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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @12:21AM (1 child)
That can be said of all current ideologies, even more so today.
Let's take a look at a so-called "Nazi" who is actually a race realist (recognizing differences in race) that was once involved in foreign aide in Africa (whence comes their realism). [imgur.com]
In that discussion they detailed their compassion for Africans but the utter destructiveness of putting local farmers out of business by giving free food. Then the food stops, even less farmers exist to feed the populace, and so even more people die awaiting foreign aid. Furthermore, this "Nazi" claims that it is folly to give unfettered medical aide to a people who have evolved to combat high infant mortality by having a high fertility rate. Claiming that even more children are born into suffering with parents who can not support them also starving. They said that perhaps a public works program which awarded health care and subsidies food to those who actually worked to build up their nations would be a better solution (which I noted was indeed in line with pre-WWII National Socialist agendas).
I don't agree with their proposition that all foreign aide should be cut, leaving African culture to evolve as they might. Nor do I agree that we are wrong to assume Africa needs help because "we are being racially-bigoted by judging African culture by European cultural yardsticks and finding them inferior". However, I do think their views could be instructive in creating a better foreign aide program. For, you see, currently the world claims to care about Africa but most charities are cash grabs funneling goods to war lords who take control of the majority of aide to feed their armies of soldiers who fight just to eat. So, you can see that the current world's nations are more than "notorious for actions not meeting words", but at least the "Nazis" actually realize there is a problem with the methods employed and seek to do something to reduce suffering.
When the "Nazis" have done more to shed a light on the plight of the African Bantu peoples than the "anti-racists", it SHOULD really makes you think. Have you ever talked to a Nazi before? I think not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 21 2017, @02:41AM
This is relevant because the "Nazi" is claiming that Africans can't change because they're African (or at least of the "African Bantu peoples") rather than because they're immersed in a primitive culture which is not adapted to modern ideas of advancement and progress. It's a position of helplessness based on unfounded assumptions about the impact of race. But everyone else was in that same stagnant position and they changed.
Further, this narrative also ignores that Africa is changing in the same ways as everyone has been changing. They're becoming, for example, wealthier and lower fertility just like everyone else. they're just further behind on the curve.
And if one thinks about it, why would the Peace Corps approach work any better anywhere else? Go to a primitive European, American, or Asian farmer who is happy with his situation, what's going to stick of the new, unnecessary teachings?