
Curbs on free speech are growing tighter. It is time to speak out - paulpauper
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-speech-are-growing-tighter-it-time-speak-out-under-attack
======
Taek
It is important to define safe havens for countercultural ideas, morals, and
lifestyles, because this is how societal innovation happens. It needs to
extend beyond speech.

There is a big effort in the West to homogenize the world. Everyone should
accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is
bad. Democracy is the best form of government. We want the whole world to look
like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of
social justice movement comes from.

But this is stagnating, and not everyone wants to live under the same set of
global moral rules, especially since we seem to believe that morality is
relative.

Freedom of speech is a big indicator of this. If people don't have freedom of
speech, they likely are being restricted in other ways as well.

~~~
nostromo
> We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally
> correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from.

The irony is that in America this is considered "liberal." It is not --
liberalism is the opposite of much of what it's come to mean in America.

When I was growing up in the US it was conservatives that were trying to
control speech and expression. They wanted burning flags to be illegal. They
wanted limits on "offensive" speech, including erotic imagery on tv and in
art, violent music and video games. They wanted to control what ideas could be
expressed in school.

Now it has flipped. The "you can't say that" banner has been taken over by the
Left in the US. I don't know what we should call Democrats now, but they're
not liberal. (Maybe Democratic Socialists is a more fitting term.)

~~~
kauffj
[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-
anything...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-
except-the-outgroup/)

~~~
david-given
I can't recommend the essay the parent is linking to enough. If you possibly
can, read it; it's long, but worth your time.

------
lobotryas
Agreed with the article. I'm especially worried about the third vector of
attack on speech that they describe: individuals censoring other individuals
in the name of "not being offended". This is a big issue, so I just wanted to
share a few observations that worry me. Neither is brand new, I'm sure,
however I believe they are worth talking about.

One thing I noticed a few years ago is that if a person has any level of
social media presence and they're either outspoken or unlucky then they risk
an internet mob being turned against them. Sometimes this "only" results in
harassment and death threats. Other times this has real-world consequences
such as for Gregory Elliott[1]. We've had mobs attacking individuals since
forever, but the internet makes it __much easier __and almost consequence free
to dog-pile the "offending" view and shut the person down, or even hurt their
livelihood. Ex: it's much easier to send a threatening DM or doxx a person
than to go outside and protest. The lesson here is: either keep quiet, don't
have a social media presence, or firewall your more outspoken social activity
from your "real self".

The other case I noticed is the radicalization of thought in the "you're
either with us or against us" approach. Instead of explaining their position
or answering a person's online question (even by dismissively linking them to
Wiki or LMGTFY), people choose to attack them as a path of least resistance.
As anecdotal evidence, I've seen people belittled and harassed on facebook,
reddit and twitter for asking any of the following:

* Why should we legalize Marijuana?

* Why is BLM important?

* Why should I care about ${cause}?

Some folks try to answer and educate, but they're far in the minority from my
casual observation. Overall, I'm concerned that as the amount of distractions
in our lives increases our capacity for opposing views or meaningful
conversations decreases because there's simply way more for us to do that is
more fun or important to us.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott)
: There are many more examples of this. I'll avoid posting them because
nothing in life is clear cut and I want to avoid derailing my point.

~~~
jcadam
I certainly have begun to censor myself on social media. There's a number of
topics I simply won't touch on the off-chance I trigger a livelihood-
destroying internet rage mob.

The conspiracy theorist in me suspects some level of govt involvement in these
SJW hit squads. They have much to recommend them to a totalitarian
administration trying to work around the constraints imposed by, say, a "bill
of rights". You can neutralize and/or make examples of people who commit acts
of wrongthink without being seen getting your hands dirty.

~~~
harveywi
When I was growing up, we were told that the Internet is not a toy. You were
not supposed to engage in tomfoolery, and you were not supposed to use your
real name.

At some point (cough Facebook, Google) that changed.

Social media is not a toy. Google is not a toy. In a way we are lucky to have
been spared the worst possible scenario in which these technologies and all
their data on us is turned against us, but it could happen at any second.

People need better education about this. This is something that everyone
should learn in school.

------
waynecochran
Step on a college campus in the US. There is no free speech. No intellectual
diversity at all. Everyone just shuts up since no one dare steps out of line.

~~~
Fej
My campus leans a bit right compared to the usual, and I'm actually glad for
that. We haven't lost intellectual diversity and free speech is alive and
well. Haven't seen anyone in favor of censorship, but if there was they'd be
laughed right out of the room.

Not all colleges/universities have gone bad, and that's a good thing, because
intellectual discourse is supposed to be _the point_ of university, not (just)
vocational training.

~~~
lobotryas
>in favor of censorship

That's because it's not called "censorship" any more. Instead, people will
label a person whose speech they dislike as a racist, homophobe, Islamophobe,
anti-semite, misogynist, etc. Sure, people with such views exist and we should
debate how we, as a society, want to respond to such views.

What is the problem is the unwritten expectation that, once identified as such
by almost anyone, you are excluded, attacked, and told to "shut up". For a
regular person it's often enough to be labeled in this way once for their
social or work prospects to either be ruined or hurt. Worse, the label will
__still __stick, even if later this person is exonerated.

~~~
prutschman
What are you arguing for? Censoring the declaration of someone as a *-phobe?
Censoring the criticism of people who say certain things? Censoring the cries
of "shut up" leveled at them?

~~~
verroq
That is a strawman and you know it. He is not saying that people need to stop
labeling others as *phobe. He is merely saying the consequences shouldn't be
life ruining.

~~~
prutschman
The parent poster was explicitly drawing an equivalence between censorship in
some unspecified traditional sense and widely communicated judgements and
denouncements by a group.

It came out as more flippant than I intended, but I'm being quite serious, and
my real question is genuine: what can be done--other than suppressing
communication about the judgement--to render the consequences other than life
ruining?

------
scandox
Self-censorship is the greatest danger. The internet tends to make our
statements permanent (or capable of a permanence we cannot control). Most
intelligent people will not want to spend the remainder of their lives
defending and explaining something they said which they may or may not believe
in any longer or which is taken out of context or which may later become
actually dangerous to their livelihood, their family and so on.

Even for people that are relatively non-conformist this places a much higher
burden on controversial speech. In other words it costs more to say something
controversial. Therefore, less people say it. Therefore the pool of people
capable of hearing it and repeating it shrinks.

The internet I think, therefore, does by its nature (at present) ensure
greater homogeneity of thought, despite the fact that it has vastly increased
the overall space and speed of discourse.

I don't see any obvious solution, except more individuals accepting the burden
of saying things they know will cause them difficulty. At the same time those
individuals must also lend an ear to the ideas they least like to hear.

Which, let's face it, sounds like a dreary pain in the ass.

------
Xcelerate
When looked at over a timespan of centuries and across a wide variety of
cultures, most of society's morals seem rather arbitrary to me. Many
westerners fail to consider exactly how much culture and environment influence
the "morality du jour". We (as voters) act as though we want moral absolutism,
but we can't even consistently decide what is or isn't moral over a few
decades. And while most people feel as though we keep moving toward "better"
morals, I'm not so sure; I imagine this kind of sentiment has always been
present.

Until everyone in the world agrees on one brand of morality, we must preserve
the ability to discuss and debate it. No group can place themselves into the
"we're clearly right" box, because historically, that hasn't turned out well,
despite the best of intentions. Losing friends over a difference of political
opinion is less of a concern than ending up in a society that got morality
"wrong" because of an anomalous groupthink feedback loop.

~~~
HillaryBriss
> We (as voters) act as though we want moral absolutism, but we can't even
> consistently decide what is or isn't moral over a few decades.

Maybe this is debatable or plain wrong, but, to me, it looks like traditional
sources of ethical/moral authority (mostly religious) in America have lost
most of their power, their influence, their credibility.

But, as you say, we still want a powerful moral authority or ethical guidance
system. And it appears that we have increasingly turned to the US Supreme
Court for answers and validation.

Unless it disagrees with us, in which case we write about how corrupt and
stupid it is.

------
xufi
Didnt Britain try to pass a law recently trying to curb it more. I'm worried
that them and the rest of the EU (Especially what's going on in Poland &
Hungary with supression laws tighting the noose)

~~~
dominotw
You mean this ? [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-1937_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-1937_en.htm)

~~~
xufi
Yep thats what I was looking for but couldnt remember. I remember Cameron was
trying to pass it through Parliament

------
AdeptusAquinas
Seems to have missed the fourth way free speech is being curtailed: By 'free
speech advocates' who respond with harassment and threats to anyone who has
the temerity to suggest their views are bad.

~~~
jolux
And it always is missed. Because that's what you're _really_ not allowed to
point out. Or that all these articles are written by white men of relative
wealth, etc.

~~~
thescribe
Perhaps race is irrelevant when discussing human rights?

~~~
jolux
If it wasn't relevant then they wouldn't all be white men. That's sort of the
point, because you don't often see people of color defending the rights of
white people to call them slurs.

~~~
thescribe
The other option is that the majority is wrong, human rights aren't up for a
vote.

~~~
jolux
Well you're sort of missing the forest for the trees but by all means keep
doing so.

------
ZeroGravitas
I was interested to find out why Condaleeza Rice's Free Speech was being
restricted. Apparently the students didn't want to be associated with someone
they consider an unconvicted war criminal:

[http://m.startribune.com/don-t-give-condoleezza-rice-a-
platf...](http://m.startribune.com/don-t-give-condoleezza-rice-a-
platform/253284501/)

Which is a stance you can agree or disagree with, but seems irrelevant to
whether they would be offended by what she said, or whether they needed
further exposure to her ideas, and so including it in this article seems a bit
of a stretch.

edited to add:

Thinking on this further it undermines the whole thesis, which appears to be
"students shouldn't try to censor, as it gives aid to authoritarian regimes
who want to censor".

Yet the example they give is students protesting a powerful, high-level member
of government for involvement in what they believe to be illegal activities
that resulted in millions of deaths. So surely by attacking that, they give
aid to authoritarian regimes by their own argument?

------
jchrisa
"when progressive thinkers agree that offensive words should be censored, it
helps authoritarian regimes to justify their own much harsher restrictions and
intolerant religious groups their violence"

~~~
HillaryBriss
A Poli Sci professor once told our class that the First Amendment is effective
_because_ it allows wrong/hateful/contemptible ideas to have a free airing.

The rest of us can really take a look at such ideas and the people voicing
them and see just how bad they are. Once we see them, we'll reject them.

OTOH, if government or other actors suppress such speech, fewer people get a
chance to see it, evaluate and reject it.

Of course, that whole theory presupposes that the vast majority of people in
society will evaluate such speech well. It places a lot of trust in the people
and in the conversation and in the process.

~~~
CM30
The first admendment also stops people pushing wrong/hateful/contemptible
ideas from using the 'martyr' defence to get people on their side. By allowing
them, you avoid the situation where people promoting said views say 'see, they
must have some level of truth otherwise the government wouldn't be trying to
censor me'.

Stops people with these types of views being seen as the underdog that's being
oppressed for going against authority.

------
reso
Trying to draw a line between student protests in western campuses and
Vladimir Putin and Erdogan is a stretch.

~~~
partiallypro
Both are forms of censorship. If we were to encourage the groping of a woman,
it could eventually lead to rape. One is much worse than the other, but that
doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye or not see their inherent connection.
The same applies here.

If we allow our intellectual leaders to censor, what's to stop our political
leaders to not follow suit?

~~~
veridies
Student protests are absolutely not censorship. They're a "more speech" answer
to statements that the protesters find offensive. If you disagree, fine, but
trying to shut up protesters because you think their actions amount to
censorship is utterly hypocritical.

~~~
partiallypro
No one is trying to shut down people who are speaking out that something
offends them; people are speaking out against those claiming offense because
those people want to change the rules to where they are the only ones who can
speak out.

That's the inherent irony, which is actually the opposite case of what you are
saying. People are offended and are using their free speech in an attempt to
end free speech. Those opposing are arguing back (like you're supposed to),
not advocating for censorship. Totally different approaches.

------
open-source-ux
Something topical on this very subject: the deputy editor of Vox’s first
person section, Emmett Rensin, has been suspended by Vox after a series of
tweets in which Rensin urged people to riot if Donald Trump comes to their
town.

Emmett hasn't been censored (his original tweets remain), but his tweets have
clearly had consequences

[http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-
ren...](http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-rensin)

------
chrischen
Btw, this post seems to getting punished by the HN algorithm. 163 points in 2
hours and it's already dropping out of front page. I feel like I should speak
out about this.

~~~
clevernickname
I wouldn't be so sure it's just an algorithm.

------
guelo
Yea, murdering journalists and not wanting to associate with trolls is the
same thing.

------
jolux
I can't possibly be the only person reading this who finds it laughable to
compare people being killed for their speech to people not being allowed to
speak on college campuses.

~~~
kelukelugames
You are not and you are being censored for stating that opinion.

We live in a country where the third form is the only one we experience.

------
elcapitan
At least there are still a couple of people speaking out on this and showing
opposition against these attacks on free speech, that gives a little hope,
although just a little.

------
lamontcg
Someone arguing that men shouldn't talk about feminism or whites talk about
slavery is also protected speech. If lots of people shout about that really
loudly and make you feel bad about your own views, that isn't the result of
censorship, that's the result of free speech.

If the _government_ actually _bans_ men from talking about feminism, that
would be censorship.

~~~
thescribe
Government censorship is what the constitution protects us from, but certainly
we should resist the advocates of censorship government backed or not?

~~~
lamontcg
Until they cross the line of advocating for laws banning males from speaking
about feminism, they are fundamentally not advocating censorship.

An individual yelling at you to shut up because they think you are an idiot is
not censoring you. They're exercising their own right to free speech. You have
the freedom to react however you want in response to them -- yell louder
yourself if you want to.

Yelling at them that they're censoring you, however, is factually incorrect.

And if you equate their actions to censorship and the assassination of
journalists, then be prepared to have other people point out that you don't
know what you're talking about.

And feel free to downvote me as much as you like...

~~~
matthewmacleod
So the thing is - I'm uncomfortable with that definition, because it glosses
over the issue that seems to be happening. Modern censorship isn't just legal
- it's cultural. There seems to be this idea that the correct response to
something you find offensive is to shout at the person you disagree with,
attacking their character or dismissing their views because of who they are.
That doesn't sit well with me, because it creates what is essentially
censorship - instead of views being aired and rejected (which is fine), the
person espousing them is attacked personally, and publicly. It creates a
climate of fear, to the extent that speech is suppressed, and I've definitely
seen it first hand.

~~~
jolux
Okay, but what exactly is the problem here, in practice? That the market of
ideas is less free because it's no longer clogged with racist and otherwise
offensive ones? Because I see that as a good thing, and while I sympathize
with your advocacy of freedom of speech, the situation is a bit more complex
than this. White supremacy is simply not something you can have an
intellectual disagreement about, just like holocaust denial. It's just not as
valid. And unfortunately this is not expressed in the marketplace of ideas,
because we're supposed to treat every idea as equally valid even if there is
immense factual evidence against it.

Take climate change for example: that it exists is not a subject of debate. It
does, and we've caused it. There is absolute scientific consensus on this
fact, just as there is on the equality of people.

Are we still supposed to argue with people who ignore objective truths as if
we're just having a simple disagreement?

~~~
matthewmacleod
I appreciate what you're saying, but I think there's a word of difference
between saying "I disagree with you and will not provide a platform for your
views" and "I disagree with you, and will personally attack you and ensure
that you are not able to speak about your views."

It's not that discourse is worse because offensive ideas are unacceptable –
I'm sincerely glad that homophobia, racism and other ideas like that are
considered improper. But I do worry that the nuance is drowned out by the
prevalence of personal attacks, such that it becomes difficult to have any
constructive discussion. Terms like 'racist' or 'homophobe' become thought-
ending clichés, and the core of that problem is that it's really difficult to
settle on a universal definition of what those things are.

~~~
jolux
Yeah, and I for one think that most of what happens on college campuses is the
former ("I disagree with you and will not provide a platform for your views").

~~~
matthewmacleod
The university/college campus thing is interesting, because it's kind of like
a state in microcosm. It feels to me that one of the goals of an academic
institution is allowing the free exchange of ideas; it's fine to not invite
speakers, but maybe it becomes a problem when the institution itself (or
student government) intervenes to disallow students from hosting them. The
difference I suppose between "I don't want to hear your views" and "I don't
want to allow your views to be heard."

I'm probably worrying about nothing and it's not that big a deal in practice.
It still makes me uneasy that the concept of banning speech is so readily
accepted by so many people, when I'm convinced that the best way to tackle
extreme or prejudiced views is to allow them to be openly aired, and openly
challenged so they can be exposed as wrong.

------
eksemplar
I think there is a forth enemy, at least in Europe. Pro-refugee politicians
receive daily death threats and a German politician has actually been stabbed
over her views on immigration.

I think it goes even further than politicians though. I only have my personal
experiences, but to me it seems like regular European liberals have started
self-censoring and to keep some opinions behind closed doors. I've always been
fairly vocal about my opinions online, and about two years ago I wrote an
innocent but critical comment on the rising nationalism in Europe which ended
up in a non-liberal news paper. This resulted in Death threats and an order of
Pizzas to my home.

Pizzas are nice, but it's also a strong message if you want to tell someone
you know where they live. The newspaper was kind enough to remove any
references to me, but I've certainly been sure to value anonymity in the
political realm since.

------
HillaryBriss
> a worrying number of non-state actors are enforcing censorship by
> assassination

assassination is one approach, but there are others

