
Without Free Speech, All Speech Becomes Government Speech - buboard
https://fee.org/articles/without-free-speech-all-speech-becomes-government-speech/
======
freeflight
Yeah, but what about deplatforming speech _I_ don't like?

These last few weeks I've had some really astounding conversations on Reddit.
People are literally demanding censorship, doubling down on the "political
correctness" enforcement aka "the fight against toxicity".

Yet at the same time, there's massive outrage over companies actually
complying with that, as it happened with ActiBlizz, only then to backfire in a
shitstorm along the lines of "Not _that_ political incorrectness, that's the
good kind, you are not supposed to censor that!".

Turns out that the same speech can be very politically incorrect in one place,
while being considered the epitome of political correctness in another.

For companies that work on an international scale, this means there really is
not much wiggling room, so they will end up rather over moderating than under
moderating.

~~~
throwGuardian
What they _really_ want is for them to have the right to certify what speech
is acceptable - by "they", I refer to the cancel culture crowd. Objective
standards would work again their baises, so while they turn up the rhetoric on
"hate speech", sometimes, they'll be making arguments _for_ it, if it suits
their political narrative. It's the classic "rules for thee, not for me" case.

Blizzard/China is particularly confusing, as they hate the grassroots organic
support that Hong Kong has for capitalism, but don't particularly like China
despite it being a socialist Mecca

~~~
codyb
Wouldn’t the socialist meccas be places like the Nordic countries?

Strong social safety nets and workers rights, freedom of expression and
religion, etc?

I don’t think the people who identify as woke are in favor of top down party
rule which stamps out dissent and free speech and puts Muslims in organ
harvesting concentration camps.

I think they’re against unfettered capitalism where wealth accrues at the top
while workers rights, infrastructure, and education crumble or are taken over
by private enterprises which skyrocket costs for essentials at the expense of
the citizens.

Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a lot of black/white thinking
out there in these cloisters and communities where anything capitalist is
equivalent to bad, but people who can’t acknowledge that the world’s a
particularly messy place full of ambiguities, well, they generally don’t make
good leaders as far as I can tell.

~~~
throwGuardian
Nordic countries aren't socialist, they are regular market economies with high
taxes. Those high taxes go towards healthcare for all, and a larger safety
net.

Quoting Denmark's PM [1]: > I know that some people in the US associate the
Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one
thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a
market economy.

[1]: [https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-
is-...](https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-
socialist)

~~~
codyb
Certainly, but I think that Nordic model is sort of the aim.

It provides socialism for essentials and capitalism for the rest with a
relatively libertarian approach to personal beliefs.

I know it’s my preferred model.

------
homonculus1
A couple of weeks back we had a thread where some people were arguing that
speech can be a form of violence. That sort of lunacy is one of the
assumptions that lead to the consequences described here.

~~~
perl4ever
I am getting emails telling me I need to get a car serviced, which I no longer
own, and it's from a dealer I did not buy the car from. It is claimed they got
my information from the manufacturer. And there is no unsubscribe link,
presumably because I have a "business relationship" with someone.

So yeah, I think that is a form of violence.

------
silvester23
> Just as you can’t be half-pregnant, there is no such thing as government
> regulated free speech

How is that reconcilable with the limitations on and restrictions of free
speech that already exist in the US [0]?

I've seen this type of all-or-nothing argument quite a few times and it just
does not make sense to me -- surely you need to distinguish between different
kinds of restrictions of free speech?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Types_of_speech_restrictions)

~~~
P_I_Staker
The "restrictions" are absurdly narrow, and especially when it comes to
content. Technically, there's the "obscenity" exception, though I can't speak
for how commonly it's applied (oftentimes it doesn't seem to stick, and
doesn't appear to be heavily used). Generally, we don't have a discussion as a
society over what speech the government allows* , in terms of content;
everything goes. It's just that there are a few exceptions for inciting
illegal acts, obsenity, fighting words, ect. The proposed change would require
us to get together and decide what people are allowed to say, so nobody gets
offended. That's a big departure from tradition in the USA.

* PS I know there have been high profile challenges to offensive speech (eg. Frank Zappa, Lenny Bruce, 2LiveCrew, Video Games, ect.), but certainly appears that in the long run free speech has won out in the USA.

