Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Did a Chinese whisper tell you that?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For the left, a wake-up call on free speech
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
I don't at all pretend to have all of the answers, but some things strike me about differences between the kinds of speech being talked about here.
Progressives usually argue that entities are under no obligation to platform hateful speech that threatens the very identity of people, such as a speaker on a university stage threatening the identities of the student body. Most of the time this doesn't include any prohibition against students themselves exercising their speech however they want. The idea is simply that nobody is owed a platform from a given institution.
The key takeaway here is that this is usually speech that threatens the identities of people for who they are. Xenophobia, racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, anti-Semitism, these sorts of things.
On the other side, the kind of speech inferred to offend conservatives doesn't tend to be speech about who a person is, but potentially things about what a person chooses to believe; and the proposal isn't just about deplatforming, it's about outright banning speech.
These two things don't seem analogous to me.
Progressives usually argue that entities are under no obligation to platform hateful speech that threatens the very identity of people, such as a speaker on a university stage threatening the identities of the student body. Most of the time this doesn't include any prohibition against students themselves exercising their speech however they want. The idea is simply that nobody is owed a platform from a given institution.
The key takeaway here is that this is usually speech that threatens the identities of people for who they are. Xenophobia, racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, anti-Semitism, these sorts of things.
On the other side, the kind of speech inferred to offend conservatives doesn't tend to be speech about who a person is, but potentially things about what a person chooses to believe; and the proposal isn't just about deplatforming, it's about outright banning speech.
These two things don't seem analogous to me.
They speak at normal volume when in Ameristan.
It seems that I know more people than you believe I do.
It's a question of "who decides?" Do I get to decide? Or is the decision made by someone I don't get to see? Is information being withheld because someone deemed it "misinformation"? Who gets to make these determinations? Why not just let it run free and let the readers decide for themselves? Are they not capable of making these judgments and discernments? If not, then why bother even letting them vote? Why have a democratic system at all, if the general public is so feeble-minded and easily influenced?
I usually check multiple sources myself, depending on what kind of information I'm looking for.
Well, it's not as if the news agencies call me personally and ask me what I want to read about. However, since the advent of the internet, I think there's been greater choice, as well as enormous convenience which comes from having access to this technology. Prior to that, I would usually have to rely on information from the local TV channels and local newspapers. Although there were a few stores which sold newspapers from other states and even from other countries. I could also get information from the library, if and when I had the time.
But now, I can look at multiple sources, as well as different opinions and viewpoints on topics from up and down the political spectrum. Sure, there's a lot of BS and nonsense and other internet shenanigans. And a lot more people have access to it, so one might encounter a wider range of opinions. I guess we take the bad with the good.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
No, that is not the question. You were never in control of what information is available to you.
The question is whether we put that decision in the hands of government agencies with a political agenda, or the capitalist class with an economic as well as political agenda. I reckon that most liberals, right or left wing, would obviously prefer the latter, as that is the norm of our society, and conforms closest to the liberal-capitalist values we were raised with.
A lot of things like that happened in the past, which not only affected socialists, but also union leaders, civil rights advocates, hippie freaks, beatniks. Even further back, I remember reading some diatribe from the 1920s where someone thought that jazz was the devil's music.
But even Tipper Gore got in on the act when she went on that crusade to censor rock lyrics. A lot of rock-and-rollers got riled up over that one. On the other hand, her husband invented the internet.
Jazz is Satan's music.
I control what I choose to read. I may not be "in control" of the information that's available to me, but as I said, there is quite a wide variety of sources of available. I would say there's less control now than when it was just three networks and a local newspaper. That's what many people in power seem to fear, so they want to put more restraints on what the hoi polloi will be allowed to see and read - just like back in the old days.
Possibly, although I do recall there was some sharp disagreements over the whole Net Neutrality issue. There would still have to be some government oversight and regulation, just as any industry is regulated. I can't see any reason why liberals would oppose that, at least. We also need to have competent personnel in law enforcement to police the internet for any criminal activity, hacking, ransomware, or any other kind of mischief that goes on. I think capitalists would also agree that there is a great need for that, since many of them have been hit hard by ransomware and other cybercriminals.
As to whether it should be in the hands of government or the capitalist private sector, it would be the difference between a publicly-owned park or town square, as opposed to a privately owned venue. The First Amendment applies in town square, but not on private property.
They also said that about rock and roll.
Satan has diverse musical tastes.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I remember how in the early days of Kindle, Amazon would literally delete books from people's devices; they no longer do that most of the time, not because they can't, but because it creates too much outrage when you rub people's noses in the fact of how little they are actually in control of their own media.
Censorship? No, just "freedom" under capitalism:
If you look for a video on Youtube, Youtube already controls what you're allowed to see and read - for example, LGBTQ content is de-emphasized and won't show up as often in your feed, while until 2019/20, Neonazi content used to be heavily pushed onto people because it generated a lot of activity that Youtube's engine prioritizes.
The selection you are choosing from is not determined by you and your desires, but by the profit calculations, machinations and restrictions of the capitalist class that owns these media.
That is how much in control you are.
Do you prefer it that way, or would you rather see it be changed?
Of course, they really do want free speech.
But I notice that they the most prone to objection to airing
opposing views. This is exhibited on RF by the strident
objection to criticizing any Democrat. The omnipresent
chorus of "False equivalence!", "Whataboutism!", &
"Bothsideism!" appear intended to squelch criticism.
Their conservative counterparts rarely do that....even when
lefties are committing the very sins they decry in others.
And of course, not all lefties do this.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Please be more specific.
Which person who is widely considered to the left of American centrist politics did you hear or read saying that they wanted "safe spaces and participation trophies for losing"?
Please support your claim with sourced quotes, if possible.
Yerda
Veteran Member
How we get from a few college students moaning about a professor to "the left hates free speech"?
I don't think it was just that.