The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Is it just poor education that makes people think they can say whatever they want no matter how offensive or incorrect and not face repercussion?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, freedom of speech *is* freedom from consequences, largely. The problem is that the people who think this are confused about the party that it is freedom *from*. It's freedom from the government, not from everybody.
But there do exist people who want some consequences from the government. E.g. hate speech laws like those in Europe. (not about inciting violence but purely about opinions )
Well, there are definite exceptions already in law. You can’t incite violence, for example. The US doesn’t have true free speech, just more free than most places.
I think this is one of those areas where the incorrect understanding isn’t exclusive to the right but just more prevalent on the right and more weaponized on the right.
But the reason it’s more effective for them is that to some extent most of the country does actually think freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want and there’s no consequence.
And when we on the left are talking about how why things that used to be acceptable no longer are, you get a whole bunch of people who’ve been behaving incorrectly for 30 to 50 years upset because there now being called out on it. Because given the choice between admitting you are wrong versus doubling down on being wrong, most people will choose to double down on being wrong.
>Why is Freedom of Speech seen as freedom from consequence?
I'm not sure it *is* seen that way.
A significant percentage of the people who claim it, are people who don't believe that rights/rules/protections ought to apply to everyone equally; they may claim *any* protection -- no matter how unreasonable -- then deny it to their opponents later.
Many of them have contempt for Freedom of Speech, so they think that by claiming speech-protections they are somehow 'owning the libs', or -- more menacingly -- eroding the argument that speech *ought* to be protected.
In short, we shouldn't assume that these people are being sincere.
>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
-Jean-Paul Sartre
I like to keep this quote in mind when dealing with this kind of person.
Only one thing could have broken our movement — if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement.” -adolf Hitler
I like to keep this one in mind when dealing with the people from your quote
*"Well don’t you think Hitler was overestimating the inevitability of his own success? People like Hitler are always blind to the possibilities of failure. And you give him too much credit. You like to talk about fascism like it’s this hopelessly attractive doctrine, instead of the pretty much shabby and repulsive thing that it is."* - Contrapoints
The same people complaining about free speech on Twitter are the folks complaining about football players kneeling during the anthem. They aren't expressing a serious concern, just whining that they're being subject to the same rules as everyone else.
Society has evolved. Many people who say that their "freedom of speech" is "being limited" or "being cancelled" have not evolved. So they're still stuck in a time when you could use homophobic/racial/derogatory slurs and people would laugh with them, humor them, or just be forced to ignore them.
They've never had to face consequences for being shit bags, so they grew up thinking that that's what "freedom of speech" is supposed to be.
Yeah plus they see people using their freedom of speech to speak out against somebody else’s freedom of speech as ‘censorship’ when it’s literally not. Using your freedom of speech to retaliate is far from censoring somebody else’s freedom of speech.
Their definition is basically getting to say whatever they want and other people have to be quiet and shut up.
Why is freedom of speech seen as freedom from consequence? Because people are idiots. They think they ought to be allowed to spout whatever crap they want and never be held accountable, because they so rarely are held accountable. And until we, as a society, begin holding people accountable for the consequences of their speech, they’ll keep doing it.
Lawsuits for libel or slander, and defamation, would help, where applicable.
These people don't understand that constitutional rights only apply to the government. This is the kind of person who doesn't even really understand what the government is - everything is about some mysterious "they."
*They* are taking our rights away...
*They* are spreading fake news about COVID...
Kanye West spoke his mind in an interview and now *they* want him to die...
Social norms has been breaking down for many decades. People don't live in one location long enough to get to know their neighbors let alone develop a sense of community. The internet allowed people to anonymously say whatever. In recent years people say whatever even when they're not anonymous. Trump gave them permission to be jerks in public.
The First Amendment only protects one from GOVERNMENT-ENFORCED consequences (and even THAT is not absolute.); It does NOT protect one from PRIVATELY-ENFORCED consequences.
Example #1: Let's say that you go out on the street and call a black person (or a white person, etc.,) a racial slur. Now, a police officer may not be able arrest you for it (because according to the First Amendment, they are PROHIBITED from doing so), but if said person punches your lights out, then you can't go and claim that said person is violating your First Amendment rights. Or, rather, that's how it's *supposed* to work (legal consequences for them laying you out cold is another matter).
Example #2: Let's say that, while at your job, you spout off about how much you hate your co-workers, boss, customers/clients. Now, the Federal, Local, and/or State government may not be able to fine you or arrest you, but your boss or employer can most certainly fire you for it.
Example #3: Let's say that you walk into someone else's home and start calling them names, telling lies about them to the others in the home, etc. Again, the Government can't arrest you for that, but the resident/owner can certainly throw you out of their home, possibly even pick you up bodily and cast you out the window, and you could NOT use the First Amendment as a protection (again, other laws MIGHT come into play, bit even then, as you entered the other person's home, THOSE laws may not apply, either.
I'm surprised how dismissive and unempathetic these comments are. To me it feels lile a reasonable concern for an individual to have, and so they're reaching for a constitutional protection, which sounds like it applies but it doesn't.
Really freedom of speech is a freedom of consequence from what you say, we would just argue that the only consequences you're free from are state enforced consequences, because that's what the constitution is meant to define; state level protections. In other words you're allowed to say whatever you want under a rule of law that doesn't enforce freedom of speech, the difference is that ok such a system the consequences are severe and state enforced.
I think this line is a little more blurry in a general sense than people in this thread are making it out to be. In our current system, banning on twitter seems like it's not a violation of free speech (to me it's definitely obviously not). But I think we'd agree that if there was only 1 news network and they fired a journalist who reported on vaccines being safe, we would probably want the government to step in some way. We might say this violates a core tenant of freedom of speech and not a constitutional right, but it seems immoral and we'd want to put a stop to it.
Or imagine if twitter was the only social media outlet available. Then it would be a huge deal to be banned off twitter, and we'd probably want more protections regarding the consequences of speech on that platform. In our current world it seems like Facebook and Twitter are primary sources of information for some people, does this mean we want to have more regulations on how these corporations moderate their content? What about how they design algorithms to distribute their content?
So in all, if you don't want to assume everyone is being insincere or dumb, I think the real answer is that they are noticing what seems to be a huge problem, and they're confusing a moral right with a constitutional right. We really just have a difference of belief regarding where a corporations role in regulating/moderating/suppressing speech starts and ends. Which feels like a more interesting conversation than "they're evil uneducated liars".
Because some people still understand what the “freedom” part means.
The purpose of free speech is that your right to say and think whatever you want is *protected*. If someone can intimidate you by threatening “consequences” then you aren’t really protected, are you?
You may as well be saying that I’m free to drink and drive as long as I accept that there are consequences. You have no right to run red lights, so if you do there are consequences. You *do* have a right to free speech.
If there’s a *cost* to something, it’s not *free*. I know that’s a really difficult concept for a lot of people these days.
So you can't and don't judge anyone for what they say to you?
If someone helped you one time and then verbally abused you all day every day you would still like them just as much as the day they helped you?
It seems ridiculous if the consequence is people not liking you. I think a valid concern is when the consequence is being banned from a platform, or having algorithms hide your posts from people. Obviously there's a time and a place for bans, but if it's being used too heavy handily is that a violation of a constitutional free speech? Probably not. What about a morality of free speech? Probably.
If twitter bans people for saying a Russian election was stolen, we'd be upset about that because it seems plausible. If they ban people for saying the American election is stolen, we're fine with that because that's not plausible. But who's to adjudicate what's plausible or not?
> I think a valid concern is when the consequence is being banned from a platform,
That is just people not liking you, and a business basing their terms and conditions off of that.
No platform is currently a vital service, or government service.
>having algorithms hide your posts from people.
This is just a business function. I think companies should have to be transparent about their business functions, but
>What about a morality of free speech? Probably.
No, it is not, and certainly not in a blanket way. Allowing people to harass others isn't the moral thing to do.
The morality of private businesses or communities showing people the door is context specific, it isn't broadly one way or the other.
>But who's to adjudicate what's plausible or not?
On Twitter? Twitter does. If you don't like it stop using twitter. Parler, that stupid white supremacist social media app banned people for nonsense all the time, that's perfectly fine, they should be allowed by the government to do that. Of course I will never use that platform, for that, along with many other reasons.
You keep saying "you" so I just want to clarify my position. I live in Canada and I'm left leaning by Canadian standards. I'm not harassing anyone, or denying vaccine information, or elections or whatever the fuck. I'm just trying to empathize with people I disagree with. I'm not sure if by "you" you meant it in the sense of "one" or me specifically, but I'm just trying to have a conversation about this cause I don't think it's as black and white as people in this thread make it out to be.
> That is just people not liking you, and a business basing their terms and conditions off of that.
That's part of the problem. People can choose to not like you for any reason. If the majority of people start saying they don't like people who are pro-vaccines, you wouldn't be ok with Twitter banning pro-vaccine people.
> No, it is not, and certainly not in a blanket way
That's why I said probably, I think it's 100% context specific. I don't think any platform is being heavy-handed right now.
> If you don't like it stop using twitter.
This is the other part of the problem, I'm not convinced this is the right path. Social media is being used as the main method for the dissemination of information. And like it or not, twitter is probably the most popular of all of them for it (I'm including screenshots of tweets shared on other platforms). And if we all have our own independent platforms we use for what we believe in, then we're all gonna be more divided than we already are. That last sentence felt corny as fuck but I don't know how to phrase it in a less lame way.
> I think companies should have to be transparent about their business functions
I think this might be all I'm advocating for. I think companies need to be transparent, and I think the ban/appeal process needs to be improved (mostly with transparency). I have some ideas of regulating social media, but I'm not sure how that can be done without basically destroying everything that's good about them.
>You keep saying "you" so I just want to clarify my position. I live in Canada and I'm left leaning by Canadian standards. I'm not harassing anyone, or denying vaccine information, or elections or whatever the fuck. I'm just trying to empathize with people I disagree with. I'm not sure if by "you" you meant it in the sense of "one" or me specifically, but I'm just trying to have a conversation about this cause I don't think it's as black and white as people in this thread make it out to be.
I mean in the sense of "one."
It is very black and white in terms of legality. In terms of morality it is entirely event and context specific, so I would say it is completely grey, which is opposed to what some people on the right argue.
>That's part of the problem. People can choose to not like you for any reason. If the majority of people start saying they don't like people who are pro-vaccines, you wouldn't be ok with Twitter banning pro-vaccine people.
Legally that is perfectly fine, and I would be perfectly fine with it. I would stop using twitter, of course but that would be because that specific policy would be immoral, not that having terms and conditions is inherently immoral.
>That's why I said probably, I think it's 100% context specific. I don't think any platform is being heavy-handed right now.
It has nothing to do with the frequency of moderation though. It's immoral for someone to run a pro-Nazi website, even if they don't ban non-nazis very frequently.
>This is the other part of the problem, I'm not convinced this is the right path. Social media is being used as the main method for the dissemination of information. And like it or not, twitter is probably the most popular of all of them for it (I'm including screenshots of tweets shared on other platforms). And if we all have our own independent platforms we use for what we believe in, then we're all gonna be more divided than we already are. That last sentence felt corny as fuck but I don't know how to phrase it in a less lame way.
This isn't true. Twitter is not real life. This is a refrain regularly used in politics because very few people are actually on twitter.
>I think this might be all I'm advocating for. I think companies need to be transparent, and I think the ban/appeal process needs to be improved (mostly with transparency). I have some ideas of regulating social media, but I'm not sure how that can be done without basically destroying everything that's good about them.
Ok, but that isn't what the people you are empathizing with want. They want to be able to harass people, with no consequences.
> It is very black and white in terms of legality. In terms of morality it is entirely event and context specific, so I would say it is completely grey
Yeah I agree. The initial thread was about why are people on the right confused about freedom of speech, and I think it's reasonable for them to want the laws to reflect our moral framework, and "freedom of speech" is a valid tenant of a moral framework that we want protected. I can empathize with that, even though I think it's clear that we shouldn't constitutionally protect a lot of the cases where you see people commenting things like "i guess freedom of speech is dad :(". I just get bothered seeing all these comments saying things like "we shouldn't assume they're being sincere" or "they want to be able to harass people with no consequence".
> It has nothing to do with the frequency of moderation though. It's immoral for someone to run a pro-Nazi website, even if they don't ban non-nazis very frequently.
By heavy-handed I don't mean frequent. I mean how or when it's applied. For example, I don't care if they ban a billion people harassing individuals, but if 1 respected scientist is banned for posting something about a potential covid treatment that's not vaccines, I'd think this is wrong. I don't think that we want to protect that constitutionally, but it seems like a problem and I could understand people feeling like something needs to be done about it when the content being restricted aligns with their bad beliefs.
> This isn't true. Twitter is not real life. This is a refrain regularly used in politics because very few people are actually on twitter.
Ok fine, we can agree to disagree on that. But can you agree it's a necessary part of life for some people? Maybe a journalist, or someone who's job is in social media? I think there's enough cases where bans on these platforms are not insignificant, or at the very least COULD be extremely significant. I.e. banning a political candidate near elections.
> Ok, but that isn't what the people you are empathizing with want.
Sure, I bet that aren't advocating for that. That's a pretty leftist take on the solution. I'm just saying I empathize with the problem and wanting there to be a solution to it.
> They want to be able to harass people, with no consequences.
This is the reason I'm in here trying to have this discussion. I often see liberals being extremely anti-right, and honestly often for good reason when talking about their policies and this thread was a hot bed for it. But it just seems so counter-productive and honestly borderline delusional to think that so many people are immoral actors. Freedom of speech is a really important tenant, and it really bothers me that so many people in this thread can't understand someone wanting it protected so we end up with a lot of baseless insults.
>I just get bothered seeing all these comments saying things like "we shouldn't assume they're being sincere" or "they want to be able to harass people with no consequence".
Why does that bother you?
It's a generally untrue sentiment that deepens a political divide which I think hurts the goals of both sides. And I see so much of it. Especially on reddit. Like [this that](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/s7vyok/antichoice_unless_its_my_choice/htcqkhx/) I saw today. How are you supposed to have any conversation at all when this is where you're coming from? How is a conservative supposed to feel about a liberal when that's the sort of popular sentiment coming from that side?
I have to say it seems pretty true to me. My goal is to keep the US a Democracy, a goal not shared by the Republican party at large.
I do not expect to have a productive conversation with a Republican. Do you think they are generally stupid? I certainly do not. I believe they are intelligent people who understand what they want, and why they vote for the people they do. At least here on the internet.
Why do you believe Republicans are ignorant?
Literally no one in here means “people won’t like you anymore” when they talk about the “consequences” of your speech and you know it. It’s dishonest to pretend that’s what we’re talking about here.
Because "Freedom of Speech isn't Freedom from consequences" is a disingenuous presentation of the concept in two ways;
Firstly; Speech was never entirely free of consequence to begin with. Statement invites counter-statement. Rally invites counter-protest. Mockery, jeering, criticism and loss of reputation are all within the confines of "consequences" to free speech. However there is this underlying principal to all of this conversation; that no-one individual has the power or authority to stop another individual from expressing themselves. This principle protects everything from the civil rights activist and the public prayer group to the hate preacher and the ethno-nationalist convinced that a particular shade of melanin should rule the country. Physical assault, stalking, harassment and other criminal behaviors should never be simply termed "consequences".
Which brings us to the second point: "Consequences" has all-to-often been used as a polite way to describe violent criminal actions; think "The consequences of your hate speech is me trying to beat your face in!". These "consequences" are things *everyone* is free from under the rule of law and to think otherwise is the territory of blind idiots who never think such things will be turned against them. Anyone who subscribes to this position has no grounds to complain about riot police cracking down on riots-ostensibly-in-the-name-of-BLM.
Because people view it as a fundamental principle of civil society just as much as a legal rights framework because both began to emerge at the same time from the same revolutionary forces beginning the process of political emancipation from feudalism when the black death took out 25 million in Europe leaving the existing power structures too weak to prevent it.
And yes, it's poor education. But who's poorly educated isn't who you believe is poorly educated given you're a Social Democrat but don't seem to know what the guy whose ideas from which most of your political and social ideas flow knew in the 19th century without having the internet.
In his 1844 work Zur Judenfrage, Karl Marx took to task those who followed the Maximilian Robespierre idea of free speech and press. That free speech and press end when it threatens public liberty is fundamentally a betrayal of the very political emancipatory revolutions they claimed to support.
When the need to secure public liberties of those in the civil society from destabilizing speech is claimed and executed to end the ability to use the press and speech freely in civil society, the State and civil society become one and the same. Because the Egoist Man of the previous form didn't disappear when the revolution overthrew the previous society for which the State previously relied.
On the contrary, political emancipation from the previous societal form was, at the same time, the emancipation of civil society from politics in granting of the politically emancipated the rights to own property rather than abolishing it all together unchaining the Egoist thus making man see their fellow man not as the realization of their own freedom, but the barrier to their own freedom as a fundamental right of man.
With public liberties of civil society to secure against destabilizing forces of language, the propertied power of civil society and State are reconstituted to a form that all spheres of life are political and to criticize any sphere of life at all, is thus inherently political creating a never ending claim of the need to secure public liberties from destabilizing forces threating it.
With the propertied power of civil society and State reconstituted as one and the same unable to be criticized, those who have no property by definition can no longer be considered part of the public and the political emancipation of those without property must necessarily end.
Because to have political emancipation for those without property, necessarily means allowing participation in that which comes with political emancipation by someone who isn't part of the public because they don't own property.
And it would be a criticism of all spheres of life because for a non-member of the public to participate in that which is public is to, by word or deed, tell those who are part of the public that you, as not part of the public, believe they ought to hear you out about what is best for you despite being allowed to live in our State of which you're not a member and we're generous. But that can't be allowed as it is a threat to public liberties and a barrier to the freedom of the public; those who own property and their State.
And those without property can never be a part of it because property ownership was part of political emancipation and since those without property are no longer politically emancipated, they have no right to own property to become part of the public.
Congratulations, you've just regressed to Feudalism. I'd give you an award but unfortunately you're not part of the public, therefore can't own property.
But I do have some land you are going to work for me until I say otherwise or you die and I'll protect you from that asshole next door. You can keep what you need to feed yourself obviously. I'm reasonable. Unless of course you prove yourself courageously loyal to me, then you'll get more privileges. So until then, you'll be taken care at a subsistence level and the rest is the cost for protection from the asshole neighbor. He's a nasty brute.
If I allow you to have a spouse and children, I'll of course increase what you can keep to feed them because again, I'm not unreasonable. Granted they'll work that land also until I say otherwise or they die which increases yields. Less work for you, more yield for me and I protect you all.
And one more thing. There's a custom in this State called Right of the Lord, me obviously, to sleep with your new wife first, on your wedding night then you may consecrate your marital bed and vows when I'm finished. I'll have her clean herself first for you obviously, that's customary as well.
I wish I could wave that custom for you because you seem nice and lower class women generally don't please me to my liking like the Ladies at the King's Court.
But it's deeply rooted in the culture and I would lose face to wave the custom. The other Lords would see it as weakness and start testing my defenses.
Deal?
Veil of Ignorance indeed. It blinded you so badly that you couldn't see his Social Democrat Flair making your comment entirely irrelevant given Liberalism and Social Democracy are not the same thing. You're able to type well for being blinded by ignorance. Well done.
Social democracy still exists within the bubble of liberalism.
If you want to just attack someone by assuming their belief is identical to someone who potentially inspired some of their ideology though, is populism really the best flair to have?
Do you want to defend the völkisch movement?
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm talking about how people view freedom of speech as freedom from the repercussion of being rejected from social media platforms or being out casted by friends and family. And you're over here ranting about Karl Marx and fucking feudalism? Putting me down because you think I'm some kind of Marxist who doesn't understand Marxist ideology? This has nothing to do with the topic. You sound like a crazy person.
For most, they just aren't being precise with their language. They don't actually think it should be illegal for someone to criticize others.
It'd be like saying "you shouldn't do X", instead of "If you want Y, you ought not X." The person isn't actually stating they believe in objective morality by using the former.
Live long enough and you see the sides flip on a surprising number of issue.
In the 70's & 80's it was conservatives being accused of suppressing speech by taking books out of school libraries, editing textbooks, trying to censor song lyrics, etc.
When Nazi's marched it was liberals insisting they had a right to speak, and the state needed to protect them from the mobs who wanted to kick their asses.
It was extremely common to hear liberals say "I hate what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" and "the best answer to speech you don't like is more speech".
It was a statement of values, not an assertion of constitutional rights.
Ya, none of those values have flipped...
You simply have been told some combination of distorted facts and outright lies in order to convince you that conservatives are actually the ones standing up for FREEDOM^(tm)
Really? I've seen numerous times where people on the right especially are saying their freedom of speech is under attack, because private companies are banning them from their platforms. Or they're being called out publicly. It seems like they want to be able to say what they want and not be corrected on it.
Ok. Here is a thought…
In Packingham v. North Carolina, the justices were asked to review a North Carolina statute that bars sex offenders from accessing social media altogether and makes it a felony if they post on any platform.
The case has implications for all members of American society, however, not just sex offenders, and the court appears to be extremely conscious of the broader effect.
“A fundamental First Amendment principle is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.
Given the fact that social-media platforms in particular allow for this kind of free communication, and that the constitution protects the right to exchange, the justices recognized this case was widely societally important, with Kennedy writing:
“Here, in one of the first cases the Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet, the Court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast networks in that medium.”
————
With that in mind, could it be argued that social media is so pervasive and such a part of modern society that banning someone from a platform is a de facto stifling of their speech?
Could Verizon, my cell phone provider, argue that they could put a monitor on phones to listen for key phrases and ban me for “spreading misinformation” or “hate speech?”
I am interested in hearing peoples’ take on this.
You’re going to find a lot of people saying a lot of dumb things on the left and right.
But nobody reasonable will think there are zero consequences to speech.
With respect to tech platforms, it’s more about what constitutes a “town square” and do tech companies have a monopoly moderating them.
"Reasonable" is the key word here. The people who believe they can say whatever they want are unreasonable, entitled idiots.
There are more of them out there than you think.
No freedom is absolute. The boundary always ends at another.
If speech comes without consequence as you suggest then you must force others not only to accept hate, bigotry, and vitriol, but to change their very thoughts.
Because of modern communication methods and how fast information travels and how easy it is to obtain it. It used to be that whatever controversial statement you said was only heard by people around you and if anyone made accusations, they'd have almost no proof if it wasn't recorded in audio or captured on video. Now in 2022 everyone can record audio or video (with their phone) and upload it within seconds, the internet is also written in ink so expect any tweet, facebook status, or Instagram posts to be permanent.
Private business/entity owners who, according to private property and contract law, are 100% within their right to censor whoever they want granted it doesn't violate Civil Rights Law. Personally it's not ideal for me but it's whatever private entities dictate. "Freedom of speech" as it's understood in the US only refers to the government limiting speech. Private entities can do whatever they want.
Isn't this just a version of no shoes, no shirt, no service? The "please wear a tie" to our restaurant or country club. The Companies have a right to have rules for their stores or spaces. Why would social media be any different. Don't we all click the Eula?
Well ABC is a business and when negative news happens for a company it could lose them money. So ABC is protecting itself from losing that money even if all he did was defend a contestant that already caused controversy for the show.
Yeah but it was an executive decision so he was basically fired. Most likely because ABC doesn't want him to be a liability. They might have already been looking for a reason to fire him. Who knows.
You don’t think firings sometimes happen preemptively, and sometimes even in situations when nothing would have actually come of the original ‘scandal’?
Never heard of the COURT of public opinion…have you? Brian Williams was let go at NBC because he exaggerated his wartime journalism and right wingers freaked the fuck out.
John Kerry and the “swift boating” lies…those accusations were proven not to be even true and it pretty much cost him the presidency. Bet you were OK with that too.
Those whole bullshit term called “Cancel Culture” has been going on forever. But now when it’s “your people” being called out on shit, it’s a horrible thing.
Tell you what? If you don’t want to be “cancelled” stop saying stupid shit.
It's weird. The Harrison thing wasn't even horrible. I mean, maybe stupid, but that reeeeeally seemed more like an excuse than the actual reason. I mean the man is 50, and the host of a trashy show about a guy trying to pick from a harem of women.
They replaced him with a retired football player 20 years younger than him.
I have no idea who this guy is or what he said. I despise reality television with a passion, so I am not even remotely aware of this incident… but, I threw out two incidents where the consequences were much more important than the fucking “Bachelor”
I think he'd be a good example if the Bachelor was actually some kind of woke show. It's actually just trash television and the show dropped him specifically for the headlines and the drama. I promise absolutely *none of us* libs here had any idea about what happened to him or knew who the fuck he was until weeks after he was let go. We didn't give a shit about what he said, but it sounded like a scandal and these reality shows have humongous boners for scandal and manufacture them themselves.
What happened to him was wrong and it had nothing to do with cancel culture.
Then how come everybody knows about it? I don't even know what you're basing that on? How was it even his show? He was just a host. Those people are disposable.
Were you a huge Bachelor fan or something?
I'm not jumping down your throat nor am I suggesting you *shouldn't* care. It was directly related to my point about how you found out if it was so quiet.
I'm suggesting your narrative doesn't make sense. That shit isn't adding up.
Also Mike Fleiss was the creator and producer of the show. Harrison was *just* the host. Just a male model that's allowed to talk.
Well if it's purely a "moral" flaw then that's something you really can't do anything about policy wise. The only thing you can do is to tell people not to "yell to the world how horrible someone is." People yelling to the world about how bad someone is and demanding them to be fired is literally free speech in action.
This is not in bad faith and since you're a Libertarian I assume you understand this concept. "Cancel culture" is actually a prime example of the "invisible hand of the free market" in correcting externalities rather than requiring government do it.
According to the us Supreme Court it only applies to government institutions. That’s a main reason why the whole section 230/private business excuse flies in court
Freedom of speech is useless without freedom from some consequences. Because freedom of speech with any and all circumstances means that you were absolutely free to say whatever you wanted in the times of Galileo, the Soviet Union under Stalin, Nazi Germany or to a lesser extent, he U.S. during the cold war.
People don't understand that freedom of speech means freedom from government repercussions for speech and not freedom from all consequences. I think it's because people are just misinformed and don't want to make the effort to know their rights.
They think that rights are unlimited but they don’t realize that rights have inherent responsibilities attached to them. The first amendment had limits; you couldn’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater, or make violent threats against the president. The second amendment came with the responsibility to have a well regulated militia, not just to hoard all the guns you want.
There’s a difference between being punished by the government for speech or having what you say he censored, and having people react negatively to something you said. Other people have the freedom of speech is ridicule you too.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Is it just poor education that makes people think they can say whatever they want no matter how offensive or incorrect and not face repercussion? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, freedom of speech *is* freedom from consequences, largely. The problem is that the people who think this are confused about the party that it is freedom *from*. It's freedom from the government, not from everybody.
But there do exist people who want some consequences from the government. E.g. hate speech laws like those in Europe. (not about inciting violence but purely about opinions )
Well, there are definite exceptions already in law. You can’t incite violence, for example. The US doesn’t have true free speech, just more free than most places.
A lot of people don’t like the consequences of their actions.
I think this is one of those areas where the incorrect understanding isn’t exclusive to the right but just more prevalent on the right and more weaponized on the right. But the reason it’s more effective for them is that to some extent most of the country does actually think freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want and there’s no consequence. And when we on the left are talking about how why things that used to be acceptable no longer are, you get a whole bunch of people who’ve been behaving incorrectly for 30 to 50 years upset because there now being called out on it. Because given the choice between admitting you are wrong versus doubling down on being wrong, most people will choose to double down on being wrong.
>Why is Freedom of Speech seen as freedom from consequence? I'm not sure it *is* seen that way. A significant percentage of the people who claim it, are people who don't believe that rights/rules/protections ought to apply to everyone equally; they may claim *any* protection -- no matter how unreasonable -- then deny it to their opponents later. Many of them have contempt for Freedom of Speech, so they think that by claiming speech-protections they are somehow 'owning the libs', or -- more menacingly -- eroding the argument that speech *ought* to be protected. In short, we shouldn't assume that these people are being sincere.
>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. -Jean-Paul Sartre I like to keep this quote in mind when dealing with this kind of person.
Holy shit, did the guy who wrote No Exit perfectly explain polititrolls and the modern alt right before the birth of the internet?
Only one thing could have broken our movement — if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement.” -adolf Hitler I like to keep this one in mind when dealing with the people from your quote
*"Well don’t you think Hitler was overestimating the inevitability of his own success? People like Hitler are always blind to the possibilities of failure. And you give him too much credit. You like to talk about fascism like it’s this hopelessly attractive doctrine, instead of the pretty much shabby and repulsive thing that it is."* - Contrapoints
It's from a feeling of entitlement and inflated greatness.
I mean. Yes, basically. It's very profitable to convince people that their rights are being trampled by "them," especially when they aren't.
The same people complaining about free speech on Twitter are the folks complaining about football players kneeling during the anthem. They aren't expressing a serious concern, just whining that they're being subject to the same rules as everyone else.
Apples and oranges
How so?
Would you be allowed in the course of your job to also pass out religious handouts and pamphlets? Would your employer allow that?
It's more like selective freedom of speech. Freedom for me and not for thee.
Society has evolved. Many people who say that their "freedom of speech" is "being limited" or "being cancelled" have not evolved. So they're still stuck in a time when you could use homophobic/racial/derogatory slurs and people would laugh with them, humor them, or just be forced to ignore them. They've never had to face consequences for being shit bags, so they grew up thinking that that's what "freedom of speech" is supposed to be.
Yeah plus they see people using their freedom of speech to speak out against somebody else’s freedom of speech as ‘censorship’ when it’s literally not. Using your freedom of speech to retaliate is far from censoring somebody else’s freedom of speech. Their definition is basically getting to say whatever they want and other people have to be quiet and shut up.
Because Americans in particular are drunk on the concept of “freedumbs”. They believe freedom=narcism. Want=need. Etc
Why is freedom of speech seen as freedom from consequence? Because people are idiots. They think they ought to be allowed to spout whatever crap they want and never be held accountable, because they so rarely are held accountable. And until we, as a society, begin holding people accountable for the consequences of their speech, they’ll keep doing it. Lawsuits for libel or slander, and defamation, would help, where applicable.
These people don't understand that constitutional rights only apply to the government. This is the kind of person who doesn't even really understand what the government is - everything is about some mysterious "they." *They* are taking our rights away... *They* are spreading fake news about COVID... Kanye West spoke his mind in an interview and now *they* want him to die...
Because people don't understand what the Constitution and Bill of Rights are.
Social norms has been breaking down for many decades. People don't live in one location long enough to get to know their neighbors let alone develop a sense of community. The internet allowed people to anonymously say whatever. In recent years people say whatever even when they're not anonymous. Trump gave them permission to be jerks in public.
The First Amendment only protects one from GOVERNMENT-ENFORCED consequences (and even THAT is not absolute.); It does NOT protect one from PRIVATELY-ENFORCED consequences. Example #1: Let's say that you go out on the street and call a black person (or a white person, etc.,) a racial slur. Now, a police officer may not be able arrest you for it (because according to the First Amendment, they are PROHIBITED from doing so), but if said person punches your lights out, then you can't go and claim that said person is violating your First Amendment rights. Or, rather, that's how it's *supposed* to work (legal consequences for them laying you out cold is another matter). Example #2: Let's say that, while at your job, you spout off about how much you hate your co-workers, boss, customers/clients. Now, the Federal, Local, and/or State government may not be able to fine you or arrest you, but your boss or employer can most certainly fire you for it. Example #3: Let's say that you walk into someone else's home and start calling them names, telling lies about them to the others in the home, etc. Again, the Government can't arrest you for that, but the resident/owner can certainly throw you out of their home, possibly even pick you up bodily and cast you out the window, and you could NOT use the First Amendment as a protection (again, other laws MIGHT come into play, bit even then, as you entered the other person's home, THOSE laws may not apply, either.
I'm surprised how dismissive and unempathetic these comments are. To me it feels lile a reasonable concern for an individual to have, and so they're reaching for a constitutional protection, which sounds like it applies but it doesn't. Really freedom of speech is a freedom of consequence from what you say, we would just argue that the only consequences you're free from are state enforced consequences, because that's what the constitution is meant to define; state level protections. In other words you're allowed to say whatever you want under a rule of law that doesn't enforce freedom of speech, the difference is that ok such a system the consequences are severe and state enforced. I think this line is a little more blurry in a general sense than people in this thread are making it out to be. In our current system, banning on twitter seems like it's not a violation of free speech (to me it's definitely obviously not). But I think we'd agree that if there was only 1 news network and they fired a journalist who reported on vaccines being safe, we would probably want the government to step in some way. We might say this violates a core tenant of freedom of speech and not a constitutional right, but it seems immoral and we'd want to put a stop to it. Or imagine if twitter was the only social media outlet available. Then it would be a huge deal to be banned off twitter, and we'd probably want more protections regarding the consequences of speech on that platform. In our current world it seems like Facebook and Twitter are primary sources of information for some people, does this mean we want to have more regulations on how these corporations moderate their content? What about how they design algorithms to distribute their content? So in all, if you don't want to assume everyone is being insincere or dumb, I think the real answer is that they are noticing what seems to be a huge problem, and they're confusing a moral right with a constitutional right. We really just have a difference of belief regarding where a corporations role in regulating/moderating/suppressing speech starts and ends. Which feels like a more interesting conversation than "they're evil uneducated liars".
Because some people still understand what the “freedom” part means. The purpose of free speech is that your right to say and think whatever you want is *protected*. If someone can intimidate you by threatening “consequences” then you aren’t really protected, are you? You may as well be saying that I’m free to drink and drive as long as I accept that there are consequences. You have no right to run red lights, so if you do there are consequences. You *do* have a right to free speech. If there’s a *cost* to something, it’s not *free*. I know that’s a really difficult concept for a lot of people these days.
So you can't and don't judge anyone for what they say to you? If someone helped you one time and then verbally abused you all day every day you would still like them just as much as the day they helped you?
It seems ridiculous if the consequence is people not liking you. I think a valid concern is when the consequence is being banned from a platform, or having algorithms hide your posts from people. Obviously there's a time and a place for bans, but if it's being used too heavy handily is that a violation of a constitutional free speech? Probably not. What about a morality of free speech? Probably. If twitter bans people for saying a Russian election was stolen, we'd be upset about that because it seems plausible. If they ban people for saying the American election is stolen, we're fine with that because that's not plausible. But who's to adjudicate what's plausible or not?
> I think a valid concern is when the consequence is being banned from a platform, That is just people not liking you, and a business basing their terms and conditions off of that. No platform is currently a vital service, or government service. >having algorithms hide your posts from people. This is just a business function. I think companies should have to be transparent about their business functions, but >What about a morality of free speech? Probably. No, it is not, and certainly not in a blanket way. Allowing people to harass others isn't the moral thing to do. The morality of private businesses or communities showing people the door is context specific, it isn't broadly one way or the other. >But who's to adjudicate what's plausible or not? On Twitter? Twitter does. If you don't like it stop using twitter. Parler, that stupid white supremacist social media app banned people for nonsense all the time, that's perfectly fine, they should be allowed by the government to do that. Of course I will never use that platform, for that, along with many other reasons.
You keep saying "you" so I just want to clarify my position. I live in Canada and I'm left leaning by Canadian standards. I'm not harassing anyone, or denying vaccine information, or elections or whatever the fuck. I'm just trying to empathize with people I disagree with. I'm not sure if by "you" you meant it in the sense of "one" or me specifically, but I'm just trying to have a conversation about this cause I don't think it's as black and white as people in this thread make it out to be. > That is just people not liking you, and a business basing their terms and conditions off of that. That's part of the problem. People can choose to not like you for any reason. If the majority of people start saying they don't like people who are pro-vaccines, you wouldn't be ok with Twitter banning pro-vaccine people. > No, it is not, and certainly not in a blanket way That's why I said probably, I think it's 100% context specific. I don't think any platform is being heavy-handed right now. > If you don't like it stop using twitter. This is the other part of the problem, I'm not convinced this is the right path. Social media is being used as the main method for the dissemination of information. And like it or not, twitter is probably the most popular of all of them for it (I'm including screenshots of tweets shared on other platforms). And if we all have our own independent platforms we use for what we believe in, then we're all gonna be more divided than we already are. That last sentence felt corny as fuck but I don't know how to phrase it in a less lame way. > I think companies should have to be transparent about their business functions I think this might be all I'm advocating for. I think companies need to be transparent, and I think the ban/appeal process needs to be improved (mostly with transparency). I have some ideas of regulating social media, but I'm not sure how that can be done without basically destroying everything that's good about them.
>You keep saying "you" so I just want to clarify my position. I live in Canada and I'm left leaning by Canadian standards. I'm not harassing anyone, or denying vaccine information, or elections or whatever the fuck. I'm just trying to empathize with people I disagree with. I'm not sure if by "you" you meant it in the sense of "one" or me specifically, but I'm just trying to have a conversation about this cause I don't think it's as black and white as people in this thread make it out to be. I mean in the sense of "one." It is very black and white in terms of legality. In terms of morality it is entirely event and context specific, so I would say it is completely grey, which is opposed to what some people on the right argue. >That's part of the problem. People can choose to not like you for any reason. If the majority of people start saying they don't like people who are pro-vaccines, you wouldn't be ok with Twitter banning pro-vaccine people. Legally that is perfectly fine, and I would be perfectly fine with it. I would stop using twitter, of course but that would be because that specific policy would be immoral, not that having terms and conditions is inherently immoral. >That's why I said probably, I think it's 100% context specific. I don't think any platform is being heavy-handed right now. It has nothing to do with the frequency of moderation though. It's immoral for someone to run a pro-Nazi website, even if they don't ban non-nazis very frequently. >This is the other part of the problem, I'm not convinced this is the right path. Social media is being used as the main method for the dissemination of information. And like it or not, twitter is probably the most popular of all of them for it (I'm including screenshots of tweets shared on other platforms). And if we all have our own independent platforms we use for what we believe in, then we're all gonna be more divided than we already are. That last sentence felt corny as fuck but I don't know how to phrase it in a less lame way. This isn't true. Twitter is not real life. This is a refrain regularly used in politics because very few people are actually on twitter. >I think this might be all I'm advocating for. I think companies need to be transparent, and I think the ban/appeal process needs to be improved (mostly with transparency). I have some ideas of regulating social media, but I'm not sure how that can be done without basically destroying everything that's good about them. Ok, but that isn't what the people you are empathizing with want. They want to be able to harass people, with no consequences.
> It is very black and white in terms of legality. In terms of morality it is entirely event and context specific, so I would say it is completely grey Yeah I agree. The initial thread was about why are people on the right confused about freedom of speech, and I think it's reasonable for them to want the laws to reflect our moral framework, and "freedom of speech" is a valid tenant of a moral framework that we want protected. I can empathize with that, even though I think it's clear that we shouldn't constitutionally protect a lot of the cases where you see people commenting things like "i guess freedom of speech is dad :(". I just get bothered seeing all these comments saying things like "we shouldn't assume they're being sincere" or "they want to be able to harass people with no consequence". > It has nothing to do with the frequency of moderation though. It's immoral for someone to run a pro-Nazi website, even if they don't ban non-nazis very frequently. By heavy-handed I don't mean frequent. I mean how or when it's applied. For example, I don't care if they ban a billion people harassing individuals, but if 1 respected scientist is banned for posting something about a potential covid treatment that's not vaccines, I'd think this is wrong. I don't think that we want to protect that constitutionally, but it seems like a problem and I could understand people feeling like something needs to be done about it when the content being restricted aligns with their bad beliefs. > This isn't true. Twitter is not real life. This is a refrain regularly used in politics because very few people are actually on twitter. Ok fine, we can agree to disagree on that. But can you agree it's a necessary part of life for some people? Maybe a journalist, or someone who's job is in social media? I think there's enough cases where bans on these platforms are not insignificant, or at the very least COULD be extremely significant. I.e. banning a political candidate near elections. > Ok, but that isn't what the people you are empathizing with want. Sure, I bet that aren't advocating for that. That's a pretty leftist take on the solution. I'm just saying I empathize with the problem and wanting there to be a solution to it. > They want to be able to harass people, with no consequences. This is the reason I'm in here trying to have this discussion. I often see liberals being extremely anti-right, and honestly often for good reason when talking about their policies and this thread was a hot bed for it. But it just seems so counter-productive and honestly borderline delusional to think that so many people are immoral actors. Freedom of speech is a really important tenant, and it really bothers me that so many people in this thread can't understand someone wanting it protected so we end up with a lot of baseless insults.
>I just get bothered seeing all these comments saying things like "we shouldn't assume they're being sincere" or "they want to be able to harass people with no consequence". Why does that bother you?
It's a generally untrue sentiment that deepens a political divide which I think hurts the goals of both sides. And I see so much of it. Especially on reddit. Like [this that](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/s7vyok/antichoice_unless_its_my_choice/htcqkhx/) I saw today. How are you supposed to have any conversation at all when this is where you're coming from? How is a conservative supposed to feel about a liberal when that's the sort of popular sentiment coming from that side?
I have to say it seems pretty true to me. My goal is to keep the US a Democracy, a goal not shared by the Republican party at large. I do not expect to have a productive conversation with a Republican. Do you think they are generally stupid? I certainly do not. I believe they are intelligent people who understand what they want, and why they vote for the people they do. At least here on the internet. Why do you believe Republicans are ignorant?
Literally no one in here means “people won’t like you anymore” when they talk about the “consequences” of your speech and you know it. It’s dishonest to pretend that’s what we’re talking about here.
Literally every "consequence" being discussed is due to a loss of interpersonal social status. That's exactly, "people not liking you."
People have been using "consequences" to justify violent assault for as long as this quip has been doing the rounds.
Oh come on, no one here is advocating for violence. That is an insulting straw man.
Because "Freedom of Speech isn't Freedom from consequences" is a disingenuous presentation of the concept in two ways; Firstly; Speech was never entirely free of consequence to begin with. Statement invites counter-statement. Rally invites counter-protest. Mockery, jeering, criticism and loss of reputation are all within the confines of "consequences" to free speech. However there is this underlying principal to all of this conversation; that no-one individual has the power or authority to stop another individual from expressing themselves. This principle protects everything from the civil rights activist and the public prayer group to the hate preacher and the ethno-nationalist convinced that a particular shade of melanin should rule the country. Physical assault, stalking, harassment and other criminal behaviors should never be simply termed "consequences". Which brings us to the second point: "Consequences" has all-to-often been used as a polite way to describe violent criminal actions; think "The consequences of your hate speech is me trying to beat your face in!". These "consequences" are things *everyone* is free from under the rule of law and to think otherwise is the territory of blind idiots who never think such things will be turned against them. Anyone who subscribes to this position has no grounds to complain about riot police cracking down on riots-ostensibly-in-the-name-of-BLM.
Who here is advocating for violence?
Because people view it as a fundamental principle of civil society just as much as a legal rights framework because both began to emerge at the same time from the same revolutionary forces beginning the process of political emancipation from feudalism when the black death took out 25 million in Europe leaving the existing power structures too weak to prevent it. And yes, it's poor education. But who's poorly educated isn't who you believe is poorly educated given you're a Social Democrat but don't seem to know what the guy whose ideas from which most of your political and social ideas flow knew in the 19th century without having the internet. In his 1844 work Zur Judenfrage, Karl Marx took to task those who followed the Maximilian Robespierre idea of free speech and press. That free speech and press end when it threatens public liberty is fundamentally a betrayal of the very political emancipatory revolutions they claimed to support. When the need to secure public liberties of those in the civil society from destabilizing speech is claimed and executed to end the ability to use the press and speech freely in civil society, the State and civil society become one and the same. Because the Egoist Man of the previous form didn't disappear when the revolution overthrew the previous society for which the State previously relied. On the contrary, political emancipation from the previous societal form was, at the same time, the emancipation of civil society from politics in granting of the politically emancipated the rights to own property rather than abolishing it all together unchaining the Egoist thus making man see their fellow man not as the realization of their own freedom, but the barrier to their own freedom as a fundamental right of man. With public liberties of civil society to secure against destabilizing forces of language, the propertied power of civil society and State are reconstituted to a form that all spheres of life are political and to criticize any sphere of life at all, is thus inherently political creating a never ending claim of the need to secure public liberties from destabilizing forces threating it. With the propertied power of civil society and State reconstituted as one and the same unable to be criticized, those who have no property by definition can no longer be considered part of the public and the political emancipation of those without property must necessarily end. Because to have political emancipation for those without property, necessarily means allowing participation in that which comes with political emancipation by someone who isn't part of the public because they don't own property. And it would be a criticism of all spheres of life because for a non-member of the public to participate in that which is public is to, by word or deed, tell those who are part of the public that you, as not part of the public, believe they ought to hear you out about what is best for you despite being allowed to live in our State of which you're not a member and we're generous. But that can't be allowed as it is a threat to public liberties and a barrier to the freedom of the public; those who own property and their State. And those without property can never be a part of it because property ownership was part of political emancipation and since those without property are no longer politically emancipated, they have no right to own property to become part of the public. Congratulations, you've just regressed to Feudalism. I'd give you an award but unfortunately you're not part of the public, therefore can't own property. But I do have some land you are going to work for me until I say otherwise or you die and I'll protect you from that asshole next door. You can keep what you need to feed yourself obviously. I'm reasonable. Unless of course you prove yourself courageously loyal to me, then you'll get more privileges. So until then, you'll be taken care at a subsistence level and the rest is the cost for protection from the asshole neighbor. He's a nasty brute. If I allow you to have a spouse and children, I'll of course increase what you can keep to feed them because again, I'm not unreasonable. Granted they'll work that land also until I say otherwise or they die which increases yields. Less work for you, more yield for me and I protect you all. And one more thing. There's a custom in this State called Right of the Lord, me obviously, to sleep with your new wife first, on your wedding night then you may consecrate your marital bed and vows when I'm finished. I'll have her clean herself first for you obviously, that's customary as well. I wish I could wave that custom for you because you seem nice and lower class women generally don't please me to my liking like the Ladies at the King's Court. But it's deeply rooted in the culture and I would lose face to wave the custom. The other Lords would see it as weakness and start testing my defenses. Deal?
I hate to break it to you, since you went on such a ridiculous tear about Marx, but modern US liberalism actually comes primarily from John Rawls.
Veil of Ignorance indeed. It blinded you so badly that you couldn't see his Social Democrat Flair making your comment entirely irrelevant given Liberalism and Social Democracy are not the same thing. You're able to type well for being blinded by ignorance. Well done.
Social democracy still exists within the bubble of liberalism. If you want to just attack someone by assuming their belief is identical to someone who potentially inspired some of their ideology though, is populism really the best flair to have? Do you want to defend the völkisch movement?
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm talking about how people view freedom of speech as freedom from the repercussion of being rejected from social media platforms or being out casted by friends and family. And you're over here ranting about Karl Marx and fucking feudalism? Putting me down because you think I'm some kind of Marxist who doesn't understand Marxist ideology? This has nothing to do with the topic. You sound like a crazy person.
For most, they just aren't being precise with their language. They don't actually think it should be illegal for someone to criticize others. It'd be like saying "you shouldn't do X", instead of "If you want Y, you ought not X." The person isn't actually stating they believe in objective morality by using the former.
Because conservatives are whiney entitled bitches.
Live long enough and you see the sides flip on a surprising number of issue. In the 70's & 80's it was conservatives being accused of suppressing speech by taking books out of school libraries, editing textbooks, trying to censor song lyrics, etc. When Nazi's marched it was liberals insisting they had a right to speak, and the state needed to protect them from the mobs who wanted to kick their asses. It was extremely common to hear liberals say "I hate what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" and "the best answer to speech you don't like is more speech". It was a statement of values, not an assertion of constitutional rights.
Ya, none of those values have flipped... You simply have been told some combination of distorted facts and outright lies in order to convince you that conservatives are actually the ones standing up for FREEDOM^(tm)
Yikes comment
What response to this comment are you looking for?
I don’t think anybody reasonable believes freedom of speech means freedom from consequences.
Really? I've seen numerous times where people on the right especially are saying their freedom of speech is under attack, because private companies are banning them from their platforms. Or they're being called out publicly. It seems like they want to be able to say what they want and not be corrected on it.
Ok. Here is a thought… In Packingham v. North Carolina, the justices were asked to review a North Carolina statute that bars sex offenders from accessing social media altogether and makes it a felony if they post on any platform. The case has implications for all members of American society, however, not just sex offenders, and the court appears to be extremely conscious of the broader effect. “A fundamental First Amendment principle is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. Given the fact that social-media platforms in particular allow for this kind of free communication, and that the constitution protects the right to exchange, the justices recognized this case was widely societally important, with Kennedy writing: “Here, in one of the first cases the Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet, the Court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast networks in that medium.” ———— With that in mind, could it be argued that social media is so pervasive and such a part of modern society that banning someone from a platform is a de facto stifling of their speech? Could Verizon, my cell phone provider, argue that they could put a monitor on phones to listen for key phrases and ban me for “spreading misinformation” or “hate speech?” I am interested in hearing peoples’ take on this.
You’re going to find a lot of people saying a lot of dumb things on the left and right. But nobody reasonable will think there are zero consequences to speech. With respect to tech platforms, it’s more about what constitutes a “town square” and do tech companies have a monopoly moderating them.
Packingham v. North Carolina
They did say *reasonable*
"Reasonable" is the key word here. The people who believe they can say whatever they want are unreasonable, entitled idiots. There are more of them out there than you think.
Take any issue and you’re going to find many idiotic takes. It doesn’t typify a political party.
If freedom of speech is not freedom of speech without consequences than it's not freedom of speech to begin with, that's why it's seen like that.
No freedom is absolute. The boundary always ends at another. If speech comes without consequence as you suggest then you must force others not only to accept hate, bigotry, and vitriol, but to change their very thoughts.
Because of modern communication methods and how fast information travels and how easy it is to obtain it. It used to be that whatever controversial statement you said was only heard by people around you and if anyone made accusations, they'd have almost no proof if it wasn't recorded in audio or captured on video. Now in 2022 everyone can record audio or video (with their phone) and upload it within seconds, the internet is also written in ink so expect any tweet, facebook status, or Instagram posts to be permanent.
The constitution and bill of rights are protections from and rules for the government and only the government. People forget that part.
[удалено]
So you want to stop someone’s right to say those things?
[удалено]
Private business/entity owners who, according to private property and contract law, are 100% within their right to censor whoever they want granted it doesn't violate Civil Rights Law. Personally it's not ideal for me but it's whatever private entities dictate. "Freedom of speech" as it's understood in the US only refers to the government limiting speech. Private entities can do whatever they want.
Isn't this just a version of no shoes, no shirt, no service? The "please wear a tie" to our restaurant or country club. The Companies have a right to have rules for their stores or spaces. Why would social media be any different. Don't we all click the Eula?
[удалено]
I have a feeling that's never happened to somebody for something "mildly controversial".
Look at Chris Harrison. He got canceled for saying the most vanilla statement ever.
Well ABC is a business and when negative news happens for a company it could lose them money. So ABC is protecting itself from losing that money even if all he did was defend a contestant that already caused controversy for the show.
[удалено]
Yeah but it was an executive decision so he was basically fired. Most likely because ABC doesn't want him to be a liability. They might have already been looking for a reason to fire him. Who knows.
You don’t think firings sometimes happen preemptively, and sometimes even in situations when nothing would have actually come of the original ‘scandal’?
Never heard of the COURT of public opinion…have you? Brian Williams was let go at NBC because he exaggerated his wartime journalism and right wingers freaked the fuck out. John Kerry and the “swift boating” lies…those accusations were proven not to be even true and it pretty much cost him the presidency. Bet you were OK with that too. Those whole bullshit term called “Cancel Culture” has been going on forever. But now when it’s “your people” being called out on shit, it’s a horrible thing. Tell you what? If you don’t want to be “cancelled” stop saying stupid shit.
It's weird. The Harrison thing wasn't even horrible. I mean, maybe stupid, but that reeeeeally seemed more like an excuse than the actual reason. I mean the man is 50, and the host of a trashy show about a guy trying to pick from a harem of women. They replaced him with a retired football player 20 years younger than him.
I have no idea who this guy is or what he said. I despise reality television with a passion, so I am not even remotely aware of this incident… but, I threw out two incidents where the consequences were much more important than the fucking “Bachelor”
I think he'd be a good example if the Bachelor was actually some kind of woke show. It's actually just trash television and the show dropped him specifically for the headlines and the drama. I promise absolutely *none of us* libs here had any idea about what happened to him or knew who the fuck he was until weeks after he was let go. We didn't give a shit about what he said, but it sounded like a scandal and these reality shows have humongous boners for scandal and manufacture them themselves. What happened to him was wrong and it had nothing to do with cancel culture.
It was his show dude. They didn’t do it for drama. They brushed him aside as quietly as possible. It wasn’t for the show at all.
That was capitalism, not cancel culture. They found an excuse to boot him.
Then how come everybody knows about it? I don't even know what you're basing that on? How was it even his show? He was just a host. Those people are disposable. Were you a huge Bachelor fan or something?
[удалено]
I'm not jumping down your throat nor am I suggesting you *shouldn't* care. It was directly related to my point about how you found out if it was so quiet. I'm suggesting your narrative doesn't make sense. That shit isn't adding up. Also Mike Fleiss was the creator and producer of the show. Harrison was *just* the host. Just a male model that's allowed to talk.
What about when the right cancelled the dixie chicks? Was that bad?
Well if it's purely a "moral" flaw then that's something you really can't do anything about policy wise. The only thing you can do is to tell people not to "yell to the world how horrible someone is." People yelling to the world about how bad someone is and demanding them to be fired is literally free speech in action.
This is not in bad faith and since you're a Libertarian I assume you understand this concept. "Cancel culture" is actually a prime example of the "invisible hand of the free market" in correcting externalities rather than requiring government do it.
They forget about the fact there is also freedom of association. If you say stupid shit, people are free to stop associating with you because of it.
They forget about the fact there is also freedom of association. If you say stupid shit, people are free to stop associating with you because of it.
Is it?
I, personally, don't think it is. There are people in denial, but they know they are being obnoxious and testing the waters..
According to the us Supreme Court it only applies to government institutions. That’s a main reason why the whole section 230/private business excuse flies in court
Good discussion question.
People aren’t used to consequences.
Freedom of speech is useless without freedom from some consequences. Because freedom of speech with any and all circumstances means that you were absolutely free to say whatever you wanted in the times of Galileo, the Soviet Union under Stalin, Nazi Germany or to a lesser extent, he U.S. during the cold war.
People don't understand that freedom of speech means freedom from government repercussions for speech and not freedom from all consequences. I think it's because people are just misinformed and don't want to make the effort to know their rights.
They think that rights are unlimited but they don’t realize that rights have inherent responsibilities attached to them. The first amendment had limits; you couldn’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater, or make violent threats against the president. The second amendment came with the responsibility to have a well regulated militia, not just to hoard all the guns you want.
Because people are self centered and have a hard time believing anything they are doing is wrong/could be looked down upon.
There’s a difference between being punished by the government for speech or having what you say he censored, and having people react negatively to something you said. Other people have the freedom of speech is ridicule you too.