Philosophical Questions: Free Speech

[ysabetwordsmith]

People have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.

Should there be limitations on the right to free speech?


This is a bit nonsensical, because when there are limitations, it's not free speech anymore. It's a privilege instead of a right. The things people most want to limit include the things most important to talk about, that free speech is designed to protect, like telling your government when it fucks up; and things that humans really, really want to do like enjoy pr0n that squicks the tightasses. The whole point to free speech is being able to say things that other people wildly disagree with.

Also, free speech is a crucial safety valve. If people can talk about a problem, they are less likely to resort to violence. If talking about it is illegal, as well hang for a sheep as a lamb, and they're more likely to riot. There's only one end to putting a sealed pot on a hot stove. That's not politics, that's physics.

Comments

[krakendelsur]

I like the metaphor of free speech being a "crucial safety valve". It makes so much sense put like that.

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Problems that don't get talked about tend to be problems that don't get solved.

But people who want to stir trouble also tend to be lazy. As long as you let them complain, they may not do worse. Block that, and suddenly they have time on their hands with which to make trouble from scratch.

[siliconshaman]

Counter-point; what about hate speech? Words can, and do, cause harm. Even driving people to suicide. How does that square with free speech? Do we just shrug and say that's the ticket price of freedom?

I would suggest that there needs to exist the means to filter it. That free speech does need boundaries based on maintaining civil discourse, and not becoming a cudgel to bludgeon the minority of the day.

I do agree that everyone has a right to access free speech, but what they say should have guidelines, something along the lines of:

Is it truthful, is it respectful, and is it fair?

[kengr]

I think the libel and slander laws provide a useful example.

You can say anything you want. But you are responsible for the *consequences* of having said it.

So, for example, inciting to riot is a consequence.

We need to work out better ways of dealing with hate speech and speech that does bad things to people (driving them to suicide or the like).

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Counter-point; what about hate speech? Words can, and do, cause harm. Even driving people to suicide. How does that square with free speech? Do we just shrug and say that's the ticket price of freedom? <<

That's a perfect and very timely example. Let's say you are against genocide, which is a normal and healthy stance. But then a popular government declares genocide against a less popular one -- like say, Israel. Suddenly it becomes "hate speech" and the government calls you an anti-Semitic Nazi for observing that Israel is committing genocide and talking about why that is bad.

You can be fired from your job for saying that genocide is wrong, or Palestinian people have a right to exist, or even failing to be sufficiently enthusiastic about supporting Israel's stated intention to obliterate Palestine and its people. That's exactly what American Jewish institutions are doing: purging every member who possibly thinks that Israel should not commit genocide or that Palestinians have a right to live. And they're not satisfied with renting your time while you are actually at work; they feel that they own all of you so you are never free to speak out against genocide anywhere ever. Boycotting Israeli products, the way you might boycott blood diamonds, is widely banned.

People think that if you are against Israel wiping out Palestine, you therefore support Hamas and that makes you a terrorist. You might even get arrested and charged with a hate crime or terrorism because your stance against genocide exceeds what the government considers permissible today. Yes, really, the government is arresting liberal Jews for not using the Nazi playbook. It's insane.

But that's generally what happens with this kind of conflict. The government takes tools meant to make society a reasonably livable place and abuses them to harm people who are trying to make it a livable place.


>> I would suggest that there needs to exist the means to filter it. That free speech does need boundaries based on maintaining civil discourse, and not becoming a cudgel to bludgeon the minority of the day.<<

There's a very useful word: filter. Free speech does not give anyone the right to a captive audience. You can hold a presentation but nobody is obligated to attend. Online, this manifests as privacy and moderation controls, which allow you to filter out things you don't want or decide who you want to show your content to.

Also, it helps to have different locations, like a rant community online or a gay bar in town. You are free to go there or go somewhere else -- as long as there are also different options, which is crucial to this working. The first instance of anything should be general, and so should the last if you're cutting down, so everyone can be served at least somewhat; and if you have more, then you can specialize some if you wish.

These are some of the best ways to balance conflicts of ideals and freedoms.


>> Is it truthful, is it respectful, and is it fair? <<

And who gets to determine what is "true" or not? Also very timely, if the American election goes one way, climate change will remain legally true; whereas if it goes the other way, climate change will likely become legally fraud and people will be jailed for pointing out that we are destroying the biosphere we depend on.

Who gets to determine what is "respectful" or not? Or who must be respected and who is anyone's meat? Progressive Jews are being purged from Jewish organizations for daring to respect Palestinian victims of genocide or not being "respectful enough" of Jewish victims in Israel (a larger nuclear state with powerful allies) who "feel threatened" by Palestine (a much smaller, under-recognized, non-nuclear state that almost nobody gives a fuck about). Dude, they're historic trauma survivors so they're always going to feel threatened by something.

Fair ... *sigh* Life is not fair; civilization exists to make life more fair. Humans decided that they wanted things like health care to fight evolution instead of always letting the weak (or the strong in a temporary moment of weakness) die off. But they are routinely terrible at it, and mostly what they do is try to protect the ones they care about at the expense of the ones they don't.

Children are said to care a lot about fairness, but how often do you hear them saying "That's not fair!" when someone else gets shortchanged? Try it. Hand out some treats to children and give one child two instead of one. How many kids will say "That's not fair," and then divide the cookie or share the toy? I suspect a non-zero amount but not much higher.

I think "fair" is a nice ideal, but so hard to put into practice with things like this that it would be more effective to concentrate on more achievable goals -- like supporting filters -- and hope we can work our way up to fair eventually. They're humans, not bonobos (who will, quite consistently, throw a quick orgy and then divide resources more equally).

Of course, if you do want to tilt at that windmill, more power to you. Egalitarian groups can exist if people put enough extra work into them, and there are tools for doing that. I recommend Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. There are also some situations where fairness can be achieved mechanically, as in political debates were you could invite all candidates for a position, put each in a private video booth, and turn on each participant's camera and microphone for the exact same amount of time per questions so they couldn't talk over each other. I'd love to see someone do that.

Re: Thoughts

[siliconshaman]

Just because a government says something is so or is legal, does not make it true or ethical. Governments are made up of people, people can be and often are wrong, either by accident or design.

True is what reality is and making laws that say it isn't is on a par with making Pi equal to three. You can say it all you like, make everyone believe you, but that still isn't going make a damn whit of difference to reality. Deny climate change all you like, but those Malibu beach houses are still going bye-bye.

Respectful is likewise demonstrably so, saying something to cause deliberate harm or continuing to cause harm after it's been pointed out is not respectful. Likewise, if you make an accusation then you had better have evidence to back it up. Respect is treating the person you disagree with as a person.

Fair is harder, as you say, everyone has a different definition usually involving things being unfair in their favour. But Equality is a good start... even if it's you hate everyone equally.

And yes.. filters are a very good idea. People may have a right to free speech, but likewise I have a right to ignore the heck out of them if I disagree with what they're saying. The nut job on tv can rant about the evils of whomever he hates, but I can always turn it off. The bigot on social media has a right to post his screeds, and get blocked. Or if they insist on posting them in communities that do not share their 'values' then they're going to get permabanned and they can take it elsewhere.

To borrow a quote from Alt.Callahan's from many years ago: Free Speech is an absolute right, being listened to is a privilege that needs to be earned.

[topaz_eyes]

Here from my Network...

This is a bit nonsensical, because when there are limitations, it's not free speech anymore. It's a privilege instead of a right.

Except the First Amendment *does* put limits on free speech in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Also, in the US, the right to free speech only concerns the government's ability to restrict speech. It does not apply in the private sphere. That's how credit card companies can deny service to certain businesses that otherwise operate completely legally in the US. (Dreamwidth itself ran into this early on.) That's also how social media corporations can allow or deny certain users or kinds of speech. The right to free speech does not apply to them.

Also, free speech is a crucial safety valve. If people can talk about a problem, they are less likely to resort to violence.

In the US, the right to free speech includes hate speech, up to the point where it includes false statements of fact, true threats, or incitement of imminent lawless action. Several countries, including mine (Canada), have put limits on hate speech. Our right to Freedom of Expression in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is contingent on Section 1 (Reasonable Limits clause). If a particular expression is shown to cause harm, it can be limited in the interests of protecting society from that harm, as long as that limit is “reasonable” and “demonstrably justified" in court. The big case re hate speech was R. v. Keegstra, where Canada's Supreme Court found "Canada’s hate laws imposed a “reasonable limit” on a person’s freedom of expression." (Keegstra was a high school teacher who taught anti-Semitic propaganda to his students. He was charged and convicted of a hate crime, but appealed several times on the grounds that his right to freedom of expression was being limited.)

[see_also_friend]

American free speech limits the government, and some organizations, but does notimit private organizations or individuals.

American law generally limits certain types of harmful speech, such as defamation or libel...or screaming FIRE in a crowded movie theater.

Generally a human society will have some basic limits on speech, enforced by individual interaction if nothing else. It's a basic part of group living, and can range from 'we dont mention the Noodle Incident' up to 'do not speak directly to the Emperor.' Overal lesser controls would usually be better I think, but we do need something.

I think, /in my culture/ we need enough freedom to discuss unpopular ideas, but the problem we keep running into is whether those ideas are dangerous enough to be banned.

Should we have anorexia suppourt groups? Military recruitment in schools? CO counseling availible anywhere? Who gets tax exemptions? To what degree can you sidestep official policies because of faith? Should you be allowed to have political bumper stickers on your car at work? Why is it still 'bad' to be a member of the Communist Party?:

Also, should public officials be allowed to post racist stuff on their Facebook?
Incidentally, this could be solved by putting a clause forbidding it in the employment contract...but then is it more useful to let someone flaunt their true colors so you know whether ir not to trust them?