The poll found that 84 percent of adults said it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.
Criticism is not a problem with free speech -- criticism is free speech. In most situations, retaliation isn't, either. You may not like it, but nothing about free speech guarantees you the freedom from consequences, except from the government itself.
There is a very serious problem, that we've grown very hostile with each other, and would rather fight than work together. That's not a problem with the speech, but with our attitudes to our national life. You will not fix them by any tinkering with rules about what is and isn't allowed when somebody talks.
Classic case of using a negative liberty- freedom from hearing complaints- to try to deny a positive liberty- freedom to speak one's mind.
There are legit uses here. Margeret Hamilton being unable to use the computer[1] after the Midnight Computer Wiring Society came in & took the right to rewire the mainframe themselves, denying her her own positive right to compute/freedom from unexpectedly changing systems (itcs kind of both? im undecided!) is an example I think of a lot, an important respin on a classic bit of positive-liberties denying others, an important omitted crucial conflict in a bit of cyberlore immortalized by Steven Levy's book Hackers.
Rights do conflict. Whether we head towards a society where things are permitting or denied is a balance I prefer being able to see open, but often this ends up depending on civil cooperation to function, rather than rights proportioned perfectly so.
Everything in society is about resolving those conflicts of freedom peaceably. Democracy is intended to ensure that in the worst case you've got at least 51% of people willing to sign on to the compromise, but if you wield that as a cudgel you'll just make everybody angry all the time. It cannot substitute for sincere discussion.
I've got my own fingers to point at who I believe is most responsible, and I don't believe that we'll make much progress until certain people choose to discuss things rather than treating their compatriots as enemies. But it's clear that doing so is an effective tactic for winning elections, especially if you can use the rules to your advantage.
So I'm afraid I don't know how to fix that. No system will be effective among people who consider themselves enemies.
I only read about a 1/3 of it, but I appreciated that the part I did read was not overly political.
I will note that the author like many making "freedom of speech" arguments fundamentally mistakes what that means, at least in the context of US law.
American "freedom of speech" is specifically not the right to say whatever you please with absolutely no ramification, that people (not the government) listening to your speech have no right to react to it and thus ironically depriving the audience of their freedom of speech.
This is of course the "free speech" some want. The ability to voice their views/truths/lies and silence countering views/truths/lies as some sort of censorship of their original speech.
To be clear, this is not what "freedom of speech" in the US is or has ever been. I feel like the anonymity of internet speech has confused some into believing that all speech is fair game and that no speech should have a negative consequence.
"Left Wing Cancel Culture" is at it's core is a free speech reaction to someone else's free speech. This is fundamentally no different than "Right Wing Dog Piling" or voting in elections for that matter.
People can (within some generous limits) say what they want to say without fear that the government is going to arrest them. This is a great American Freedom as many living under totalitarian systems will tell you. People who do say what they want must accept that speech is fundamentally persuasive and that people will react to it. In fact, that was likely the entire motivation for the speech in the first place.
No place and certainly not the US has ever held that all speech is good speech and must be embraced without any negative reaction.
Tempted to downvote? You will only prove me right.
Criticism is not a problem with free speech -- criticism is free speech. In most situations, retaliation isn't, either. You may not like it, but nothing about free speech guarantees you the freedom from consequences, except from the government itself.
There is a very serious problem, that we've grown very hostile with each other, and would rather fight than work together. That's not a problem with the speech, but with our attitudes to our national life. You will not fix them by any tinkering with rules about what is and isn't allowed when somebody talks.