cruz/ted-
cruz-overstates-effect-proposed-constitutional/)

------
sparkzilla
Free speech is part of the natural right of individuals to live and think
without being oppressed by society.

~~~
UnpossibleJim
Without being oppressed by law or legislation, not by society. It seems like a
crowbar of distinction, I know, but it's an important distinction. You can
still be ostracized for your speech and chided, as certain ideas should be
given what the society values, but you shouldn't be jailed or prevented from
speaking on public grounds, given proper permits/clearances.

~~~
rothbardrand
It's also important to recognize that government is not society. Government to
my mind is a mafia. A group of thugs that enforces its will and buys good will
with a little charity while sucking the life out of the country (eg: massive
inflation, taxation, regulation to favor their allied businesses, perpetrating
drug wars and wars in other countries despite society opposing them, etc.)

If government represented society, we would not have a drug war, we would not
be in so many wars, etc.

------
nonstop64
These arguments presuppose that people value the truth. I've found, at least
on Reddit, that most communities that have rampant censorship subscribe to
indefensible ideas. For example, none of the science subreddit would consider
banning someone who argues for Flat Earth, because scientists live for the
opportunity to debate on the side of the truth.

However, certain subs such as T_D and LSC allow no challenge of their ideas,
because they don't merit correctness and know that a debate of their
ideologies is a contest that they will lose.

To paraphrase Dawkins, you cannot reason with people who don't value reason.

------
DonbunEf7
Indeed, free society forms a fixpoint of ideas, where it protects itself from
being eaten by The State by insisting that any person can stand up and speak
about free society. It is unfortunate that it also shields so many
reprehensible opinions, but as usual, if the best thing you can say about an
idea is that it is allowed in a free society, then perhaps that idea isn't
worth much.

