You are not a proponent of free speech. You're a proponent of speech that you don't find offensive. It is, in my opinion, okay to hold those views.
You're absolutely entitled to have those views. However, you're not a proponent of free speech. Free speech allows people to say all lawful things.
Threats and slander are unlawful and aren't protected speech. Child pornography is illegal. There are many things freedom of speech doesn't protect.
I have no major complaints about the legislation aspect as it currently is.
I did not assert that rape threats were civil rights. No, those are illegal. Well, they are actually only illegal of they are credible threats.
Slander is illegal. Credible threats of violence are illegal. Disclosure of classified data is illegal. Certain kinds of pornography are illegal. Inciting a riot is illegal. Credibly suggesting someone harm another is illegal.
There are more but that's the gist. Those acts are illegal.
What is not illegal is when some jerk comes and says, "I think all women should be raped." I think we can all agree that it is deplorable, but it is not illegal.
'It would be great if all those n&ggers were strung up.' is not illegal. But, "I'm going to get a truckload of us, come back, and string up them n&ggers!' is illegal.
That last one is illegal because it has become a credible threat.
When the neo-Nazi marches go on, complete with their fancy clothes, and shouting how they hate K&kes, N&ggers, Sp&cks, etc... and throwing up their Nazi solute - that's legal.
It's deplorable, but legal. And I support free speech. That means I support their right to express themselves within the legal framework.
The right to express yourself as you see fit is very much a basic human right. There are already limits.
So, I support all lawful speech. That is what it means when you defend the freedom of speech. Anything else is not defending it. Anything else doesn't need to be defended.
It is okay, really. At least it is okay by me. You don't have to support free speech. There are probably a list of other rights you don't support. The rights I support are in the US Constitution. I'd like to keep them there, but I accept that it is a living document.
Wow, that's a reasonable description and stance. What do you think of "free speech" advocates like Milo and Jack Posobiec? And the people marching at the freedom of speech rallies?
Milo, for example, will go somewhere and they will drown him out, protest, and interrupt his speech. Sometimes, they even manage to get the invite rescinded.
Slowly but surely, more and more people are seeing that people are trying to limit free speech. They are noticing that the universities are favoring certain types of speech.
What they are doing is bringing attention to the attempts to silence people. Slowly but surely, we are winning this fight. More people notice, more people speak out, more people exchange their ideas.
Their horrible speech (and Milo isn't that bad, I've listened to him) is enough to make people try to silence him. Before, it was quiet and nobody really noticed. Now, it has started to go mainstream.
Now, those who weren't paying attention are seeing the changes that have been underway since the 80s. And they are starting to speak up. They are starting to say, 'No, let them speak.'
It means more people are starting to speak out about our right to freely express and that many of those people aren't, you know, Nazis. Nazis make terrible frontmen for political movements. Really, they are just horrible people.
We are getting more socially acceptable people speaking out, instead of the outlandish.
It is a bit like how you can't mention State's Rights without being assumed to be a racist. That has been changing recently, as the subject matter is now weed and immigration. Those are easier causes for people to get behind than the racism usually associated with it.
So, it's changing. I see speech values changing rapidly. I've been at this since the 80s. I'm not dead yet, so I might just as well keep fighting the good fight. On my side are people like EFF and the ACLU, so I am in good company.
Of course you can. However, if your protest is done in such a manner that it negates their ability to speak, you've taken away their rights.
Oh, Milo is just a trolling attention whore. He's harmless. You should go spend a day on voat.co. If you want to, let me know. I'll go guide you around. You will see horrible people. There are some good people but they are the minority.
Again, no. I reject your absolutism. To say that someone is not a proponent of free speech because they don't believe those things are part of it is completely inane.
We will never agree on this topic. In the example you give, I do not see why either is acceptable, and I don't see why both are not a threat of violence. Someone being bombarded with messages like that is not going to see much of a difference.
You're also ignoring the silencing effect the speech you're defending has on other groups. Few people are going to stick around somewhere that those things are commonplace. Thus, that community is censoring and silencing other groups.
You can reject it all you want. You're still wrong. Free speech isn't speech you like. That's limited speech.
This isn't complicated. You wish to limit speech. That means you don't support free speech. It's okay to hold that opinion, even though I don't agree with you. You'd probably be better served if you were honest with yourself and others.
Twitter is not obligated to provide a platform of free speech. Which is good, because they don't. They are the exact opposite of free speech. Somewhere like voat.co is actually interested in free speech and, truth be told, they are as terrible as you might imagine.
But, coming in and saying that you want to limit speech and be called a free speech advocate? Save that for someone else. It borders on insulting that you think I'm that naive.
> you want to limit speech and be called a free speech advocate
Everyone wants to limit some speech. Do you support limits on fraudulent speech? Defamatory speech? Incitement to imminent lawless action? Speech that violates confidentiality obligations? Perjury?
Everyone agrees that some speech is so harmful it needs to be prohibited. The dispute is whether we should allow or prohibit speech that causes harms of a lesser degree; it is a dispute about what is the right balance between the freedom to speak and the freedom not to be harmed by speech.
Everyone is a free speech advocate (in that everyone supports people having some freedom to speak), and everyone wants to limit speech (nobody wants that freedom to be unlimited.)
If you will do me a favor, you can read all the comments that I've made in this thread. I have already explained that and answered those questions.
I support all legal speech. That's the line. If it is illegal, don't do it. If it is legal, you can do it. Just because it is legal doesn't make the speaker a good person.
I do not want to limit speech more than it already is. I'd like to expand it in a few areas. Specifically, they have been making use of free speech zones since the 1980s. This was done by the DNC. Yup. The DNC were the first to use free speech zones. Outside those zones, speech wasn't free.
Now, the front steps at the SCOTUS building are no longer a free speech zone. They moved the zone away from the public entrance. I want that fixed. I want all of them eliminated on property owned or paid for by the government. I want all public areas to be free speech zones.
I love me some speech. I really do.
I feel the same way about the government forcing me to house troops. I feel the same way about firearms. I can go on...
All lawful speech should be permitted. Nobody is obligated to provide a platform and nobody is objigated to listen.
Really, take five minutes and read my other comments. It will probably help. If you still have questions, I'll try to help.
I don't expect to change your mind, by the way. I just give you a point where you can pick a direction. These same rights I mention, they are also your rights. I am positive you say things that people think are offensive and hurtful. Well, you have that right. I aim to make sure you can keep that right.
> I support all legal speech. That's the line. If it is illegal, don't do it. If it is legal, you can do it.
Legal where? Speech that is legal in one jurisdiction is illegal in another. I live in Australia and you sound like you live in the US, and every country (and even states/provinces/etc within the same country) has different laws about what speech is allowed and what isn't.
The law is not fixed, it changes over time. (Even constitutionally entrenched laws, such as the US First Amendment, change, albeit more often by evolving interpretation than by textual amendment–however it is interpreted now, a future Supreme Court majority could always broaden or narrow that interpretation–and I'm certain that to some degree it will change.)
Part of the debate is not just what the law is (in whatever jurisdiction), but also what the law should be. Saying "I support all legal speech" doesn't do anything to answer the question of what the law should be.
In host country. Outside that, the user must follow their laws. The States don't have different speech laws. Not different enough to matter. Those get tossed when they get too SCOTUS.
If you read my posts, you'd see I already commented on what I felt about the current laws. They are right here in this big thread.
You just listed off a whole bunch of restrictions on speech that you support, so I'm not sure where you're standing here.
Is it your contention that the current collective US jurisprudence on free speech restrictions represents the platonic ideal of Free Speech, such that by defending it you are a "free speech absolutist"?
Some speech is considered unlawful and that I don't support. That is a longer subject, however.
I don't think we need 'free speech zones' at political rallies. The DNC started that. I don't like how SCOTUS moved the free speech zone away from the building. Things like that.
Lawful speech should be the default. Unlawful speech is afforded no such protections. I'm happy with those limits. Some speech is legitimately harmful.
Read the whoe thread. Even read the people I replied to.
I'm pointing out that your support of only speech that is currently considered lawful (and by implication, your support of restrictions on free speech that are currently codified into US law) means you are no more a free speech absolutist than the person you are arguing with.
It invalidates your entire argumentative posture throughout this thread IMO.
I don't think it's fair to claim KGIII's entire argument has been invalidated anymore than it's fair to characterize it as absolutist (b/c illegal speech was not supported in any of this thread by KGIII).
In the US, maximizing liberty is a priority, but minimizing violence is also a priority; so, these things both have to be considered. If Australia (or any other country) does not share this prioritization for liberty, that is up to their citizens. But, the US Constitution is still the law of the land here in the US, and no matter what those with authoritarian tendencies want for their countries, we will continue to prioritize liberty.
By the same token, your insistence on lumping threats of violence in with racial slurs is similarly inane. I don't hear anyone defending rape threats here.
I do. The person I was responding to is saying that you have to defend those if you wish to be a proponent of free speech. I reject that absolutism in it's entirety.
Nobody said you have to defend rape threats. Credible threats of violence are illegal. I believe you are ignoring or misunderstanding the argument (and the detailed reply was posted an hour ago). It seems you’re conflating racial slurs (and other deplorable speech) with threats of rape (or other horrific actions) as being equal. They are not.
There is a huge difference between these two:
> Get fucked, bitch.
> I have your address. I’m going to find you and rape you till you’re dead, bitch.
The second statement is absolutely illegal, as it is a credible threat. The first is a disgusting statement from an asshole that shouldn’t have ever been said.
Since 1998, I’ve been aware of a group of so-called christians who like to go to funerals and public events holding signs that say “god hates fags”. No doubt these people might be inclined to tweet, “We should round up all the fags and kill them.” Absolutely, without a doubt, deplorable as fuck. Still protected speech, as uncomfortable and disgusting as it is. These people nauseate me. They make me want to punch their teeth in. If I then reply to one of these assholes with, “Found your address. Coming for you. Better call your dentist.” I’ve wandered into credible threat territory, and illegal speech. I’m wholly unprotected by the First Amendment now.
Defending free speech means defending the constitutional right to say deplorable, yet wholly legal things. And it’s exceedingly difficult. Intellectually, I know it’s protected speech. I can type these words and say it’s legal and protected. I don’t dispute it at all. Emotionally, and as a human who believes in trying to do no harm because the world is chaos and it’s better to be kind, I can’t stand it. I don’t want to see it. I don’t want to hear it. I don’t want to read it. I want it gone. I want it to never have been said. I want people to have ways to escape being the targets of such speech. People shouldn’t feel unsafe. They shouldn’t feel attacked for who they are. And yet, we shouldn’t take away anyone’s right to speak their mind, no matter how disgusting.
In all these cases, the principles remain the same:
- there is no end to the vile things humans think and say, yet saying them is a right we’ve granted is, in sum, a net good
- anyone who veers outside mere speech and begins to incite, threaten, or engage in illegal action should be swiftly punished
- where lines get crossed or blurred and clarity is needed, we establish laws to do so (and they should pass constitutional muster)
What I find most difficult is having to defend from the assumption that my defense of speech means that I agree with the speech.
This is untrue and a non sequitur.
I can't stand Nazis. I'm not white and they'd harm me, if given opportunity to do so. They are truly horrible people.
As horrible as they are, they still deserve basic human rights up until they violate the law. We don't preemptively punish people. We don't take rights away without due process. We operate with the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Well, we used to...
So, when I stand up for the rights of the deplorable, I'm assumed to be a deplorable. Never mind that I'm standing up for the rights of all, I'm now counted as one of the deplorable.
And defending against that takes some time. To be fair, I didn't have anything better to do, most of the time. Still, I've had this conversation so many times that I could probably script it and automate it.
Seriously, a sibling post noticed that I have this verbiage figured out. They aren't the first to notice. I've been having this same conversation since before the Internet was world wide. Someone has to stand up for free speech while not actually being deplorable. It's more tasteful to hear it from me than to hear it from a KKK Grand Wizard. The reception is much better, put it that way. ;-)
Of course I'm willing to allow it. That's what defending free speech means. Free speech means allowing the deplorable, the horrible, the hateful, and the hurtful.
It does have limits, and those limits are already encoded in the laws. I've already been over those.
I like all of my rights, even if I'm not using them. I not only want them for myself, I want them for you.
I'm sorry, but we will never agree on this topic. Rape threats are not free speech, and saying I don't defend them does NOT mean that I am against free speech.
Just as you are allowed to say things considered insulting, oppressive, and intimidating by other (unfortunately large and growing) groups of people. Nobody complains about being marginalized more loudly than the nativists and white supremacists, and they use the exact same arguments as you do to demand that their critics be silenced.
And for you to equate civil rights struggles with sending women rape threats is quite mind boggling.