
Is America having second thoughts about free speech? - eplanit
http://theweek.com/articles/753274/america-having-second-thoughts-about-free-speech
======
CM30
Possibly, though part of me suspects (somewhat worryingly), this is becoming a
trend worldwide. That pro free speech parties and politicians seem to
increasingly be a minority in many places, and that restrictions on freedom of
speech that would have been seem as unthinkable years ago are now being
offered as serious suggestions.

As for why this is happening... well I think the media attention on extremists
and online trolling seem to have led a lot of people to think 'free speech' is
somehow a bad thing that helps their opponents, in the same way the war on
terror caused privacy and encryption to come under fire because of 'national
security concerns'. I worry that freedom of speech has become villified as
something 'the bad guys' use.

But that's just my take on it.

------
jbarciauskas
The author here seems to be a bit naive about how free speech really is in the
"free market of ideas" model and how much better it is than the
"communitarian" approach. His vision where everyone's opinion and speech has
equal weight doesn't come close to the reality of the situation in America
today, where those with financial wealth can effectively pay to amplify
viewpoints they favor. No one really cares what I think, but lots of people
know what Tom Steyer and the Koch brothers' opinions are.

~~~
KingMob
Good point.

Also, consider it not just in terms of the amplification effect of wealth, but
the suppression effect of threats of violence.

The "free marketplace of ideas" assumes the participants act in good faith to
offer their ideas to the public, and respect what they decide. But if you wish
to call for systemic violence against groups, it has the effect of silencing
them out of fear (E.g., Yiannopoulos calling for Leslie Jones to be doxxed, or
the KKK marching through my old hometown to let blacks know they should be
afraid).

In this case, the norm of debate is an illusion. And if you're not concerned
with debating in good faith, there are no obstacles to using deceit and lies.
Speech just becomes a tactic of oppression.

In this light, rather than treat individual speech as absolute, _overall_ free
speech can be maximized by not tolerating those whose speech silences others.
Fundamentally, I think it's heterological. Quoting from Karl Popper's "The
Open Society and Its Enemies":

> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we
> extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not
> prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the
> intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

~~~
leereeves
Your examples are rather one sided. Don't forget the organized groups planning
violence against Trump supporters during the election, or Hollywood's calls
for violence after the election, or the numerous attacks on politicians and
police officers.

> In this light, rather than treat individual speech as absolute, overall free
> speech can be maximized by not tolerating those whose speech silences
> others.

Taken to the extreme that allows the powerful to silence anyone they choose.
You can always argue "I'm offended" by your remarks, therefore you must be
silent. But as we've seen (for example, claims that "it's impossible to be
racist against white people" and simultaneously defining every conservative
position as racist or otherwise prejudiced) the left defines this so that they
can do and say anything they like, while the right is always silenced.

> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we
> extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not
> prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the
> intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Are you prepared to defend a tolerant society against leftists whose
intolerance for disagreement extends even unto violence?

~~~
KingMob
Ahh yes, the "minorities-are-the-real-racists/sexists" argument. I guess for
those who have always been on top, attempts to curb their abuses could look
like free speech violations.

And don't talk to me about violence like it's equivalent on both sides. I had
the KKK try to march through my town after Trump was elected. I went to UVA
and probably walked past where Heather Heyer was murdered a hundred times in
school. The only killings from the left are from isolated nuts. The killings
from fascists/supremacists are organized.

> Are you prepared to defend a tolerant society against leftists whose
> intolerance for disagreement extends even unto violence?

I'm not worried, because the left is punching Nazis and white supremacists.
Ask your grandfather if you need to understand why punching Nazis rather than
giving them platforms is important.

------
jakelazaroff
This article, as a lot of recent conversation about this, (deliberately?)
conflates free speech as social and legislative ideals.

When it comes to the government telling you what you can and cannot say, we
need to be extremely protective of free speech.

But when it comes to what speech we allow in our _social_ fabric, is "free
speech" even a desirable ideal? Should we be able to e.g. continually insult
our coworkers without expecting to be fired? Should we be able to lie about
our friends and expect them to still hang out with us? No one is actually
advocating we have no standard for appropriate speech; rather, they just don't
like what falls outside it.

~~~
bkohlmann
Free speech absolutists like the author (and myself) don't believe that speech
should be without consequence in the marketplace...only without consequence
from the government. We will always make value judgments about what people
say. And that's great.

What I'm particularly concerned about in the social arena is speech being
_disproportionately_ punished. If I say something that is against the
consensus, by all means push back. You can even choose to not associate with
me - or attend an event I'm speaking at on campus. But to prevent that speech
from occurring at all via punishments like banishment or expulsion goes too
far.

Let us remember that in the 1960s, speech promoting civil rights was
incredibly non-consensus and "dangerous". So too was speech in favor of gay
marriage during the 1980s. "Dangerous Ideas" can sometimes lead to much needed
societal change. To discover the good outcomes you also near to hear the ones
that really are terrible.

~~~
azhu
How is an association choosing not to associate with you any different from
banishment or expulsion? Let us remember that in the 1960s, speech promoting
civil rights was incredibly non-consensus and "dangerous" and resulted in
banishment and expulsion for countless proponents. So too was speech in favor
of gay marriage during the 1980s. I am not in favor of legislation limiting
speech, I am just pointing out that the distinction you draw between what goes
too far and what does not is founded in your own opinionated perceptions and
not in reality.

------
phil248
College kids sure are taking a beating these days. I don't like the trend
ether, but let's be clear that we are talking about a small percentage of
students making a lot of noise.

And these students, right or wrong, do have a leg to stand on. They attend
these schools, the controversial speakers generally do not. They pay tuition
to be there, while these speakers do not. These students have some sense of
ownership over the institution they attend and it seems natural they would
want to defend it from what they perceive as propaganda or hate speech. Where
they go wrong, in my humble opinion, is when they seek to ban speakers
outright instead of opposing them in other ways. I can't criticize their
motivations, only their tactics.

------
MrRadar
> Isn't it far better to encourage bad ideas to come out of the shadows, where
> those who espouse them can do battle (and face defeat) in their name?

In an ideal world I would agree. However, we are in a far from ideal world and
our experiences since the Internet began show that this rarely happens in the
real world.

CGP Grey did an excellent video on how the dynamics of speech tend to play out
on the Internet:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc)
tl;dw: we self-segregate and our "tribes" rarely end up interacting in a
meaningful manner. The consequence of that is allowing hate speech to exist in
a space invites more hate speech in a self-reinforcing cycle (probably the
best example of this is 4chan).

We've also seen what happens when hateful speech is banned. When reddit banned
/r/fatepeoplehate the amount of anti-fat bullying on the site dropped
precipitously. Does this not point the way forward on how to deal with hateful
speech?

~~~
UncleEntity
> Does this not point the way forward on how to deal with hateful speech?

Yep, private entities should have every right to do (or not do) business with
whoever they choose. One could even argue this was the intended meaning of
"freedom of association" (if they wanted to get modded down in an practical
display of this theory in practice if they were so inclined I suppose).

The main argument I usually see from the "pro-free speech" folks is once you
give the government the power to ban "bad" speech then there's nothing
stopping them from using this power against your "good" speech.

------
pg_bot
As an American there are a few principles that I would be willing to die
defending, and free speech is one of them.

"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."

~~~
jimmywanger
"It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees."

~~~
EliRivers
"When you're dead, that's it. There is no more. You're dead. The game is over.
You've lost everything, completely. The only consolation is that it was going
to happen sooner or later anyway."

~~~
Turing_Machine
What's left is how others remember you.

Galileo and Stalin are famous dead people, but most of us would rather be
remembered as Galileo than Stalin.

------
jimmywanger
I think that the lack of shaming and the increase of a certain thin-
skinnedness is causing this.

I'm (or anybody else) am able to say what I want. You are also free to not
associate or listen to me. If your feelings are hurt, stop listening.

~~~
Nnuie21
Most of the thin-skinnedness I observe is from so-called free speech
absolutists, who want to say offensive things in public without fear of being
shamed. But what they call shaming is actually their opponents exercising
their own right to free speech. The freedom of speech that allows you to say
something offensive is the same freedom that lets me criticize your offensive
comments.

You say stop listening if your feelings are being hurt. That's one option. I
can also call you out for being insensitive to my feelings. If you can't
handle that criticism, then stop airing your views in a public forum, for your
own good. Freedom = responsibility. You own your words.

~~~
CM30
True, everyone should be allowed to criticise and counter each other's
comments and what not, and those who get offended by that while shouting about
freedom of speech are hypocrites.

But at the same time, it feels there's a tendency for these things to go
between criticism and into harassment, with the latter being outright
encouraged by certain groups on all sides of the political spectrum.

For instance, quite a few people have seen themselves doxxed for things said
on social media sites, with people going as far as to contact their employers
to get them fired or attempting to get their families to disown them by
tracking them down and yelling at them about their associates words. That can
be for anything from attacking others online to merely saying something
uncomfortable (like a joke someone disliked at a conference) to hobbies or
interests that simply aren't safe for work.

Is that a fair response? Should freedom of speech have 'expose someone and
attempt to destroy their career' as an allowed reaction to a comment online?

How about (in some extreme cases) trying to have them blacklisted from an
industry? I've seen that before, and it's just as chilling to see it happen
with someone for being politically incorrect as it was for someone being a
'communist sympathiser' back in the Cold War.

Criticism is fine, but there has to be some line between criticism and calling
out and basically exiling someone from society and destroying their future
chances of making a living.

------
trisimix
What are they gonna do, arrest people for voicing their opinions?

~~~
dilap
Yeah, this happens quite routinely in the UK now.

~~~
AndrewOMartin
Citation needed, or please reduce the phrase "quite routinely" to something
less hyperbolic.

People have been sent to prison for abuse on twitter, but that doesn't count
as voicing an opinion.

~~~
Yetanfou
Here you go, although you could easily have found this yourself by searching
for 'uk arrests free speech':

[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-
peo...](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-people-a-day-
in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d)

As this article lies behind a paywall I'll give you the choice of two
regurgitated versions. You might not like the sources but if you ignore that
and just look at the content you'll survive the ordeal.

RT: [https://www.rt.com/uk/406467-hate-crime-twitter-
troll/](https://www.rt.com/uk/406467-hate-crime-twitter-troll/)

Independent: [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-
offensive-f...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-
facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html)

------
exabrial
Hilariously ironic this got flagged. I thought it was a balanced, centered,
and well written article.

------
0x7f800000
First, the First Amendment protects the speaker from being punished by the
State for his speech. That's it. It does not protect the speaker from losing
their job, or social ostracism, or anything else.

Second, no one is rationally a "free speech absolutist," which is an absurd
position. For example, no one thinks their doctor has a right to lie to them,
and that deliberate lies by a doctor to a patient must not be punished by the
state.

Third, Christopher Hitchens summarized my own opinion when he gave this
speech, and he did it far more eloquently than I ever could, so I'll just link
to the speech here:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY)

