In a thread, now locked, on the main board, a poster argued that free speech should be sacrificed to allow for laws against things like online bullying. An ironic result of the locking of that thread is that it had the effect of allowing this poster, whose hostile language was apparently the cause of the moderator's action, to have the last word on the matter. So I thought I'd respond here.
In the US, courts have prevented the federal government from passing many laws restricting free speech and free expression. If this were not the case, the current US Congress would presently be making those kinds of decisions, and Donald Trump would be executing those laws. Does this sound like a good idea to anyone?
The poster in question apparently believes that, if the Courts backed off (or if the First Amendment were repealed), the government would use its new power to punish the kind of speech that (s)he hates, like online bullying. Given the political climate in the US, it's a fantasy to hope that that's the kind of speech that would be targeted.
An online friend of mine recently wrote that progressives and libertarians (at least ones like her and me) have similar goals. However, progressives act politically as though benevolent leaders, once elected, will always be in power, while libertarians assume that they never will be. I think this is a rather clear example of this dynamic at work. (Not that I assume that most progressives agree with the poster on matters of free speech.)
Finally, I'd like to point out one last irony: the poster in question is calling for punishing those who engage in hostile speech online, but that poster's last few comments on the locked thread are a terrific example of just that kind of speech.
I don't think that what was suggested will ever become law.
But, how do you feel about the Russian weaponization of social media to spread disinformation and propaganda in terms of US elections? At least as it relates to free speech within the borders of the United States?
SonofRobbieJ said: I don't think that what was suggested will ever become law."
Perhaps not, but there are already laws against things like hate speech, bullying speech, and Holocaust denial in many European countries, and I have a number of progressive friends who think it would be a good idea to pass similar laws here.
But, how do you feel about the Russian weaponization of social media to spread disinformation and propaganda in terms of US elections? At least as it relates to free speech within the borders of the United States?
I'd have to draw a distinction between disinformation and (factually true) propaganda. I don't think the Constitution (or common sense) protects untrue statements made with malicious intent. If people in Russia want to influence US elections (or vice versa) without spreading lies, though, I wouldn't want the government to stop them. (Of course, companies like Facebook can and probably should decline to allow them to use their platforms to do this.)
It's funny when 1984 (the play) made its way around the world people loved to compare it to the Trump administration. But do they not understand that it's primarily fractions of 'progressive' people that keep trying to tow this strange behaviour of controlling what people can say and who can say it? 1984 has more in common with factions of 'progressive' people than Trump. They need to stop this. Free speech for all, open discussion, real conversations. It is a dangerous slippery slope otherwise - religious institutions are already trying to introduce blasphemy laws in certain countries under the guide of protection. If you want to see how this plays out, look at any theocratic country with blasphemy laws already in place (e.g., most Islamic countries) and think about what the impact this has on human wellbeing and scientific progress.
I do not trust ANYONE regardless of political persuasion to control speech. No one should be so arrogant. We do not want to go down this path!
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. One of the many common misperceptions about it. Just like not all "arms" can be legally owned in the US, despite what any NRA enthusiast says. "Arms" is not defined in the Constitutions, yet the US bans the sale and ownership of certain grades of weapons. A fact the NRA and gun-lovers conveniently avoid when brandishing the Second Amendment in their arguments. It's exactly the same sort of cherry-picking they use with the Bible.
Currently, the First Amendment does NOT protect: obscenity, "fighting words", defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, solicitations to commit crimes, plagiarism of copyrighted material. Internet bullying could include many of these, but are often difficult to prosecute because there has to be a direct link from the language to measurable damages. The results are often considered circumstantial, lead to attempts to discredit the witness (damaging them even further) as emotionally unstable, or the damages are considered immaterial and the perpetrators get a slap on the wrist for simple harassment.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
Kdogg36 and Qolbinau, I completely agree with you.
I always like to go to the core of a problem in order to be able to talk about a possible solution. What you describe is indeed happening. And it's bad.
I am learning more and more that people who call themselves left and progressive are in fact the opposite. It is good that you bring in religion too, because in its essence the same thing happens there. Let me try to explain that;
When people are raised/brought up, they become a combination of born factors, such as certain genes, bodies, things like sexuality, and taught factors, such as class, religion, insecurities, reactions on disappointments and successes, worth towards others, norms, confirmation, or everything else happening in their lives.
The very interesting thing is that both "progressive" left people and religious people seem to have a problem with free speech. Both want to silence other people and think they are right. To me, both come across as a bit world alienated, wanting to use a figurative pencil eraser in daily life. I find myself disagreeing with people with this type of mindset a lot. Because it is not how life works.
I have been thinking about where this comes from. I think it comes from a place of insecurity or feeling lost in this big world. I also think that how someone is raised plays a huge factor in this. If you never learned to live without this shield, it is very difficult to actually confront life later on.
I mean, if you bring up your children with a certain book or close minded visions about life, sexuality or separation, of course they grow into that mindset too. If you raise your children in a safe space, with a figurative pencil eraser in their hand, they cant handle any friction later on and clearly develop a need to silence others.
These people do not realize that they are actually the ones who avoid equality and freedom.
It is not only in the subject of that last topic where some people wanted to push the lady in the victim role, which actually causes more depressive feelings, but if you look closely, this given returns in many subjects, such as affirmative action, applying exclusion behaviour in return and wanting to silence people who point that out. Special treatment or freedom for certain people to say things over others, deciding who can say it, etc. The list of examples is long.
kdogg36 said: "Finally, I'd like to point out one last irony: the poster in question is calling for punishing those who engage in hostile speech online, but that poster's last few commentson the locked thread are a terrific example of just that kind of speech."
It really is projection behaviour, coming from a place of insecurity, impotence and powerlessness. Once their taught shield is pierced, they are lost.
It's like the christian parents who send their gay son to a psychiatrist, beat him up and send him to a cure the gay camp and silence him. Those parents should actually visit the psychiatrist, but they will never understand this.
They are good, their son is bad, and they are the victims.
Edit: And what's even worse is that people in their community support eachother in this victim role, as if they are right. Being wrong is one thing, blaming others for being wrong while you do it is a 2nd, and supporting others who do it is a 3rd. Many posters on this board seem to do all 3 of them.
I just want to clarify one thing: almost all of my friends would describe themselves as liberal or progressive, and only a few have suggested more laws regulating speech. I just don't think the ones who support these expanded powers have really thought things through.
I took a course learning deeply about our First Amendment laws (it's much more complicated than you think otherwise there wouldn't be so many thick casebooks about it) and there's a part about how it differed from other Western nations, most notably Germany. Many legal scholars from those countries think the U.S. has sort of gone off the deep-end with just how much people can get away with saying without real repercussions. I'm not talking about dictatorships or whatever, but Western or liberalized countries where their people seem content and free to express themselves. I've met people from Germany and other countries and if we talk about free speech and how in their country what people can sue for with regard to what they post online, it always shocks me because it's so different from the United States. In a way, they seem a lot less confused about the limits of free speech than we Americans are.
I found an interesting article written by research Professor of Law and Director of the Human Rights Program at the University of Virginia School of Law in the aftermath of Charlottesville, so it's written specifically about racist extremism. The article talks about Europe's approach to free speech v. the United States and how Europe learned that in the marketplace of ideas, sometimes the unregulated market can fail...disastrously. There no easy answers but if we accept a system that speech should be free from government intervention (in public spheres) then the burden does shift to private citizens and the people to regulate such speech.
Gizmo6 said: "America is stuck in 1791. That's the problem, the world kept turningbutAmerica stayedstill."
I'm the first to point out that the US has a lot of problems - and unleashed a lot of evil on the world - but free speech is not that; it's one of our great virtues.
My post was in fact a response to what you posted on the main board. Do you have a response regarding my main point (second and third paragraphs of the original post above)?
You wouldn’t have Donald Trump in the White House if your 1st Amendement was brought into the 21st Century.
And I agree people will have nefarious agendas but that doesn’t stop from trying to do good.
Freedom of expression is a term I prefer because it insinuates at least some level of intelligence. Your 1st Amendment shouldn’t be used as a shield for hate or ignorance.
Why does the KKK exist? Or the Westboro Baptist, to name but two.
Do you think it’s right that the 1791 2nd A shouldn’t be altered to refelect modern gun violence and technological advances?
No one in 1791 thought 100 bullets a minute could be fired, the 2nd therefore is not fit for purpose.
Constitutions should be living documents developing over time, not fixed and rigid.
Freedom of speech should be tempered by a communal understanding of what is acceptable. But now, pretty much any notable liar, crook, bigot, or sex offender can get a book deal and a job as a talking head. Capitalism has killed the notion of shame.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Kad said: "Freedom of speech should be tempered by a communal understanding of what is acceptable. But now, pretty much any notable liar, crook, bigot, or sex offender can get a book deal and a job as a talking head. Capitalism has killed the notion of shame."
It's the other way around. These people never had any shame to begin with. They've been spouting hateful BS for free for years but now they've been empowered to come out of the shadows. They can reach a wider audience than ever before and use the available mechanisms to monetize it. It's not their ability to have unfettered free speech that's the problem, it's the mindset of people so willing to accept it instead of reject it out of hand. If you try to limit them, it only emboldens them and their followers even more with cries of censorship. We've got to get back as a society to saying with a unified voice, your comments are not OK.
As soon as a fraction of 'progressive' people started calling criticism of religion hate speech - especially Islam. Or victim blaming those that were horrifically sprayed with assault rifle bullets and killed in Paris because they depicted the prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him. I knew that there is no way I'm going to let anyone go near freedom of speech values without a fight. This is a dangerous slippery slope.
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
I always think that when people try to silence others about a certain subject, remark or standpoint, they are actually doubting their own standpoint about the matter. Which makes them confused and scared.
If you are really stable and confident in your ideas, you wouldn't care what anyone says.
"'progressive' people started calling criticism of religion hate speech". If they take that as hate speech it shows they are doubting themselves. Which is understandable, as religious people tend to be raised in a way that does not necessarily develop a well rounded mind.
Gizmo6 said: "Religion shouldn’t enjoy protections. It’s a choice unlike race or sexuality."
First, I agree with you on this. I'd say "special protections," since of course they should enjoy the same normal protections as everyone else.
Second, thanks for your response to my question. I guess we'll have to disagree: I don't think additional laws could have prevented Donald Trump, the KKK, or Westboro. When the courts allowed more government control over speech, in the early 20th century, those laws were used to imprison anti-war activists and anarchists rather than put down the KKK, and I have no doubt that's how it would go down again.
kdogg36 said: "Gizmo6 said: "Religion shouldn’t enjoy protections. It’s a choice unlike race or sexuality."
First, I agree with you on this. I'd say "special protections," since of course they should enjoy the same normal protections as everyone else.
Second, thanks for your response to my question. I guess we'll have to disagree: I don't think additionallaws could have prevented Donald Trump, the KKK, or Westboro. When the courts allowed more government control over speech, in the early 20th century, those lawswere used to imprison anti-war activists and anarchists rather than putdown the KKK, and I have no doubt that's how it would go down again."
I don't think we disagree on the core point I just think we disagree on how humans would respond.
And I do agree with you it's not a time now with the current POTUS where as you rightly surmise the protections I talk about could be used for bad.