Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

"It's only a joke, don't take them seriously!"
Yeah, why should I take them less seriously than you do? Why do you feel the need to affirm that telling jokes is so important that they're beyond criticism?
Frikkin' pc-haters. Philosophically undereducated, self-absorbed pricks. Why don't they understand that society doesn't revolve around them and their needs?

Yeah man, fuck free speech.

This is an excellent example of an annoying Internet habit: people not understanding what the concept of “free speech” is.

“Free speech” doesn’t mean “speech you can’t cricitize”, and it doesn’t mean “private parties can’t restrict access to private resources based on the content of speech”.

This is an excellent example of an annoying internet habit: people not understanding that "free speech" is part of a value system and not just a grudging legal obligation.

"Free speech" isn't just about the concepts enshrined or not by law, but about whether or not you as a human being affirm or deny the greater idea of it being wrong to coerce or suppress others, even if the law does not or can not address it. If, as many do, you interact with freedom of speech by awaiting the opportunity to enforce your will above others when there is no way to stop you, then you are opposed to free speech. It is not a part of your value system, because what a person expresses when not under coercion is the proof of what they value.

[Graknorke]

“Free speech” doesn’t mean “speech you can’t cricitize”

m8, when people bring up free speech it's usually because the people they're opposing want to stop people from saying certain things

I have never actually seen the strawman conversation that people like you seem to think happens that goes something like:
"A thing"
"Your thing is dumb"
"reeee muh free speech"

[Fenrir]

That’s a good point that I should have noticed. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Flying Dice]

Yeah, sorry, I should have clarified.

I'm down with criticism. I'm totally for open argumentation about whatever happens to be the issue of the moment. What I was (fittingly enough) criticizing was twofold: the notion that it's wrong to defend freedom of expression (regardless of the form it takes) and general advocacy of the suppression via social pressure of doubleplus ungood wrongthink; and the explicit advocacy of a culture devoted to censorship (and the strawmanning and derision of those opposed to it).

People can say shitty things. That's okay. Other people can criticize them for saying those things. That's also okay. What is not okay is to act as if people shouldn't be allowed to say things because of whatever arbitrary moral standard you're trying to impose on society. Just because someone says something that triggers you doesn't mean you get to metaphorically cut out their tongue and lock them in the pillory.

[Helgoland]

"Free speech" isn't just about the concepts enshrined or not by law, but about whether or not you as a human being affirm or deny the greater idea of it being wrong to coerce or suppress others, even if the law does not or can not address it. If, as many do, you interact with freedom of speech by awaiting the opportunity to enforce your will above others when there is no way to stop you, then you are opposed to free speech. It is not a part of your value system, because what a person expresses when not under coercion is the proof of what they value.

You Americans have a weird freedom-of-speech fetish. For example, any sane non-American person will go to great lengths in order to suppress the expression of National Socialist thoughts and the propagation of such ideas; only an American would consider this opposition to free speech. As far as I can tell freedom of speech is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end: A means to facilitate free political discourse within the bounds of the acceptable. Democracy and the Rechtsstaat should not give its opponents the means to destroy it; it should rather turn those very weapons against them.
[quote auhor=Karl Popper]We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.[/quote]

Wenn unsere Gegner sagen: ›Ja, wir haben Euch doch früher die [...] Freiheit der Meinung zugebilligt.‹ Ja, Ihr uns! Das ist doch kein Beweis, daß wir das Euch auch tuen sollen! [...] Daß Ihr das uns gegeben habt, das ist ja ein Beweis, wie dumm Ihr seid!

When our adversaries say: 'Yes, yesterday we granted to you too [...] freedom of speech." Yes, you us! But this is hardly proof that we should do the same for you too! [...] That you granted us as much, that is just proof how stupid you are!

TL;DR: The American concept of 'freedom of speech' is very much culture-specific and hardly universal.

[Flying Dice]

See, I've always had a reversed impression of a lot of European states: that they're not quite willing to let go of all of the authoritarian levers of power. It's usually expressed in terms of the need to suppress extreme ideologies, as you have here, but is it not true that the most extreme aspects of such regimes typically emerge only once they are already firmly entrenched in power? By then, the tools which the state can leverage to suppress speech and the media are already in their hands.

It seems much safer to me to allow the bigots and lunatics to speak freely, that we can all see them for what they are well before they can attain a position of power.

[frostshotgg]

The interesting thing is that America never really had the same threat of falling under an authoritarian regime, in the same way that Europe did in the early 20th century, so a lot of people don't understand why European countries don't have that protection, and they don't understand what that protection is there for.

[Sheb]

Yeah, Helgo's not saying the US way is wrong, he's just saying it fits to US culture and might not fit to the rest of the world. Although I feel the distinction he draws is too black and white. Americans love to rant about their first amendments, but they also have speech that is forbidden legally (although arguably less than in Europe), and vast are that are "forbidden" via social pressure, as can be seen every time a public figure use the word nigger.

[Flying Dice]

I understand the different imperatives derived from differing history, the fear of backsliding... I'm just saying that it seems to be a tad bit dangerous and self-defeating. It's concerning for the same reason that the US introducing liberty and privacy-reducing measures in the name of combating extremist ideologies is.

Actually, there's a pretty fundamental piece of American cultural history which expresses the sentiment better than I can:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[SirQuiamus]

"Free speech" isn't just about the concepts enshrined or not by law, but about whether or not you as a human being affirm or deny the greater idea of it being wrong to coerce or suppress others, even if the law does not or can not address it. If, as many do, you interact with freedom of speech by awaiting the opportunity to enforce your will above others when there is no way to stop you, then you are opposed to free speech. It is not a part of your value system, because what a person expresses when not under coercion is the proof of what they value.

What if a crazy billionaire declares a secular fatwa on your ass and offers megabucks for anyone willing to murder you in a painful fashion? Would you rather suppress his freedom of speech and coerce him to stop, or face the consequences of adhering to your lofty moral imperative?

It seems much safer to me to allow the bigots and lunatics to speak freely, that we can all see them for what they are well before they can attain a position of power.

What if the bigots and lunatics insist that they are perfectly tolerant and sane, but everyone else is constantly trampling on their freeze peach by merely existing? If two or more opposing factions try to suppress each other while defending their freedom of speech under the pretext of universal freedom, who's going to decide which version is the "correct," practical way to apply the abstract ideal of free speech?

[BTW, this discussion might be more on-topic in this thread.]

[Antsan]

"It's only a joke, don't take them seriously!"
Yeah, why should I take them less seriously than you do? Why do you feel the need to affirm that telling jokes is so important that they're beyond criticism?
Frikkin' pc-haters. Philosophically undereducated, self-absorbed pricks. Why don't they understand that society doesn't revolve around them and their needs?

Yeah man, fuck free speech.

Yeah, because calling someone out is such a horrible thing to do! You're taking away their free speech when you call them an asshole! It's almost like punching them in the face! I am really sorry, I forgot how sensible those people are to words.
"Dude, making these jokes makes you an asshole!"
"You free-speech-hater hurt my feelings so much that I cannot speak freely anymore!"

This is an excellent example of an annoying Internet habit: people not understanding what the concept of “free speech” is.

“Free speech” doesn’t mean “speech you can’t cricitize”, and it doesn’t mean “private parties can’t restrict access to private resources based on the content of speech”.

This is an excellent example of an annoying internet habit: people not understanding that "free speech" is part of a value system and not just a grudging legal obligation.

"Free speech" isn't just about the concepts enshrined or not by law, but about whether or not you as a human being affirm or deny the greater idea of it being wrong to coerce or suppress others, even if the law does not or can not address it. If, as many do, you interact with freedom of speech by awaiting the opportunity to enforce your will above others when there is no way to stop you, then you are opposed to free speech. It is not a part of your value system, because what a person expresses when not under coercion is the proof of what they value.

As you can see my beef with this line of reasoning is a bit different.

“Free speech” doesn’t mean “speech you can’t cricitize”

m8, when people bring up free speech it's usually because the people they're opposing want to stop people from saying certain things

I have never actually seen the strawman conversation that people like you seem to think happens that goes something like:
"A thing"
"Your thing is dumb"
"reeee muh free speech"

Yea, you're right, mostly it goes like this
"A thing"
"Your thing is offensive and hurtful [to me]. [Please] stop it." (bracketed part depending on how entitled/self-centered this one is)
"reeee muh free speech"

[Sheb]

Graknorke, just look at the Tim Hunt case for a textbook case of people going "Muh Speech!" after the guy was yelled at for saying something dumb.

[Aklyon]

Was that the guy who some idiots wanted fired just because they got offended by a thing he said? If thats a qualifier we'd have no politicians still in office during election years.

[Graknorke]

Yea, you're right, mostly it goes like this
"A thing"
"Your thing is offensive and hurtful [to me]. [Please] stop it."
"Lol I can say what I want"
"No you can't"
"reeee muh free speech"

Fixed. It only ever comes up when someone says that people should be stopped from speaking, which happens an awful lot actually.

Graknorke, just look at the Tim Hunt case for a textbook case of people going "Muh Speech!" after the guy was yelled at for saying something dumb.

Did he ever try and make it a free speech issue? I thought he had the far more eloquent defence of "It's just a prank joke bro."

[Antsan]

Yea, you're right, mostly it goes like this
"A thing"
"Your thing is offensive and hurtful [to me]. [Please] stop it."
"Lol I can say what I want"
"No you can't"
"reeee muh free speech"

Fixed. It only ever comes up when someone says that people should be stopped from speaking, which happens an awful lot actually.

Your experience differs from mine, which could very well be due to miscommunication.

See, the people most often accused of "fighting free speech" that way are leftists and many of those (particularly the ones I am concerned about because I see them as peers) are pacifists or close to being pacifists. If they say something along the lines of "you can't" (which is very unlikely to be the actual choice of words) they mean to tell you that it's not something you can do and still be considered a decent human being. The assumption is that people do want to be decent human beings and thus would avoid doing something that makes them something else.
At least that is the case that I was talking about in the first place. I'm an anarchist and pacifist, I don't even consider actively doing anything but looking at someone with disdain and making a snide (or angry) comment. And somehow that always is depicted as being worse than whatever I happen to criticize – be it rape jokes, homophobia, assertions that certain groups of people should not be allowed to make their own decisions, calls for murder or genocide…

FREE SPEECH!!! you know? Because my free speech ends where their's begins or something like that.