For the left, a wake-up call on free speech

[epronovost]

That wasn't your claim.
Do you remember what it was?

Yeah, that people using slanderous speech against selected group of people have harmed those groups and the people that constitute them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, that people using slanderous speech against selected group of people have harmed those groups and the people that constitute them.

Slander is a bad thing.
But censorship is pretty bad too.
I don't government having more such power over us.

 

[epronovost]

Slander is a bad thing.
But censorship is pretty bad too.
I don't government having more such power over us.

They already have the power to act against slander when it's directed at individuals.

In the meantime, while you are afraid that the government could use its power to restrict your freedom, groups of bigots have organized themselves and have gain cultural and political power to make the life on some of your fellow citizen worst and rob them of their liberties.

 

[Stevicus]

How are you rationalizing this with the fact that every single country in the top 10 of the most democratic and free country on Earth have Hate Speech laws on the books and apply those laws more vigorously then in the US? Isn't that contradictory? If restriction on hate speech were a slippery slope toward authoritarianism why all the more democratic countries those with such laws? Why are the US slumping? It seems to me you are trying to dodge the paradox of tolerance or at least underestimating its weight.

I'd have to see examples of which hate speech laws are being enforced more vigorously in these countries you failed to name, and what the situations are/were. What do "more vigorously" and "slumping" mean in this context? Does it even have anything to do with the OP topic?

Before accusing me of "trying to dodge," why don't you elaborate and explain your position better, defining the laws in question, what situations they've been enforced, and how they apply to the article raised in the OP?

Since you only quoted one sentence and seemingly ignored the rest of the post it came from, let me reiterate:

I think a key point was raised in the article about Oliver Wendell Holmes in citing a landmark decision while he was on the Court:

"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical," Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a century ago. "If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition."

But that sweeps away democracy itself, Holmes warned, which is premised on our ability to govern ourselves.

In a democratic society, every adult citizen is, in effect, a leader in society. What would one think of a leader who said that he/she didn't want to hear any bad news? "I don't want to hear any bad news. Don't say or show me anything that might trigger me or offend me or upset me in some way." That would be a pretty bad leader, in my opinion. They would surround themselves with "yes men" who would only tell them what they want to hear. There have been leaders like that in history. They usually tend to go down in infamy or remembered as such.

If we, as citizens, are expected to govern ourselves in a democratic society, then a free, relatively unimpeded flow of objective information is required in order to adequately fulfill that purpose.

---

I noticed that you and others have dodged the most important question of the thread: What would one think of a leader who said that he/she didn't want to hear any bad news?

 

[Stevicus]

Free speech protections also apply to inaccurate or misleading media content, propaganda, and misinformation, do they not?

It can be.

How does that bring you any closer to your alleged goal of a "free, relatively unimpeded flow of objective information"?

By keeping it free and unimpeded. Let the reader be the judge and figure it out for themselves. That's the key thing, since I should be able to pick and decide for myself, not have someone else decide for me. That's the difference.

For that matter, how do constitutional protections of hate speech help achieve that same goal?

I don't know why people keep bringing up hate speech when that wasn't even the subject of the OP article. As I said earlier, hate speech is pretty obvious and blatant, but that's not what is being raised here.

 

[Stevicus]

Is it the left banning/restricting the teaching of critical race theory?

Not that I'm aware of, although there have been many who have insisted that they're not even teaching critical race theory in the schools and that it only really applies to law school education.

 

[epronovost]

I'd have to see examples of which hate speech laws are being enforced more vigorously in these countries you failed to name, and what the situations are/were. What do "more vigorously" and "slumping" mean in this context? Does it even have anything to do with the OP topic?

First I did name the countries, I specifically refer to the ten most democratic countries on Earth, it's trivially easy to find their name by simply googling them. Vigorously means that there are actual people being prosecuted and court cases linked to hate speech. Slumping means that your ranking in the democracy index is falling a little bit.

If you are curious here is the 2020 democracy index.

Democracy Index - Wikipedia

Before accusing me of "trying to dodge," why don't you elaborate and explain your position better, defining the laws in question, what situations they've been enforced, and how they apply to the article raised in the OP?

Is it so difficult to google "hate speech laws" and then add one of the 10 countries you have selected? If you are ready to read opinion pieces and then post them with extensive commentary, I believe you have the interest and mental fortitude to read at least the Wikipedia article on it.

Hate speech laws by country - Wikipedia

It serves nothing to discuss the opinions of people who don't even know what they are talking about and what it is that they fear. There are numerous countries with hate speech laws such as those reclaimed by many campus activist. Their adoption hasn't reduced the civil liberties of citizens and might in fact have increased it.

"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical," Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a century ago. "If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition."

But that sweeps away democracy itself, Holmes warned, which is premised on our ability to govern ourselves.

That of course ignores and brush aside a huge problem. Unrestricted speech can easily lead to anti-democratic groups to win election thanks to demagogy, surfing on a wave of hate filled rhetoric toward an "other". You can kill democracy with words just as easily as you can build it. A century ago, the US was a fundamentally antidemocratic society with large stretches of its citizen denied equality before the law, denied the right to vote and several other rights on the basis of their race. That was possible because while the Constitution did say that all men were equal, nothing was done to enforce it in any visible way. The opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes could also be used to defend the idea of hate speech laws for without those how could you maintain the ability for each citizen to govern themselves without having a bigot deny them their rights because they have strength of number and money.

I noticed that you and others have dodged the most important question of the thread: What would one think of a leader who said that he/she didn't want to hear any bad news?

That doesn't have anything to do with hate speech or restriction of free speech as it pertains to campus or social justice. It's literally a strawman that isn't even worth discussing.

 

[Stevicus]

The American people grant their government the power to do violence on a global scale, as well as against any individuals it deems "criminals", "terrorists", or otherwise threats to the social order.

Yet, this too is challenged and discussed openly, although perhaps not as strongly as it was 40-50 years ago. Back then, the left-wing was far more anti-war and more inclined to question authority and be anti-government, although they don't appear to hold these views anymore - or at least not as fervently.

Yet curiously, the only major threat that certain folks ever seem to recognize as coming from this is when the government tells people not to disseminate hate speech, almost as if the massive potential for violence against protesters and political radicals was a desired effect, but the same potential unleashed against bigoted hatemongers was not.

I think both sides have more than just one major threat that they recognize. However, when it comes to violence and abuse of power, government (to include corporations and big business in our capitalist society) is in a far stronger position to be able to do that than the typical private citizen. Naturally, the focus is on the actions of the powerful, not the powerless. The powerful are a far greater threat than the powerless.

 

[Stevicus]

First I did name the countries, I specifically refer to the ten most democratic countries on Earth, it's trivially easy to find their name by simply googling them.

Yeah, well, there's a plethora of click-bait sites which have oodles of "top ten lists," so rather than go on a wild goose chase and try to anticipate what I think you're talking about, it's better to just ask directly.

Vigorously means that there are actual people being prosecuted and court cases linked to hate speech. Slumping means that your ranking in the democracy index is falling a little bit.

If you are curious here is the 2020 democracy index.

Democracy Index - Wikipedia

No mention of hate speech laws or prosecution of such in this article. So, you're not answering my question.

Is it so difficult to google "hate speech laws" and then add one of the 10 countries you have selected? If you are ready to read opinion pieces and then post them with extensive commentary, I believe you have the interest and mental fortitude to read at least the Wikipedia article on it.

And you could have elaborated more clearly, especially since you're making bold claims which you accuse me of "dodging" a point which wasn't even previously raised or brought up in this thread. Would that have been terribly difficult for you to do? Instead of trying to play a game of "gotcha," why don't you just talk to me?

Hate speech laws by country - Wikipedia

It serves nothing to discuss the opinions of people who don't even know what they are talking about and what it is that they fear. There are numerous countries with hate speech laws such as those reclaimed by many campus activist. Their adoption hasn't reduced the civil liberties of citizens and might in fact have increased it.

The initial topic of this thread didn't really have anything to do with hate speech laws. The key point made by the writer of the article (and which I agree with) is that the same laws can be turned against a group if another group happens to find their way into power. Do you agree or disagree with that?

That of course ignores and brush aside a huge problem. Unrestricted speech can easily lead to anti-democratic groups to win election thanks to demagogy, surfing on a wave of hate filled rhetoric toward an "other". You can kill democracy with words just as easily as you can build it. A century ago, the US was a fundamentally antidemocratic society with large stretches of its citizen denied equality before the law, denied the right to vote and several other rights on the basis of their race. That was possible because while the Constitution did say that all men were equal, nothing was done to enforce it in any visible way. The opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes could also be used to defend the idea of hate speech laws for without those how could you maintain the ability for each citizen to govern themselves without having a bigot deny them their rights because they have strength of number and money.

Well, first off, I reject the notion that mere words can kill a democracy. Words can be a factor, yes, but there has to be a lot more going on besides that.

Words are more analogous to a spark or the lighting of a match. It's a lot more dangerous to do if there's a bunch of explosives and flammable material all about. So, if your position is analogous to "Don't light a match, as you could set off all these explosives," then that still begs the question: Where did all the explosives come from in the first place? Why do we refuse to deal with that situation, which can still be just as dangerous even if we have people scurrying around telling people to not light a match?

If you were in a room full of liberals and progressives - and someone bursts in shouting all kinds of inflammatory Nazi rhetoric - I seriously doubt that they would all suddenly transform into Nazis upon hearing such words. It doesn't work like that. Usually, the people who might be swayed are those who would already be predisposed and vulnerable to such speech, and that's what society needs to address, first and foremost.

As for the history of the United States and racist laws and policies, those were in place long before the U.S. Constitution was even written and before we gained independence. It was already a part of the national mindset in 1776, so it wasn't as if a bunch of magical words made us into that. Free speech didn't even exist yet anyway.

It was words which led us away from that racist, bigoted mindset, in addition to political protest, demonstrations, uprisings, and even a Civil War - and even that wasn't enough. To believe that it will all simply go away by restricting free speech is a dangerously naïve way of thinking. Free speech did not bring about racism, so eliminating free speech will not cause it to go away.

You did know that the slave states imposed restrictions on the rights of Abolitionists to advocate for the end of slavery in those states. Abolitionists were threatened and some even attacked and killed for their beliefs.

That doesn't have anything to do with hate speech or restriction of free speech as it pertains to campus or social justice. It's literally a strawman that isn't even worth discussing.

It has to do with the topic of this thread and the concept that, in a democracy, citizens are expected to govern themselves. The concept of hate speech would indicate that some citizens are setting themselves up as arbiters of what is acceptable and what is not. It would also indicate that some citizens are incapable of hearing anything harsh or unpleasant without being triggered in some way. Such citizens could be considered weak links in a democratic system. If there are enough of them, it could threaten the freedom of the country.

And before you bring up Europe again, just consider that they actually did become fascist states, while the U.S. did not. That should say something about their ability to guard against fascism. I'm also not convinced that they're in any more stable position than the U.S. in terms of safeguarding against extreme right-wing activity.

 

[Revoltingest]

They already have the power to act against slander when it's directed at individuals.

It's a civil matter, rather than government directly censoring speech.

In the meantime, while you are afraid that the government could use its power to restrict your freedom, groups of bigots have organized themselves and have gain cultural and political power to make the life on some of your fellow citizen worst and rob them of their liberties.

Free speech means that people will say things I don't like.
I accept that as the better alternative.
BTW, it also allows people to advocate socialism, communism,
& other evil things to take away rights. Would you censor them?

 

[Kooky]

It can be.



By keeping it free and unimpeded. Let the reader be the judge and figure it out for themselves. That's the key thing, since I should be able to pick and decide for myself, not have someone else decide for me. That's the difference.

So by allowing the unrestricted dissemination of misinformation, fabricated facts, and blatant lies and propaganda, we are somehow increasing the availability of objective, factual and accurate information? Sorry, but that makes no sense at all to me.

Do you believe that the information available to you is entirely the result of your own individual choice?

 

[Revoltingest]

So by allowing the unrestricted dissemination of misinformation, fabricated facts, and blatant lies and propaganda, we are somehow increasing the availability of objective, factual and accurate information? Sorry, but that makes no sense at all to me.

Do you believe that the information available to you is entirely the result of your own individual choice?

That's a pretty extreme position to take.
Do you take the other extreme, ie, government
decides what is permissible to say, & censors
all the rest? Sounds like China. Ew.

 

[Kooky]

BTW, it also allows people to advocate socialism, communism,
& other evil things to take away rights. Would you censor them?

Funny you would mention two political ideologies that have been the factual targets of clandestine observation, political persecution, censorship and public ostracism, including but not limited to the activities of the Committee on Unamerican Activities, the Smith Act trials, criminal anarchy and syndicalism statutes, the Hollywood blacklists etc.

Or are we not going to acknowledge the factual reality of censorship and political persecution in the US?

 

[Kooky]

That's a pretty extreme position to take.
Do you take the other extreme, ie, government
decides what is permissible to say, & censors
all the rest? Sounds like China. Ew.

The government already decides what is permissible to say. This has always been the case.

What we are debating are the limits of what should be permissible.

 

[Revoltingest]

Funny you would mention two political ideologies that have been the factual targets of clandestine observation, political persecution, censorship and public ostracism, including but not limited to the activities of the Committee on Unamerican Activities, the Smith Act trials, criminal anarchy and syndicalism statutes, the Hollywood blacklists etc.

Funny? No.
Salient? Yes.
I chose them because they are evils that you'd hold dear.
This illustrates the problem of advocating censorship.
Sure, you'd like to see hate speech would be curbed,
but your political speech could be too...as has actually
happened. You wouldn't want to return to that, eh.

 

[Revoltingest]

The government already decides what is permissible to say. This has always been the case.

What we are debating are the limits of what should be permissible.

I prefer the Ameristanian standard to the PRC micro-management.

 

[Kooky]

Funny? No.
Salient? Yes.
I chose them because they are evils that you'd hold dear.
This illustrates the problem of advocating censorship.
Sure, you'd like to see hate speech would be curbed,
but your political speech could be too...as has actually
happened. You wouldn't want to return to that, eh.

It's cute that you believe there are currently no restrictions on political activity in the West.

 

[Kooky]

I prefer the Ameristanian standard to the PRC micro-management.

Indeed, a Chinese landlord would likely argue the reverse.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's cute that you believe there are currently no restrictions on political activity in the West.

It's cute that you plucked that inference out of your....uh....someplace.

 

[Revoltingest]

Indeed, a Chinese landlord would likely argue the reverse.

Obviously, I'm not a Chinese landlord.
But not all Chinese agree with their government's
tight control of political speech. There is much
disagreement. More than is public.