SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A basic right in the U.S.A. has been the Freedom of Speech, yet of late it has been under heavy threat. United States Foreign Service Officer (ret.) and author of Hooper's War Peter Van Buren at We Meant Well blogs about Five Bad Arguments to Restrict Speech.
"Open discussion, debate, and argument are the core of democracy. Bad ideas are defeated by good ideas. Fascism seeks to close off all ideas except its own."
The blog entry itself is rather long and contains numerous links to supporting material. Here is the list; below the fold includes an elaboration on the statement and a summary. Read the blog itself for more details and exposition.
- The First Amendment Only Applies to Government?
- What's Said May Provoke Violence in the Room (A Clear and Present Danger)
- What's Said May Provoke Violence Outside (Public Safety)
- Speech Can or Should Be Restricted Based on Content (Hate Speech)
- Free Speech Should Not Be Subject to the Heckler's Veto
[...] 1. The First Amendment Only Applies to Government?
The first fallacious argument used to shut down free speech is that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution only applies to government, and so universities or other entities are entitled to censor, restrict or shut down altogether speech willy-nilly.
Short Answer: Not really. Public funding invokes the First Amendment for schools, and free speech runs deeper than the Bill of Rights. It's as much a philosophical argument as a legal one, not a bad thing for a nation founded on a set of ideas (and ideals.)
[...] 2. What's Said May Provoke Violence in the Room (A Clear and Present Danger)
Some claim that certain conservative speakers, such as Milo Yiannopoulos, who purposefully use anti-LGBTQ slurs to provoke their audiences, should be banned or shut down. Their speech is the equivalent of yelling Fire! in a crowded movie theatre when there is no actual danger, provoking a deadly stampede for the exits.
Short Answer: The standards for shutting down speech are very restrictive, and well-codified. Milo comes nowhere close.
[...] 3. What's Said May Provoke Violence Outside (Public Safety)
The idea that a university or other venue cannot assure a speaker's safety, or that the speaker's presence may provoke violent protests, or that the institution just doesn't want to go to the trouble or expense of protecting a controversial speaker has become the go-to justification for canceling or restricting speech. Berkley cited this in canceling and then de-platforming (rescheduling her when most students would not be on campus) Ann Coulter, whose campus sponsors are now suing, and New York University cited the same justification for canceling an appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos.
Short Answer: Canceling a speaker to protect them or public safety is the absolute last resort, and some risk to safety is part of the cost to a free society for unfettered speech.
[...] 4. Speech Can or Should Be Restricted Based on Content (Hate Speech)
There are no laws against "hate speech." A speaker can call people names, and insult them by their race, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. What many people think and say is hateful. It is carefully thought out to inspire hate, to promote hate, to appeal to crude and base instincts. Indeed, that is their point. But there is no law or other prohibition against hate speech. Even restrictions on "hate speech" meant to prevent violence, often cited as the justification to restrict such speech, are by design extremely narrow.
Short Answer: You cannot restrict hate speech. Free speech means just that, with any limited restrictions content-neutral.
[...] 5. Free Speech Should Not Be Subject to the Heckler's Veto
Another argument used by some progressives is that the so-called Heckler's Veto is in itself protected speech. Someone may have a right to speak, but someone else has the same right to shout them down and prevent them from being heard.
Short answer: Free speech is not intended to mean whomever can literally "speak" the loudest gets to control what is said. The natural end of such thinking is mob rule, where Speaker A gets a bigger gang together to shout down the gang Speaker B controls.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by n1 on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:28PM (3 children)
There seem to be just as many useful idiots who think Soros, BLM/Antifa and the 'liberal elite' are the cause of all the social ills as there are useful idiots who think Nazis and and 'old white men' are the root of the problems.
You seem to be buying into the same false dichotomy but instead of the more typical Republican/Democrat branding, we just replace it with the more reactionary alt- faux anti-establishment branding on the fringes of those old brands.
The D/R labels manufactured useful idiots the same as this new 'counter culture' versions liberalism and conservatism brands is manufacturing new generations of useful idiots. Ultimately it still comes back to the D/R branding anyway, since mostly you're still all voting for them, and will continue to do so, to beat 'the other' side. They both want their safe zones, be it on popular social media networks or gab.ai and the now popular 'locker room banter' clause. Freedom of speech is extremely important, sadly the most vocal about it's importance invest very little energy to use it constructively to educate and inform. it's all preaching to the choir for the high-fives, shitposting memes like thousands of others and proclaiming you're 'woke' and virtue signaling works for both factions.
I am not a centrist, I do not believe in the horseshoe political theory that comes along with it. I am completely non-partisan and not affiliated to any political ideology, and I think we're still all dancing to the tune as intended. The 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are more militant and divided, less willing to seek dialogue despite how both sides proclaim to be defenders of liberty and free speech. And the rest of us, people like me, have just become so disillusioned with any attempt at political discourse we can't even talk politics anymore.
I have spent the last decade following politics, domestic and internationally very closely. Enjoying discussing it at length for many hours with people I agree and disagree with, playing devils advocate on many occasions, taking on fringe positions to get as deep into the ideologies as possible. But now, it's seems impossible to do that because any attempt at rational discourse or objective examining of a position is countered with accusations of 'fake news' or other dismissive catchphrases from anyone who actually proclaims to support a political/social ideology.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:49PM
You are correct. In fact, I should have included the useful rightist idiots in the recent White Nationalist rally in which we saw a protestor killed.
It seems really convenient how all of a sudden White Nationalist rallies are getting media attention, and provides a convenient opportunity to conflate more moderate rightists with extremist Nazis, which also conveniently plays right into the hands of the Antifa extremists when egged on by the media traitors.
That operation was also not planned, but rather handled.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:33PM
Cognitive ills are eternal. Fueling them with money will make it worse and in some cases necessitate negative feedback back to the source.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @10:12AM
Well, we know who's really doing it. [youtube.com] But we're forbidden to point out obvious commonalities in advocates of destructive policy. [pastebin.com] All groups are allowed to advance their own interests, even to the detriment of others except ~8% of the world population (those of European descent), but if you point that you're "insane" or "evil", despite such things being facts. And then false flags are believed by fools all around [youtube.com], because people don't study history or know that such things are the standard method of governance. [youtube.com]
The problem is that the common person is completely ignorant about the nature of reality, and so indoctrinated that even the smarter ones will fight any attempt to show them they've been deceived. Almost everything taught to the masses is full of lies. Here is a point to begin from: You keep slaves ignorant. If you need slaves that can read to do your labor then fill their heads with bullshit. Knowledge is power. Rulers don't give serfs power. Failing to realize this and not questioning Everything, even the farcical academic sciences, is the root of the problem. For not teaching you this properly you can blame your parents and their parents, etc. going all the way back to the Reformation and Spanish Inquisition which rewrote history and enforced a bogus worldview and timeline as well as many other falsehoods still preached in schools today. We have never repaired the damage done by burning books, historians and their scholars at the stake as witches and heretics to enforce the bogus worldview. That is ultimately wherefrom the current batch of mindrot stems.