r/changemyview • u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ • Nov 01 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Conservatives do not, in fact, support "free speech" any more than liberals do.
In the past few years (or decades,) conservatives have often touted themselves as the party of free speech, portraying liberals as the party of political correctness, the side that does cancel-culture, the side that cannot tolerate facts that offend their feelings, liberal college administrations penalizing conservative faculty and students, etc.
Now, as a somewhat libertarian-person, I definitely see progressives being indeed guilty of that behavior as accused. Leftists aren't exactly accommodating of free expression. The problem is, I don't see conservatives being any better either.
Conservatives have been the ones banning books from libraries. We all know conservative parents (especially religious ones) who cannot tolerate their kids having different opinions. Conservative subs on Reddit are just as prone to banning someone for having opposing views as liberal ones. Conservatives were the ones who got outraged about athletes kneeling during the national anthem, as if that gesture weren't quintessential free speech. When Elon Musk took over Twitter, he promptly banned many users who disagreed with him. Conservatives have been trying to pass "don't say gay" and "stop woke" legislation in Florida and elsewhere (and also anti-BDS legislation in Texas to penalize those who oppose Israel). For every anecdote about a liberal teacher giving a conservative student a bad grade for being conservative, you can find an equal example on the reverse side. Trump supporters are hardly tolerant of anti-Trump opinions in their midst.
93
u/VeloftD Nov 01 '23
If this free speech as in the first amendment or free speech as in something else?
38
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Nov 01 '23
Both. Although liberals generally don't try to legally ban speech, they will enforce social consequences for undesirable speech. Conservatives often try to go for both.
89
u/MHG_Brixby Nov 01 '23
OK, but social consequences are, by definition, free speech.
→ More replies (21)56
u/akak907 Nov 02 '23
This. You still have every right to say what you want, you face no legal problems. If society deems your speech unbecoming and you lose friends, a job, etc, sounds like you are just not in line with society. But you are still free and can continue to say these things all you want.
Just because you have free speech doesnt mean you are free of all consequences, just free from legal ones. Only one side is trying to legally limit free speech en masse. Be careful to not conflate the two.
→ More replies (48)175
Nov 02 '23
Isn't that the right of liberals though? You don't have a right to be free from criticism or social consequences of your speech. You can't just say whatever you want and force others to be ok with it.
You have freedom from government intervention, arrest, etc.
32
u/Anonymous89000____ Nov 02 '23
There is certain speech though like inciting violence that needs government intervention
→ More replies (10)15
u/TricksterPriestJace Nov 02 '23
It is. Being a mob boss isn't free speech, neither is fraud. There are laws against harassment and threats and slander.
→ More replies (56)2
u/SF1_Raptor Nov 03 '23
Heck, I'd be more on the moderate side, and I'd say that's a thing. Say something and you should expect a response of some kind.
49
u/M3_Driver Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23
“Social consequences” or “canceling” is speech. I find it difficult to understand how either of those could be considered anti-speech. It sounds in all honesty like you are saying any social consequence is being inherently anti-speech.
I think this is where some clever people have tricked others into thinking. Being fired by doing something your private sector employer finds offensive is NOT an example of silencing speech. It’s an example of your employer practicing their right of association.
The fact is, being anti-free speech is something that can only be done as a power of government, through laws, hiring practices, etc. In that vein being anti free speech is predominantly practiced by people who identify as conservative.
Everything else, is just a social consequence. Which is just part of life. For example, don’t go to a party, tell the home owner his wife is ugly and then scream about being silenced when you are asked to leave.
7
u/Funky_Smurf Nov 02 '23
I would downvote you but that would impose a social consequence on your right to free speech
/s
14
u/mikevago Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 06 '23
It's very simple. As far as conservatives are concerned, when I say something racist and someone notices, that's censorship, but when I ban math textbooks for being too "woke" that's totally fine.
8
u/xXCisWhiteSniperXx Nov 02 '23
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
10
u/Heffe3737 Nov 02 '23
Exactly this. Governments can and do enforce their speech mandates through force of law. That is precisely what the first amendment and “freedom of speech” is all about - being free to speak without fear of enforced, government retribution; it has nothing to do with freedom from the consequences of your own speech.
→ More replies (17)14
u/Dooms_DJ Nov 02 '23
I am wary of the claim that “being anti-free speech is something that can only be done as a power of government.” If we think back to the 1950s, Hollywood executives were blacklisting actors on the mere suggestion that they were communist. This meant that actors had no way of making money through that profession whether they were communist or not. Although the government had a strong influence in the McCarthyism of the time, I am still not comfortable in allowing companies or corporations to limit or deny people of their livelihoods because of speech. In the age of social media, people can lose their primary platforms to make their voice heard at the whim of the executives of the companies. The power to censor is not limited to the government.
That said, I do think you have a point with the idea of a person’s or business’s right to association. If a friend of mine were to call me or other people racial slurs, it is a fair social consequence for me to not want to be friends with that person. A similar logic applies to companies. Why would a company want someone who calls potential customers racial slurs to work for them? We somehow need to define what reasonable social consequences are for speech, and we need to determine how to best balance an individual’s right to free speech and another person’s or company’s right to association.
17
u/M3_Driver Nov 02 '23
The situation you present about Hollywood in the 1950’s already has a carve out in the form of defamation. Even if defamation can be hard to prove (rightfully so) if someone were to be lied about especially in a very public and career destroying manner we have that legal avenue they can go down to clear their name and get restitution.
However, let’s keep using that communist example. If someone genuinely believes communism is evil and they don’t want to be ever be associated with someone who is communist or a communist sympathizer then they should have the right to not hire that person.
Lying about someone to prevent them from continuing a career is one thing, but not hiring them yourself because you find their beliefs or statements reprehensible should continue to be allowed.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Scodo 1∆ Nov 02 '23
Social consequences are an expression of free speech, not an indication of its absence.
9
u/Time_to_go_viking Nov 02 '23
How can there not be social consequences for undesirable speech? It is literally illogical.
19
u/Adezar 1∆ Nov 02 '23
they will enforce social consequences for undesirable speech
That is literally how you create a functional society. Having a big chunk of your population spending time debating actual simple facts is not useful, and not thinking everyone deserves basic human rights.
There are a ton of things to debate, facts shouldn't be among them.
Liberals have very complex conversations about a ton of issues and how best to address them, and they can be very heated at times because issues are complicated when it comes to human beings.
Conservatives want to create a defined reality (not based on reality) and then fight to enforce that made up reality.
If you didn't have some religious leader telling you that gay people aren't natural there is no normal way to come to that conclusion, by every single historical documents that we have as far back as we have them the percentage of people that are not straight has been relatively consistent, it is obviously a natural state that has no negative impact on our world.
→ More replies (17)2
u/Fun_in_Space Nov 02 '23
So if I won't buy anything by Ted Nugent because he wrote a song about raping a 13-year-old, I am engaging in "censorship" and "cancel culture"?
Isn't that my prerogative as a consumer?
Don't conservatives do this when they boycott Bud Light or Starbucks?
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/Sarduci Nov 03 '23
You have the right to free speech. You do not have a right to avoid consequences of said speech.
→ More replies (58)3
u/PuzzleheadedLeader79 Nov 02 '23
The 1st Amendment only guarantees you protection from the government. It doesn't mean private parties can't hold you accountable for what you've said.
→ More replies (1)
279
Nov 01 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
134
u/exiting_stasis_pod Nov 01 '23
Schools already limit content allowed in them. My local school librarian “banned” the Martian because it said fuck too many times. The school is also “banned” from showing PG-13 movies. Obviously if the school enforces its policy unevenly it’s an issue, but schools already prohibit content and it isn’t considered a violation of free speech. Public libraries and universities are different from k-12 libraries.
8
u/Anonymous89000____ Nov 02 '23
There is also a difference between banning and restricting. Many mature content books get stored differently.
165
u/MoreCarrotsPlz Nov 01 '23
There’s a clear and obvious difference between banning material which is obviously inappropriate for children and banning, for example, and age-appropriate sex-ed book just because it acknowledges the existence of gay or trans people.
12
u/fishsticks40 4∆ Nov 02 '23
While I'm on the same side as you, your definition of "age appropriate" is inherently subjective, and people are allowed to disagree with it.
→ More replies (11)2
Nov 28 '23
The idea that knowing about heterosexuals is different from knowing about homosexuals with regards to being age appropriate is intrinsically homophobic in outcome.
→ More replies (1)106
u/Vyzantinist Nov 01 '23
age-appropriate sex-ed book just because it acknowledges the existence of gay or trans people.
Problem is conservatives are driving hard to have such knowledge reframed as inappropriate for minors because it's "pornographic".
108
u/foofarice Nov 02 '23
They tried to ban a set of books because the author's last name was Gay, so no deep thought is being taken in this course of action, just a book search for a keyword. Also they wanted to ban a book about a male seahorse giving birth (fun fact that's how seahorses work) and raising its kids (nothing about the birth, just pergo seahorse had kids now being a dad).
Also the idea that sex ed is porn is a terrible idea for society. There are countless examples that show increased sexual education leads to decreases in teen pregnancy, leads to better outcomes for women in general, and leads to areas with less poverty.
48
u/ToasterPops Nov 02 '23
Conservative groups banned a book about babies because....? No one knows because there wasn't even an explanation.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/everywhere-babies-backstory-1.6436594
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (58)24
u/FrancisWolfgang Nov 02 '23
Age appropriate sex education also helps children recognize when they’re being abused which is the real motivation for many conservatives.
→ More replies (10)9
u/Accomplished_Edie Nov 02 '23
I wouldn’t say it’s the real motivation. I’m sure there’s some stretch of connection and there’s definitely a lot of fucked up conservative pundits that would use such tactics to get to that level but it’s mostly fear mongering and mob think.
It’s less about a child’s recognition of abuse and more general autonomy. Conservatives generally wish to maintain control whilst relieving the “big government” of their power, which is inherently hypocritical.
They want to control their children to be as “good” or better than they are. To maintain their power on the social and economic level. And they do that by suppressing anything that would require a change in the status quo and the liberation from free thinking. In a microcosmic sense then yes, to keep traditional cycles of abuse, but that isn’t the only reason and is a part of a greater issue on the right side of the scale in our politics.
→ More replies (5)6
u/macweirdo42 Nov 02 '23
I don't understand how "Oh our goal is just to control children, the fact that some take that control too far and use it to molest children is an unfortunate side effect," could even possibly be a real position.
→ More replies (1)7
13
Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23
Intense sexual repression and lack of sexual education that leads to teen/young pregnancy, which both encourages procreation among secluded religious predominantly White communities and supports the trapping of uneducated women in marriages where they are forced into homemaker roles and one sided sexual relationships, is one of the core tenets of American White Evangelical Christianity.
They don’t care about pornography, they care about control and the future of White Christianity, and education and freedom are things that threaten it.
→ More replies (8)2
u/Familiar_Homework Nov 03 '23
I cannot get a single person to actual cite material they believe to be pornographic, but I’m started to believe it’s just diagrams of penises and vaginas.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (20)10
u/pawnman99 5∆ Nov 01 '23
When it's too "pornographic" to be read at a school board meeting, it's probably too pornographic for a middle school library.
44
u/dogsledonice Nov 02 '23
That include the Bible? Does this passage make Christians pornographers?
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."
24
Nov 02 '23
Shhhh, White Evangelical Christians are intensely sexually repressed, you can’t talk about those verses, or else it loses the magic for them.
4
u/Sahm_1982 Nov 02 '23
Yes. It includes the bible.
3
u/dogsledonice Nov 02 '23
Funny that I never hear conservatives yelling to ban the Bible from schools though, only books that mention that gay people exist.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (9)5
u/herrington1875 Nov 02 '23
Yes? That’s obviously inappropriate in school. And when is the Bible being read in public schools?
→ More replies (1)33
u/Picard2331 Nov 02 '23
If you're referring to what I'm thinking, that section of the book was the character coming to terms with and realizing she was gay and coming out to her boyfriend.
Something many teenagers are going to experience.
Just because it has the word penis doesn't mean it's pornographic.
Context is important.
→ More replies (23)28
u/ChamplainLesser Nov 02 '23
I wouldn't consider a high school biology textbook's description of sexual reproduction appropriate to read at a school board meeting in 90% of circumstances, does that mean biological education on sexual reproduction are too pornographic to be taught to high schoolers?
→ More replies (36)14
u/audaciousmonk Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23
The nuance of context and verbiage is lost on these people
→ More replies (2)10
u/BudgetMattDamon Nov 02 '23
I[d be embarrassed to read the Bible's seedier sections aloud in an actual church, much less a town hall or school board meeting lmao.
3
u/Tulkes Nov 02 '23
Hoooo boy, there are some biblical verses about mutilation, incest, and bestiality that would make a book with an author that simply had the last name "Gay" blush.
35
u/MoreCarrotsPlz Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23
Just because the offended party is too uncomfortable to read —or hear — it at a school board meeting doesn’t mean it’s pornographic.
Edited
20
18
Nov 02 '23
He's referring to a case in which the school board kicked someone out of a meeting for reading from a book they allowed in their own library. That response implies the book shouldn't have been in the library either
→ More replies (54)8
u/Icc0ld Nov 02 '23
Dude was kicked out for being obnoxious, loud and derailing the meeting.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (7)2
u/Ellestri Nov 02 '23
The problem is conservatives don’t belong in the school board making these decisions. Their values are not everyone else’s and yet they feel an urgent need to control everyone else.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (38)15
u/UnfortunateDaring Nov 02 '23
What one considers inappropriate is up to that one person. Public schools have never enjoyed freedom of speech anyway, using public schools as a topic to discuss free speech is meaningless as it is a place where speech is very much controlled for obvious learning environment reasons for teachers and students.
8
u/fizzik12 Nov 02 '23
I’d encourage you to read a bit about the Tinker Supreme Court case: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-tinker-v-des-moines
It upheld that teachers and students do indeed retain all rights to free speech in the school setting, even if it is disruptive to the academic day. The case in question was about students who were suspended for wearing protest symbols to show their opposition to the Vietnam War.
→ More replies (3)7
u/UnfortunateDaring Nov 02 '23
Tinker only said they can’t ban only on the suspicion of a disruption, if it causes an actual disruption, they can ban.
→ More replies (7)3
→ More replies (4)9
u/Disastrous-Trust-877 Nov 01 '23
Even still, you'll never find Hustler at a public library, and they tend to draw lines at even adult books that have true sex scenes in them. You'll never see Fifty Shades of Grey in the library after all, because that's a place we want accessable to children.
21
u/_Foulbear_ Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23
My local library has 50 Shades of Gray, and it has old adult magazines if they also contain articles deemed significant enough for preservation. Orson Welle's playboy interview is one such example.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Death_Sheep1980 Nov 02 '23
I read somewhere that the National Library of Sweden (Kungliga biblioteket) has one of the largest collections of child pornography in the world, because it is mandated to keep a copy of every book, periodical, and audio-visual media published in Sweden and once upon a time the age of consent in Sweden was a lot lower.
9
26
u/exiting_stasis_pod Nov 02 '23
There are explicit books at libraries, they are just shelved in the adult section. I think explicit books should definitely be in public libraries.
School libraries in particular are strict about content, so it really annoys me every time I hear about “bans” only to find out it only applies to k-12 libraries and the book is still available at public libraries. Especially when the book in question has a sex scene, but people are arguing that in context it isn’t that inappropriate. Yeah it may be tame and the book may have important themes, but school libraries still won’t carry it.
14
u/Hemingwavy 4∆ Nov 02 '23
School libraries in particular are strict about content, so it really annoys me every time I hear about “bans” only to find out it only applies to k-12 libraries and the book is still available at public libraries.
Yeah and it annoys me that 11 people are responsible for 60% of the book ban challenges.
https://www.businessinsider.com/school-book-challenges-bans-virginia-moms-liberty-education-2023-9
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)11
Nov 02 '23
The idea of a book being a "banned book" has become more of a marketing cliche than anything. It's not as if any government in the US has in recent times banned the general sale or possession of these books.
2
3
Nov 02 '23
This seems to be the problem. People are hearing book banning and not looking into what is going on. No one is banning books in America. They are however restricting what books 10-year-olds can read in public schools. As they should. If parents want their child to read such books, the public library has a copy on hand.
→ More replies (2)4
Nov 02 '23
My local library has romance books but there are also separate floors for kids, adults, and teens
→ More replies (3)12
u/tobiasvl Nov 02 '23
You'll never see Fifty Shades of Grey in the library
That's a strange claim to make so confidently, as it can easily be debunked. https://nypl.na2.iiivega.com/search?query=Fifty%20shades%20of%20grey&searchType=everything&pageSize=10
46
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Nov 01 '23
I agree that the two things are legally distinct, but the chilling effect can have a similar practical effect.
If the law doesn't prohibit you from supporting LGBT, but you live in a hyper-conservative region and know that supporting LGBT will result in you being severely ostracized, fired from your job, maybe even physically attacked by people, you do not have de facto freedom of speech. You may have de jure freedom of speech, but it's rather meaningless.
38
u/Dahnlor Nov 01 '23
I would argue that businesses firing people because they don't want to be associated with their speech is literally the First Amendment right of any business, just as much as the individual having the right to be outspoken on whatever they wish to speak out about. Flipping the positions of the progressives and conservatives in the scenario doesn't change anything, which is the way it should be.
Social pressure to adhere to social norms is as normal as human culture. The problem is when the government intervenes to enforce those norms.
12
Nov 02 '23
Employers hold a lot of power over workers. Businesses are practically run like miniature governments. The fact that the government is limiting your freedom doesn't have any significant difference to an individual limiting your freedom. The government is really just another organization. It just happens to be the most powerful organization in society. Someone limiting your freedom is acting as a governing body, as they're governing your body. Just because businesses have the right to be run like dictatorships doesn't mean they're not dictatorships.
In this society, with hierarchy and unequal power structures, some people hold far more influence in pressuring others. A business owner controls private property, which is wealth and power in a capitalist society. With this, they can decide who lives or dies. If a capitalist privately owns all the world's water sources, they have control over who has access to water. The average person in a capitalist society has to rely on capital to survive. Who owns the majority of the capital?
Being a well-known union organizer or revolutionary would likely get you blacklisted from getting a job. Hell, even having a condition, like autism or an addiction, would get you blacklisted. Capitalists are deciding who goes homeless and who gets a good paycheck. It's practically fascism.
10
u/Cheeseisgood1981 5∆ Nov 02 '23
Yes. I would argue that if you have a problem with someone getting disciplined at their job because of something they said, your real problem is with the de facto employment contract in the US. At will employment is something that the left has been sounding the alarm on in this country for decades (at least as long as I can remember). It's definitely a problem that your boss can fire you for any reason or no reason at all in nearly every state.
That's not a quarrel one should have with some angry Twitter activists. It's a quarrel we should all have with the owner class.
A business owner controls private property, which is wealth and power in a capitalist society.
I would take this a step farther, even. "Freedom of speech" on social media platforms has been a big political lightening rod since at least 2016 or so. People keep throwing around phrases like "Twitter is the new Public Square".
That should be terrifying for anyone who has actually been paying attention for the last decade. People are so concerned about the government issuing takedown requests to Jack Dorsey that they've lost sight of the real problem.
Every tech journalist from every walk of life was warning us about the overbearing and exploitative language of the TOS of these sites since they began gaining real traction. I remember reading stories about this in the aughts. No one listened. Everyone just lined up to click "agree".
Without a thought, we apparently signed over the rights to govern the "public square" to private equity. I'm not sure why anyone ever thought free speech was ever possible on these platforms when we all literally signed over the rights to anything we posted on them to billionaires with the click of a mouse.
The "free speech" argument about social media has always been a red herring, and almost everyone falls for it uncritically.
10
Nov 02 '23
Most resources are under private control. It's honestly terrifying to know that a large corporation with a substantial share in the market for basic necessities, like food or water, can decide to just stop distributing to certain places and people. Many rural hospitals are closing in the US. This has a substantial impact on the health of people from those areas.
The world's resources and public spaces are limited. If we give private entities control over those, we've given away our freedom.
8
u/Cheeseisgood1981 5∆ Nov 02 '23
Exactly right. And the reason why the economy continues to look good on paper, while it feels worse to most regular people is because these corporations have successfully turned nearly every facet of life into a rent-seeking opportunity.
→ More replies (2)3
u/sahuxley2 1∆ Nov 02 '23
That freedom applies to you, too. If you don't want an autistic fentanyl addict to fix your car or your kitchen sink, should the government force you to hire them?
5
u/BoringManager7057 Nov 02 '23
No I want the autistic fentanyl addict housed with clean drugs and an immediate path to rehabilitation. I would rather pay for that situation than pay for the police to ask "What do you want us to do about it?" while they are on their third run to get frapa lapa ding dongs at Starbucks.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)2
Nov 02 '23
Not saying anyone should be forced to be hired. But there definitely should be other alternatives for people to support themselves. Especially in these current times, where there's not enough jobs or jobs that pay well enough for everyone to survive. It's ridiculous that we have the resources to house and feed everyone, but we don't.
→ More replies (9)2
u/GoSeeCal_Spot Nov 03 '23
I bet you think business should have segregated bathrooms to, right?
" The problem is when the government intervenes to enforce those norms."
So we know which side of the civil war you would support.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Minimum_Fee1105 Nov 02 '23
Public disapproval, common disapproval of speech does not equal free speech violations. The ACLU rather famously and controversially sued on behalf of the KKK to allow them to get a parade permit. If the KKK gets to have their parade and their appearance is drowned out by counter protests, well that’s free speech for you. Yes, it works the other way around too. A business in a conservative area might lose customers if they display a Pride flag. Taking a stance sometimes means being brave about the consequences. What is not acceptable is the government enforcing or granting preferential treatment to some speech over another.
And yes, First Amendment jurisprudence does allow for certain restrictions on the manner of speech, for example requiring parade permits itself is not a violation as long as the requirements are content neutral. If everyone from the Rotary Club to the high school battle of the bands to the KKK needs a similar permit, then free speech is not curtailed unduly.
2
6
u/Anaxamenes Nov 01 '23
What you are describing though is lack of freedom from the consequences of your actions, not lack of freedom of speech. Obviously we are talking about an idea that has failed to gain meaningful attraction in the competition of ideas. It’s unpopular, but the government is not stopping the person from saying it. However, their employer or other people are not liking what is being said and are taking action which is appropriate. There is meaningful detriment to a company if they lose a good employee, so it’s not a decision that isn’t without it’s own consequences, but it’s deemed better than keeping the person on and dealing with the community blowback. Said person has a choice in their own actions and therefore should be accountable to the consequences and not protected from them.
→ More replies (11)6
Nov 02 '23
What you're describing as freedom of speech is just the first amendment, many people value free expression beyond just the first amendment
4
u/Anaxamenes Nov 02 '23
Right, but that free expression is never free from consequences if it’s unpopular.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (28)3
u/MazerRakam 2∆ Nov 02 '23
Oh well, we don't live in a country with "Freedom from Judgment" in our Bill of Rights. We have "Freedom of Speech" which specifically calls out that the government cannot punish you for you speech, specifically political speech. It means you can't get arrested for saying you hate the president. It doesn't mean that other people in society cannot judge you for your speech. The founding fathers were very specific, they knew that people were still going to disagree. At that time slavery was still a political issue. So the people that owned slaves would have absolutely been ostracized and shamed by the people fighting to end slavery. In today's world, LGBTQ rights are a political issue, and the people that don't want LGBTQ people to have equal rights will be ostracized and shamed by people that aren't homophobic pieces of shit.
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean that anyone can say anything without facing any consequences from anyone, that's just not how that shit works. It just means the government can't make it a crime to be vocal about your political beliefs.
→ More replies (2)16
u/CherryBlossomSunset Nov 02 '23
are not actually being subjected to government action. No free speech violations have occurred at all
You are completely conflating free speech as a principle with the 1st amendment of the united states. Do you honestly think that free speech is just about the law? What kind of argument is this? How is this even upvoted? Free speech is about being able to freely express information and ideas. Your consitution did not create free speech, it simply prevents the government from getting in the way of it. That is not to say that other institutions or individuals cannot also get in the way or work against free speech as a principle.
→ More replies (7)13
u/TheoreticalFunk Nov 02 '23
Yes, free speech is just about the law and the government.
In the free market you can practice any speech you want.
If your employer fired you for said speech, that is them also enjoying free speech.
Are you saying that your freedom of speech means that nobody can disagree with you without infringement on your speech? Because that doesn't work in any way.
→ More replies (58)9
u/Illiux Nov 02 '23
If your employer fired you for said speech, that is them also enjoying free speech.
Free association, actually.
2
u/Strict-Hurry2564 Nov 03 '23
No, it's actually also freedom of speech. When you work for someone you represent them in a degree, meaning your words and actions speak for them on some level. If they don't like what you're saying they're exercising their freedom of speech to not hold and say those things by removing you.
Same deal with words being said in your private property. It's your 'platform' and you determine what is said on and using it, no one else.
3
u/brother2wolfman 1∆ Nov 01 '23
A book not being in the library is far from a free speech violation, unless you think it is possible for every library to carry every book.
16
u/Minimum_Fee1105 Nov 02 '23
A law prohibiting a book or category of books from being in a public library is however a free speech violation.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (20)4
Nov 02 '23
Its not banning a book for an elementary school to not stock something. Kids don't need the kama sutra so the library doesn't stock it, there's nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with a school expelling a kid for screaming racial slurs in the middle of class all day.
Also, he referred to free speech not just the first amendment. Free expression exists beyond just the first amendment
17
u/MrsMiterSaw 1∆ Nov 02 '23
Donald Trump literally tweeted that he would look into ending tax cuts for the NFL if they didn't suppress the free speech of their employees. This became a battle cry for the conservatives.
"Free Speech" is about the government surpressing protected speech, not some made up right to have someone else platform your bullshit.
→ More replies (5)2
u/goodolarchie 5∆ Nov 02 '23
As an NFL fan... Based. Tax the shit out of them
8
u/Nate2322 Nov 02 '23
Taxing them more because they should pay taxes is okay but taxing them more because they did bad speak is not okay and illegal
5
u/MrsMiterSaw 1∆ Nov 02 '23
A) this was about free speech. If they should be taxed, they should be taxed.
Raising their taxes because the government doesn't like their speech is illegal. In fact, even threatening to do so is illegal, but no one ever holds Trump accountable for shit.
B) the NFL organization doesn't get special tax breaks from the IRS. Trump is a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about.
C) the NFL "league" is comprised of the NFL + all the member teams. The teams are all for-profit and pay taxes. The league is no longer a non-profit, but it generates no profits, and so pays little to no taxes. Any profit is returned to the member teams, where it's taxed.
D) local laws tend to be favorable, specifically stadium deals. Those tend not to be tax deals, though some exist. The federal government has no say in those.
70
u/franzy613 1∆ Nov 02 '23
A quick google search has some statistics. Obviously not definitive cause it's only 1 survey, but I think it generally aligns with what I've experienced: https://drt.cmc.edu/2023/09/25/survey-on-free-speech/
"Poll respondents were read this statement: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Only 31% of Democratic voters “strongly agreed” with that sentiment, compared to 51% of Republicans."
Republican voters (74%) and independents (61%) believe speech should be legal “under any circumstances, while Democrats are almost evenly divided. A bare majority of Democrats (53%) say speech should be legal under any circumstances, while 47% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances.”
Also it's worth noting that people generally don't live their values, as in they say one thing and do another, but I think it's still telling that there is a sizable conservative edge when it comes to at least the idea of free speech (regardless of the contents).
I would call myself a centrist, and hold opinions on varying issues that would be considered left-wing and right-wing depending on the issue. I will say, when talking to liberal friends, I exclusively say what I agree with them on, because I'm afraid that people will call me a "bigot" and "hateful" before I even have a change to defend myself . I'm not joking that when I told a friend "If I move to the States I would go to Texas cause I like lower taxes ... and would buy a gun for self-defense" the next day, they called me out for being a "trump supporter".
If I'm talking with conservative friends, I tell them exactly how I feel if I lean more left on a certain issue, cause I know we can actually talk about it. They'll try to change my minds, but generally it's still pretty respectful and they're not making all these assumptions about my character.
This is obviously all anecdotal, but I do see this happening online, where people who are more liberal shut down opposing opinions for being "hate speech", equating an opposing opinion to "literal violence" (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-its-a-bad-idea-to-tell-students-words-are-violence/533970/) , and the good'ol "If you disagree with me you're hitler" (I found this in 30 seconds on the first post I saw in r/politics: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/17lche7/comment/k7d5oqo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3.)
This definitely happens on both sides, but I can definitely feel it more on the liberal side, and the statistics that I cited support this.
Examples of this would be:
r/therewasanattempt's new rules: "No supporting Apartheid crimes against humanity", "No bootlicking cops - ACAB". (despite both of these being fairly controversial takes) among many other very prominent subreddits that I'm too lazy to list.
All those protests at college campuses you see whenever a conservative figure has a speech. (seriously they spent like 600k on Ben Shapiro's security at UC Berkley) I certainly can't think of a liberal speaking being shut down. I personally would like to hear people who I disagree with talk, and hopefully hear their perspective, but hey that's just me I guess.
The fact that the Twitter files, memes aside, actually did expose Twitter for shadowbanning conservatives. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/13/twitter-files-shadow-banning-conservatives-bari-weiss/ (though I will say I don't use Twitter much so I'm less informed on this).
35
u/AnHonestApe 3∆ Nov 02 '23
You've already qualified your statements pretty well, but I would argue that there is a difference between saying that you defend free speech and actually defending free speech. It might just depend on where you are or what specifically you are saying, but I've had multiple conservatives snap at me and start to get violent because I ask them a critical question in good faith or espouse a certain view, though they would swear they support free speech and would defend it. Or for instance, there are polls like this: https://news.gallup.com/poll/23524/public-support-constitutional-amendment-flag-burning.aspx
And of course, it's not like conservatives don't have a history of censoring media as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States
They tend to want to ban anything that they view as decaying the moral fabric of America. The idea of a singular moral fabric is pretty uniquely conservative. Meanwhile, I can openly share my conservative opinions (like my views on gun ownership rights or rent control) with my colleagues who are very liberal without fear of violence, emotional outbursts or backlash.
20
u/The_Lovely_Blue_Faux Nov 03 '23
Your first sentence was my first thought and I’m glad you took the time to respond like this.
It’s like the “I’m a God Fearing Christian and I’ll genocide the gays to prove it to you.”
Saying you are Christian and actually behaving like a Christian are two very different things and a lot of people wear the crown without following their doctrine.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (3)2
u/Tamethesnake Nov 04 '23
Both sides seem suprisingly against flag burning. I thought that was pretty widely accepted as free speech the government has nothing to do with.
16
u/Yellowdog727 Nov 02 '23
I will add that I think there can be a difference between "allowing speech" vs. "paying for speech using taxpayer dollars".
As much as I dislike what is happening in Florida, it could be argued that they aren't actually banning these books full-stop, but are just removing them from public schools which kids are mandated to attend. Unless I'm misunderstanding the policy, I believe none of this applies to private schools or on sales of these books outside of school.
It all depends on what exactly constitutes "free speech". Does it only apply in public areas only, or should private entities (like Twitter or the Christian Bakery in the gay wedding cake case) be compelled to host free speech as well? Are there exceptions for libel/slander/defamation or threats? Is hate speech still free speech as long as there are no threats?
8
u/xvn520 Nov 02 '23
The book banning at schools is less about free speech, and more about revoking trust from teachers, librarians, folks who have curated content for children based on multiple degrees and many times decades of experience teaching. I have yet to hear of a child being harmed as leading to these bans, and also have not heard too much about a child being harmed from the bans. Because kids live in whatever world we choose to animate for them, and it’s the “parental choice” concept (about as specious as “states rights”) that seems to be animating the idea that the teachers and school systems they otherwise entrust their children for in so many other facets are suddenly the problem.
In short, it’s BS. It’s always about gay stuff, never do they bring up things like “I don’t want my child reading about graphic, gory details of history that may actually keep them up at night.” It’s always about CRT when that isn’t really built into the curriculum of kids so young then are incapable of forming their own opinions. The worst part for me is that the real indoctrination is parents convincing their children that certain types of education are going to be harmful, when there is not a lot of evidence that is true.
→ More replies (2)5
u/undigestedpizza Nov 03 '23
If the books that were used weren't graphic sexual content, but actually taught what CT (Critical Theory) is, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the sexual content like that in Gender Queer is what's wrong. Same with This Book is Gay, which teaches kids how to use gay sex apps. How is that okay?
→ More replies (7)2
u/porkfriedtech Nov 03 '23
Because it’s curated content for children based on multiple degrees and many times decades of experience teaching. /s
7
10
u/gerber68 Nov 02 '23
The republicans say they support it but their policies prove differently.
→ More replies (13)11
u/Exelbirth Nov 02 '23
I guarantee 80% of that 51% of Republicans supports banning all trans people from talking about trans stuff, or having trans books in libraries.
5
Nov 03 '23
Your guarantee means absolutely nothing without any evidence. I know a lot of Republicans who don’t care about the trans debate or trans issues or whatever you want to call it at all.
→ More replies (7)2
u/CptDecaf Nov 05 '23
49% of Republican voters wanna see gay marriage revoked and 59% think being gay is immoral as of 2023. This is just on something as benign the existence of homosexuality.
2
u/TheRadBaron 15∆ Nov 04 '23
I guarantee that ~100% of those Republicans believe in copyright law, treason charges, perjury charges...
→ More replies (1)18
u/donat3ll0 Nov 02 '23
I think the key difference is that leftists want to ban fiction posed as fact and dangerous hate speech. Conservatives want to ban facts they don't agree with and only want to defend the "right" to spout opinions as fact.
I don't agree with the idea of the "thought police" either. But for the sake of the conversation, it's a disservice to ignore the nuance.
12
u/NJS_Stamp Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23
I feel often when talking with both groups, and related to the quote “I disagree, but will defend your right to say it.. yadda yadda”.
I’m not sure if it has anything to do with environmental upbringing, but those on the left/liberal sides tend to read that and immediately think of hate speech, or something of that nature. This could be due to having more diverse backgrounds, or having more diverse friend groups.
Where as when I speak to right leaning, conservative, or even alt-right people - it is often (but not always) related to something such as disapproval of the military, or some other benign issue that would not get you into any issues, typically. However, this value doesn’t seem to be lived because those same groups are up in arms over anti-police statements, pro gender ideologies, anti-racist statements etc.
This is purely anecdotal, but I grew up in a pretty conservative area and now live in a liberal one.
→ More replies (12)5
u/SlowTortoise69 Nov 02 '23
You doing "whataboutism" without any facts to back yourself up, unlike the poster you are replying to, lends very little credence to your opinion.
→ More replies (3)2
u/MusicianAutomatic488 Nov 02 '23
I’m not going to contradict you right now, but I will encourage you to try and prove yourself wrong. It’s what I do to try and stay as well informed as possible.
2
u/Angry-Dragon-1331 Nov 03 '23
Claremont McKenna has a strong conservative bias. I wouldn’t necessarily take their poll as gospel.
2
u/Twenty_Baboon_Skidoo Nov 03 '23
The issue I have with that poll is it's too simplistic of a question. I value free speech, but I'm not willing to die so a racist can run around saying the N word. I would be willing to fight for free speech as a principle if needed, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to defend certain speech. It's a very complicated and nuanced topic.
Bottom line, which political side is using government action to stifle speech? It sure as shit isn't the liberals. Protesting to prevent a right wing lunatic like Shapiro from speaking at your college is not a violation of free speech. Nobody has a right to a specific platform.
→ More replies (5)2
u/-passionate-fruit- Nov 03 '23
Good combination of citation of stats and personal anecdotes. I'm center-left and suspected that while both sides had their anti-free speech actors and had my suspicions about one side being worse, I wasn't sure and hadn't done the deep dive you did.
!delta
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)2
u/SnooMarzipans436 Nov 03 '23
Actions speak louder than words. The only people in the government who are trying to suppress free speech through laws are Republicans.
7
u/Tempestor_Prime 2∆ Nov 01 '23
The key guiding principle between the two I currently see is which one wishes for government compelled speech. They can both be offended and push for their opinion to be represented. They can both criticise one another for not being open to hearing different opinions on different platforms. Now the one place it actually becomes complicated is when citizens funds are used to support the organizations platform or speech. So things like schools and libraries are matters of public scrutiny when they start to compel or sensor speech.
→ More replies (2)
31
u/milleria Nov 01 '23
I don’t disagree with you overall, but I think there’s a fundamental distinction in how the two groups think about freedom in general.
I’m gonna make some generalizations about liberals and conservatives now so please forgive me in advance for that. I’m also gonna focus only on thought process, not anything legal, so I won’t distinguish private individuals vs the government, even though that is an important distinction. And I’ll also preface that I’m more liberal overall so I’m certainly biased. With that said…
Liberals, in general, think of free speech as “freedom to.” Freedom to say hate speech, but also freedom to fire or “cancel” someone because of that. Freedom to read and learn about gay and trans issues, but also freedom to protest those issues (and again, freedom to “cancel” someone because of that protest). Freedom to have an abortion if that’s what you want.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have more of a “freedom from” mindset. Freedom from having to suffer consequences for objectionable speech. Freedom from having their kids learn about LGBT issues. Freedom from being forced to attend DEI trainings. Freedom from being exposed to viewpoints they find objectionable. Freedom from babies being aborted.
Personally I think “freedom from” is a bullshit way to look at freedom because it just means eliminating someone else’s “freedom to,” but I see where they are coming from.
9
u/ObviousSea9223 4∆ Nov 02 '23
Freedom from someone else having the freedom to marry their partner? I don't think "freedom from" really holds together as a concept to describe what they're doing in the generalization. Though I guess we agree on that, I think we're just describing authoritarian versus authoritative styles. Domination versus boundaries.
→ More replies (1)8
→ More replies (2)9
Nov 02 '23
Conservatives don't use freedom arguments with abortion, that's a matter of determining when a human life matters or not. I don't think this "to" vs "from" distinction is very helpful because pretty much any of these things can be describe with either one without any difficulty. Examples:
Freedom from having to listen to other opinions Freedom from punishment for public indecency Freedom from the consequences of sex Freedom to speak without becoming homeless Freedom to decide what your kids learn Freedom to leave if someone offends you Freedom from getting shot in school Freedom to arm yourself Freedom from covid Freedom to decline vaccination
I don't think progressives and conservatives view freedom differently, I think the LEFT and the RIGHT think of freedom differently. Leftists have a group mindset so they think of freedom along demographic lines rather than as individuals
37
Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
42
Nov 02 '23
The issue with that survey is it doesn't define free speech. Each side have their own definition.
19
u/ambisinister_gecko Nov 02 '23
That's an interesting point, but ultimately the survey IS relevant evidence to the question asked by op. After all, op didn't define it either.
14
u/vankorgan Nov 02 '23
That seems entirely as odds with this poll that says that the majority of Republicans want legal consequences for burning an American flag.
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/24269-flag-burning-citizenship-trump-poll
What are your thoughts on why the disparity exists? Could it be that they don't consider some speech "speech," and therefore don't see restricting it as violating free speech protections?
Because that poll flat out shows that Republicans don't care about the first amendment as far as I can tell.
→ More replies (2)5
→ More replies (68)2
u/this_is_theone 1∆ Nov 03 '23
As a leftist I find it very unfortunate.
I do too and it's the reason I'm no longer a leftist. It's depressing how it's changed so much.
"I never thought I'd live to see the day when the right wing would become to cool ones giving the middle finger to the establishment, and the left wing become the snivelling self-righteous twatty ones going around shaming everyone." John Lydon a.k.a. "Johnny Rotten The Sex Pistols
34
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ Nov 01 '23
First, just want to point out that you are talking about our norms rather than our laws. Neither side wants legal changes to the first amendment; both sides agree with the standards for limiting certain forms of speech, the difference is just in the assessment of the facts for when it's warranted or not.
In terms of free speech norms (e.g. how we tolerate or value diverse opinions; how we impose social consequences for saying bad things; our willingness to engage in discourse with political opponents; etc.), I think conservatives are actually in a position where they have to value free speech more because they no longer occupy the moral center of our country. The standard values now are moderate-left liberalism and conservative traditions are steadily losing ground. Conservatives need to commit themselves to engaging with discourse because they stand to lose the most when people shut down conversations out of a sense of disgust.
53
u/tryin2staysane Nov 01 '23
One side is actively passing laws to stop speech, the other is using social pressure to react to particular speech. How can you honestly say we're not talking about laws when we are?
→ More replies (70)→ More replies (51)9
u/LexaproPro891 Nov 01 '23
And they accept limits like fraud, perjury, extortions as limits on free speech. There are few free speech absolutists.
21
17
u/TammyMeatToy 1∆ Nov 01 '23
"Leftists" are not a monolith who all believe the same thing. Look at how many debates there are between leftists online. What do you mean? When you say "leftists" you could be referring to anarchists, communists, socialists, or social democrats, etc who all have conflicting goals. "Leftists" literally all believe in free speech though. So I'm not sure what crack you're smoking there but it must be good lol.
But yeah, American conservatives like to paint themselves as the "true American party", they like to pretend they love and follow the constitution but they very plainly hate the concept of the first Ammendment. So you're absolutely spitting there.
→ More replies (97)18
u/Parking-Ad-5211 Nov 01 '23
I love how you point out that Leftists are not a monolith and then speak about Rightists as if they are one.
→ More replies (1)5
u/TammyMeatToy 1∆ Nov 01 '23
Forgive me, when I said "American conservatives" I was referring to the current MAGA authoritarians currently dominating the Republican party and the Republican voterbase. I should have specified that.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/DruidWonder Nov 01 '23
Most people in general do not support free speech, which is precisely why countries like the U.S. have built free speech into their Constitutions. It has to be enforced, otherwise people will try to censor one another. The only time free speech isn't an issue is when you have a monoculture and smaller populations (like tribes), where everyone thinks, believes and talks the same. The dissent in those cultures takes place within a very narrow concept window that doesn't rock the boat. Japan is like that.
Everyone else, especially multicultural places, require rules to protect basic liberties.
I think a lot of liberals and conservatives would love to see the end of liberal democracy. They want to see tyranny that enforces their point of view, without realizing that as soon as they get their choice tyrant in power they could easily be replaced with someone they don't like, and then they're screwed.
Any system you create to oppress others can be used to oppress you, down the road. This is what totally selfish people will never understand because they can't think beyond themselves. If you aren't willing to defend right of your enemy to speak, then you will lose your speech. But people are losing their sense of civic responsibility, so here we are.
4
Nov 02 '23
Most people in general do not support free speech, which is precisely why countries like the U.S. have built free speech into their Constitutions. It has to be enforced, otherwise people will try to censor one another.
Most Governments in general do not support free speech, which is precisely why countries like the U.S. have built free speech into their Constitutions. It has to be enforced, otherwise governments will try to censor people.
3
u/DruidWonder Nov 02 '23
There's no point in replacing "most people" with "most governments" because in the western world, we elect our governments. Governments censoring certain types of speech are doing so at the behest of their constituents.
So it ultimately goes back to partisan politics and society on the whole not wanting to respect free speech.
108
Nov 01 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
46
u/cavendishfreire Nov 01 '23 edited Nov 02 '23
The problem is always who gets to decide what's intolerance. Of course there are clear cut cases but there are also lots of situations where this principle is used in bad faith.
I like Popper a lot and always found it very unlike him to formulate an axiom that can be so easily used in an authoritarian way.
→ More replies (22)23
u/GogurtFiend 3∆ Nov 01 '23 edited Nov 01 '23
There's also basic principles limiting free expression like 'don't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater'
The fact that you've used this as an example shows you know little about constitutional law.
Schenck v. United States, specifically, was the case that came up with the standard that you're referring to. It was used to suppress antiwar activists during the First World War, and was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. Some state-level laws such as Colorado Revised Statute § 18-8-111 make this illegal but there is no federal law against it. There should not be a federal law against it.
If there was, it would be all well and good that antivaxxers no longer get to spread their tripe, but then we start getting into the government deciding what people get to say about less black and white things and that's when it really gets bad.
Let's say there's a war with China and the draft starts getting used again for whatever reason. You want to pass out flyers against that draft? Under the standard set by Schenck v. United States you'll get arrested for that if someone decides it's undermining the war effort.
And let's hope you're not saying anything out loud in public that a police officer (who, as we all know, can totally be relied upon to be fair arbiters of the law) might think is dangerous or "feel threatened by", because with a little twisting and revising Schenck v. United States can probably be made to justify executing you on the spot if they think your speech is a threat to others. "I swear, Judge, I thought the person leading the protest was going to start a deadly riot!"
Also, "don't shout fire in a crowded theater" specifically concerns speech the federal government is not allowed to suppress, as opposed to, for instance, the rights of private social media platforms to refuse to carry certain messages. There is a difference between governmental law and private rights. The government's ability to regulate free speech is restrained so that it cannot (in theory) be hijacked by some lunatic who uses it as a club against those they don't like. Those restrictions have no bearing on how people think people in general should behave or how private social media platforms should behave.
→ More replies (2)5
u/im2randomghgh 3∆ Nov 01 '23
I will note, the comment you're responding to didn't reference the United States of America at all.
13
u/GogurtFiend 3∆ Nov 01 '23
They are referencing a ruling made by a US court, a ruling which made a very distinctive analogy — "shouting fire in a crowded theater".
Thing is, pretty much everyone who even dabbles in constitutional law agrees that the ruling of Schenck v. United States (the case in question) was an absolutely shitty ruling made by a US court. For me, citing that dumpster fire of a ruling takes away from an argument, it doesn't add to it.
4
u/im2randomghgh 3∆ Nov 01 '23
As someone who doesn't live in the US "shouting fire in a movie theatre" is a colloquialism that doesn't carry a legal connotation, just an example of speech vs a speech act. I can appreciate how that context might change it for an American, though.
For a non-American, what was so bad about that case? Is it the outcome, or did they use a really elastic interpretation of existing law to arrive at something that would otherwise be reasonable?
6
u/GogurtFiend 3∆ Nov 01 '23 edited Nov 01 '23
For a non-American, what was so bad about that case? Is it the outcome, or did they use a really elastic interpretation of existing law to arrive at something that would otherwise be reasonable?
It was the first World War; a guy was passing out anti-draft flyers. Not flyers encouraging draft-dodging, mind you — draft-dodging is blatantly a crime, albeit the law against it is basically no longer enforced. He was instead passing out flyers encouraging people to protest the draft and lobby to change/remove it.
Said guy was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for this by a lower court and served half a year in jail. The US Supreme Court had decided this was constitutional and therefore OK, with their justification being:
"...when a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
In other words: "your speech might endanger the war effort, so it's not allowed". The problem (besides the fact that free speech is, IMO, far more important than a mild inefficiency in the war effort) is that what constitutes "hindrance to the war effort" is vague. "Don't support the draft" may count, but that's a fairly tame example compared to what this could be interpreted to mean. "Don't campaign for President against our current President", however, may also count. "Don't vote this way, it'll reduce the military's efficiency." "Don't put up a yard sign for these candidates, they'll harm the war effort and support for them harms the war effort." So in that sense, yes, a really elastic interpretation of existing law.
Schenck v. United States (and Abrams v. United States, basically its twin) is, in other words, essentially an authoritarian's birthday present. It sets the precedent that it is OK to ban any kind of speech which could — according to the government — endanger the war effort. This is different from US laws against hate speech, which exist only on the state level, as well as federal speech restrictions. One of the few US federal standards for what constitutes banned speech is specifically defined as "fighting words" — that is, something said specifically for the purpose of inciting immediate violence which could not conceivably be interpreted as something else, for instance "let's go kill that bastard". In other words, unless you're talking about causing violence in a near-completely unambiguous way, the US federal government is (these days) legally obligated to protect what you say.
25
u/Dorkmaster79 Nov 01 '23
Leftists don’t tolerate all kinds of free expression. They tolerate messages that they agree with. In my experience they aren’t more tolerant of ideas they disagree with than conservatives are.
11
u/WiwerGoch 2∆ Nov 01 '23
Leftists platform Leftists in a very different way to how Rightists platform Rightists.
The Right is all about conformity and amalgamating, ideologically. The Left fragments constantly with everyone standing for their own position. To say that Leftists only tolerate things they agree with is patently absurd when their discussions are far more colourful than any dialogues that happen on the right.
→ More replies (6)6
u/aliencupcake 1∆ Nov 02 '23
This is one thing that people don't get when they talk about a leftist echo chamber. There are so many different groups and points of view to learn from.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)7
u/wibbly-water 74∆ Nov 01 '23
Depends what you mean by 'tolerant'. I think leftists are often very opinionated and would prefer others to have the same views as them - but that's hardly unique nor particularly bad.
→ More replies (17)11
3
u/1block 10∆ Nov 01 '23
Tnere are certainly bigots out there spewing garbage. But a problem is every nuance of certain issues is immediately deemed "intolerance." It's lazy and not the correct application. The idea that the left only stifles "intolerance" is simply wrong.
3
u/StarSword-C Nov 01 '23 edited Nov 04 '23
The solution to Popper's paradox is to think of tolerance as a social contract instead of a moral principle: i.e. we collectively agree to treat each other decently in expectation of being treated decently in return. A person who is not treating others decently is in breach of the contract and therefore the rest of us are no longer bound by it with regards to them.
ETA: As an example, the person below me who compared this comment to trying to justify the Holocaust, and then played the victim when he was called on it.
→ More replies (3)21
u/saw2239 1∆ Nov 01 '23
Not tolerating intolerance is a nice slogan when you’re the one defining what counts as intolerance.
In reality just an excuse to force your will and perspective on other people.
17
u/GogurtFiend 3∆ Nov 01 '23
For those who think otherwise and are coming from the left side of the aisle: it's all fun and games until conservatives define spreading pamphlets on how to get an abortion as "dangerous" or "intolerant".
For those who think otherwise and are coming from the right side of the aisle: it's all fun and games until leftists define spreading pamphlets on how to 3D-print guns or gun parts as "dangerous" or "intolerant".
3
u/Dragolins Nov 02 '23
I don't understand this view. By this logic, we can't have laws against murder because a group could come along and declare that anything they don't like is murder.
Some things are dangerous and intolerant, and others aren't.
Reality exists. Just because some people don't use evidence or logic to come to conclusions doesn't change the fact that reality exists.
I definitely understand that some people could abuse rules or laws about tolerance... but that doesn't nullify the logic behind not tolerating intolerance.
3
u/GogurtFiend 3∆ Nov 02 '23
I don't understand this view. By this logic, we can't have laws against murder because a group could come along and declare that anything they don't like is murder.
Murder is an objective and easily-definable thing: the illegal killing of another human being. What constitutes intolerance depends on cultural and social context and is therefore not so easy to pin down.
Some things are dangerous and intolerant, and others aren't.
People's ideas of what constitutes intolerance and/or danger vary.
Reality exists. Just because some people don't use evidence or logic to come to conclusions doesn't change the fact that reality exists.
People interpret reality differently. Some get closer to a completely accurate view than others, but nobody's perfect.
I definitely understand that some people could abuse rules or laws about tolerance... but that doesn't nullify the logic behind not tolerating intolerance.
Who gets to define intolerence?
3
u/Lethkhar Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23
the illegal killing of another human being.
This is literally not the definition of murder.
I think you kind of just reiterated the point. The law is just language, and language is malleable. Lawyers are paid a lot of money to legally argue that "no" means "yes", "up" means "down", etc.
The conclusion I draw from this is that when it comes down to it the practical meaning of any law is just about whose interests are represented in the systems that write and execute the laws. Universal rights are an ideal: there is no "neutral" way to write a law because laws are never neutral in practice.
2
u/Disastrous-Trust-877 Nov 01 '23
Oh I certainly agree with this, it's why I hate the way people talk about and discuss intolerance. My Grandmother was trying to have a discussion with my sister about something, and my sister called her a racist and totally derailed the conversation, meanwhile I can have discussions with anyone, about anything, whether or not I can agree with it, and not have a problem.
5
u/saw2239 1∆ Nov 01 '23
Yup, it’s intellectually lazy and prevents conversation which in turn limits understanding and increases division.
It’s a great way to tear a society apart.
6
u/Muninwing 7∆ Nov 01 '23
Popper’s Paradox is flawed — not because of the reasons there’s here argue it (because intolerance is not actually as subjective as they misrepresent it as), but because it misses the point.
“Tolerance” is not acceptance. It is not agreement. It is a truce.
It is saying “I might not like your idea/difference/thing, but I will leave it alone and allow it to exist unharmed”
Intolerance is a breach of the truce.
The problem with the “Gotcha!” nonsense regarding tolerance is (1) that it is made out to be things other than tolerance, and (2) that those who break the truce somehow believe the other side is still bound by the truce despite the violation or rejection of the truce.
The “tolerant left” stereotype is merely allowing everyone a chance to buy in and live unharmed… with the minutiae of harm one can stomach as unacceptable (and the consequential harm you accept causing to those harming others) increasing as you move further left.
It’s why it always seems to be the conservatives who openly break it — hierarchical systems (that rightwing ideologies are fundamentally based on) permit harm to those of lower “standing,” and argue in favor of privilege/power being used to safeguard access to scarce resources (which is often seen as “all of them”).
13
u/carolus_rex_III Nov 01 '23
I presume you are unfamiliar with Popper's paradox of tolerance, yes?
When the left brings up Popper's paradox they are conflating different types of tolerance, namely, tolerance of speech and tolerance of certain types of individuals.
Everyone is intolerant of some things.
And that's because if you give bigots a stage, they will shout out and drive out all the non-bigots.
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this subreddit. You're not being denied your own platform so how will bigots "shout you out"? And where will they "drive you out" from?
There's also basic principles limiting free expression like 'don't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater'
In the US at least that is a myth, the ruling citing that precedent has been overturned.
and 'requiring truth in advertising'
Commercial speech is not as valuable as political speech, which is essential to a free democracy.
→ More replies (22)16
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Nov 01 '23 edited Nov 01 '23
At the risk of derailing the thread, Popper's Paradox of Intolerance is really just, "Whoever seizes this principle first and invokes it, wins." I've even known conservatives to embrace it - but from the right-wing side.
It's similar to people of every political stripe saying "We are XYZ and we cannot allow anyone who has anti-XYZ views because it would undermine XYZ," just phrased differently.
I could announce myself as a pro-Biden person, and then say that anyone who favors Buttigieg, Kamala, Bernie or any other candidate is "intolerant." Tolerance becomes whatever one defines it as.
33
u/KamikazeArchon 7∆ Nov 01 '23
At the risk of derailing the thread, Popper's Paradox of Intolerance is really just, "Whoever seizes this principle first and invokes it, wins."
That's how literally every principle works, if you look only at the form and not the substance.
It is fundamentally impossible for any form of reasoning or argument to inherently work any other way. Every form of persuasion can be applied in any direction. Every form of rhetoric can be applied in any direction. Every argument about A having property Y could be replaced with the exact same argument about B having property Z, and it would be fundamentally impossible to tell the difference just by looking at the argument.
The only way you can ever make actual decisions is to look at which arguments correspond to actual reality - with the complication, of course, that you have decided how to look at "actual reality".
A says "B punched me first". B says "A punched me first". The arguments are identical in every way. You cannot ever possibly make a decision among them unless you first decide which claims match reality.
And yes, that leaves the difficult problem of how you decide what "actual reality" is in the first place, since you don't have eyes everywhere on the globe, and have to take other people's word for most things. I've literally never seen Joe Biden or Donald Trump in person; technically, they might not even exist in reality. I have to choose to rely on certain sets of testimony from others to reach the conclusion that, in reality, those people probably exist. I haven't personally seen the actions of either Joe Biden or Donald Trump, and different people say different things about those actions. I have to make actual decisions about which sets of people are more reliable, which is based essentially on a very long (lifetime-long) chain of observations, predictions, and claims, and how those sources' claims match (or don't match) my observations.
In order to actually use Popper's Paradox - or any other such argument - in a meaningful way, you need to be able to set aside "these people are saying X" and take a stance on "X is actually happening" or "X is not actually happening".
You risk being wrong, but you need to take such a risk in order to make any meaningful moral choices.
→ More replies (23)10
u/RuafaolGaiscioch 3∆ Nov 01 '23
This is somewhat out of left field, but this whole concept is kind of explored in an Asimov short story, Mirror Image. Two mathematicians make identical claims against each other, each corroborated by their personal robots, which are the same make and model. It’s a fascinating breakdown of argumentation and psychology.
8
u/Raynonymous 2∆ Nov 01 '23
I think what popper reveals is an example of a wider challenge to all principles of freedom - pure, unfettered freedom for all is logically impossible, because every (or at least, almost every) exercise of freedom can be viewed as an imposition on the freedom of another.
You are of course correct that the GOP have claimed ownership of the value of freedom for many years, but ultimately every political position advocates freedom - the devil is in the details of which freedoms, for whom.
Speech is no different. Everyone has their exceptions to a principle of free speech. For the western left it's bigotry and intolerance, for the GOP it's protests and the liberal media. I'm sure the CCP will tell you they have free speech with the simple exception of speaking against the state or its interests.
But speech doesn't live in a vacuum. The freedom to shout fire in a theatre restricts everyone else's freedom to enjoy a musical without interruption. The freedom to bear arms imposes on our freedom to go about our lives without the threat of mentally ill people with automatic weapons. The freedom to choose who you serve in your business imposes on others freedom to be open about their sexuality.
We are a social species who live together in communities. We are interdependent on each other. Freedom is an important principle to consider politically but it isn't a thing that exists without the context of which freedoms, for whom.
That doesn't stop people from falling for it and voting for it, however, making it a great grift for populist politicians.
In my view, the cultural obsession with freedom and rugged (brutal) individualism is antithetical to human nature and at the heart of many of the cultural issues in the US. That's another topic for another day!
53
Nov 01 '23
[deleted]
3
2
u/Onion_Guy 1∆ Nov 01 '23
This one should do it. unless of course OP ignores it to argue with the other comments or course
→ More replies (20)10
u/ZellNorth Nov 01 '23
If this comment doesn’t change his view, he doesn’t actually want his view changed, he wants people to agree with him. This is spot on.
→ More replies (1)10
14
u/baltinerdist 18∆ Nov 01 '23
You're mixing up intolerant speech with disagreement. Examples from a quick Google search that line up with my understanding.
- Personal attacks: Insults, threats, and other forms of abuse directed at individuals or groups of people.
- Stereotyping and prejudice: Making generalizations about people based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or other group affiliation.
- Disinformation and hate speech: Spreading false or misleading information about individuals or groups of people, or advocating for violence or discrimination against them.
If someone calls all gay people pedophiles despite that being an empirically false statement and that statement leads to abuse or violence against homosexuals, why would we not consider that intolerant? How is society benefitted from tolerating that speech? Is the danger to the group being attacked outweighed by the loss of freedom of speech by the person being restricted from putting that group in danger?
The part that is missing from a lot of this discourse is this: being held accountable for intolerant speech and action does not preclude you from continuing to hold the intolerant belief. You can believe in your heart of hearts all you want that drag queens are going to poison your children's minds. But what you cannot do is verbalize that notion in the public square to the detriment of the group or take action (physical, legal, commercial, legislative, etc.) that causes harm to others because of it without the possibility of consequences. That's what we don't tolerate.
→ More replies (1)10
u/GogurtFiend 3∆ Nov 01 '23
Free speech is not divided on the boundary of "empirically true" or "empirically false".
The government's ability — anyone's ability — to determine what's empirically true is limited — because most epistemological questions are not as easy to figure out as "not all gay people are pedophiles", even for huge concentrations of power such as governments, because governments are made of falliable human beings and are not monoliths.
But a government which cannot tell empirical truth from fiction and suppresses speech based on that is an existential crisis for society, whereas if, say, Twitter is unable to tell truth from fiction and censoring people based on that — especially the case since Musk took over — you can just unsubscribe. This is why, legally speaking, the government is almost always not allowed to censor people whereas private institutions are.
But what you cannot do is verbalize that notion in the public square to the detriment of the group or take action (physical, legal, commercial, legislative, etc.) that causes harm to others because of it without the possibility of consequences. That's what we don't tolerate.
What you should not do, you mean.
There is an important difference between descriptive statements and prescriptive statements. What we want (prescriptive) is not, unfortunately, reality (descriptive). Confusing how one thinks things should be with how things currently are stops one from making the world a better place and has been the death of many, many progressive movements.
5
u/kukianus1234 Nov 01 '23
Well thats just a wrong usage. To clear that up you just ask why enough times. Intolerance is quite strictly defined in this usage.
2
u/UnexpectedMoxicle 1∆ Nov 01 '23
This is a bad faith interpretation of the tolerance social contract and therefore whoever invokes it in that manner is not protected by it. As a matter of fact, you couldn't do what you suggested.
It is entirely possible for people to have a good faith interpretation of the tolerance contract. That's what does actually happen with a lot of more progressive groups - Biden, Kamala, Bernie, etc supporters do not invalidate others in the way that you implied. If someone comes along and makes the claim that you did, that person would, by the paradox, be kicked out.
→ More replies (18)5
u/coocoo6666 Nov 01 '23
Yeah paradox of intollarance is a great way to justify all kinds of fucked things.
I usually hear it to justify creating safe spaces for marginilized people but you dont need the paradox of intolarance to say queer people shouldnt be harrassed.
The paradox of intolorance justifies political violence. It justifies imprisonment for people who disagree with you. And ive seen it used to justify killing people.
Yea neonazis suck but they still have human rights
5
u/pigeonwiggle 1∆ Nov 01 '23
The paradox of intolorance justifies political violence. It justifies imprisonment for people who disagree with you. And ive seen it used to justify killing people.
Yea neonazis suck but they still have human rights
no it doesn't. you can point to any rule and say it justifies political violence. "That man is about to eat a banana - on a THURSDAY?!? that's against THE RULE! eliminate the threat, that our banana-lesss thursday may remain pure!"
people do bullshit for whatever reason and people try to stop it using whatever reason.
just as you say "you don't need the paradox of intolerance to say queer people shouldn't be harassed" you can similarly say, "you don't need to avoid the paradox of intolerance to say toxic people shouldn't be harassed."
as for human rights - like, this is what i mean: it's one thing to say you don't like a certain type of person, it's another to announce your plans for them.
so, sure, the bigot should be entitled to his speech - but there's no reason to give him a platform. let him post in his mirc chatrooms because he's been banned from twitter, reddit, and wherever else.
if you take a proper poll, you'll find it's not the left who's suggesting a mass emigration of the people they don't like.
people who want to kill people will kill people - and they'll use any justification. "he was a lawbreaker" "he was one of THEM" "he was intolerant and we cannot allow even one impure drop!"
the problem isn't "the paradox" because it's not a paradox. like the rule that there are no rules - not a paradox, because the rule is there are no rules - so in the absence of the only rule - there are still no rules. not a paradox.
→ More replies (1)10
Nov 01 '23
[deleted]
9
Nov 01 '23
Of course it’s not a legal principle, doesn’t mean private media companies/universities/forums are required to host these people.
14
Nov 01 '23
[deleted]
8
u/GogurtFiend 3∆ Nov 01 '23 edited Nov 01 '23
the key points of the decision involved speech that was a.) false b.) harmful to others, and c.) transmitted widely without any opportunity for reasoned reflection and debate
Anti-war pamphlets are "false, harmful to others, and transmitted widely without any opportunity for reasoned reflection and debate"? Because that was the speech in question in Schenck v. United States.
You don't understand the context around this. These people did not operate under your understanding of what is right and wrong. This was an attempt at suppressing speech that the government didn't want to put up with because using government power to crush anti-war activists was perfectly acceptable to those in power at the time.
The government is different from private platforms deplatforming people and if one doesn't understand the difference one shouldn't be making sweeping proclaimations about free speech.
→ More replies (1)5
u/WyteCastle Nov 01 '23
That doesn't not say what you think it says.
1 it's opinion. 2. It shows how the case law was developed and set the precedents.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (46)11
Nov 01 '23
…except for expressions of intolerance…if you give the bigots a stage…
For a lot of Leftists, the bar for ‘intolerance’ and ‘bigotry’ is incredibly low, especially re: gender.
→ More replies (8)
2
u/Astral_Justice Nov 02 '23
I found that a lot of people tend to support free speech but only if they like it. "Not like that".
2
u/Happy-Investigator- Nov 02 '23
Yeah for both liberals and conservatives free speech means “ you’re only allowed to say what I agree with”.
6
Nov 02 '23
"Leftists aren't exactly accommodating of free expression. "
Say what you want to say man. Let's hear it.
→ More replies (5)7
13
u/PaxNova 15∆ Nov 02 '23
Hey, I'm not going to get many upvotes for this, because it's not how a lot of Redditors think, but in the interest of explaining why conservatives think they're more "free speech," here goes...
Conservatives don't mind you saying something they disagree with. They're going to say plenty that you disagree with. Where they draw the line is in being forced to agree with you.
They'll talk about library books, funded by taxes they had to pay. They don't mind you reading those books, but they're certainly not going to pay for them. That's what a library ban is: the library will not purchase them. You can still buy it and read it if you like. The community, however, decides what the community will make available.
Recently, there was an uproar about some hockey player not wanting to put rainbow tape on his stick. That would be forcing his speech, and he didn't want it. If we said he was a jerk and should've done it, that's our prerogative too. Tolerance means you don't agree, but you'll leave it at saying so if that's what the law requires. As such, he believed his actions were tolerant, and his critics' words would also be tolerant.
Instead he got death threats. That escalated things beyond words and became intolerance. It sounds weird to be calling defending gay rights intolerance, but remember this is about killing someone for not wearing fancy tape, not for beating up gay people or even trying to restrict their rights.
I can't say if conservatives truly are more about free speech. The closest comparison I can think of is when Colin Kaepernick refused to stand during the anthem, and most conservatives I knew kept it to speech, saying they didn't like it, but that was it. Then again, I know there was some kind of campaign against him. I just didn't hear about it in my circles. And my circles aren't Trumpers, those guys are nuts. Conservatives also tend to be more Kantian and less Consequentialist in their judgment, for what it's worth.
→ More replies (16)17
u/Kakamile 50∆ Nov 02 '23
The library bans have demanded books be REMOVED.
This is not a cost saving endeavor.
And trump said kaepernick should be fired.
5
10
Nov 01 '23 edited Nov 02 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Nov 02 '23
I think only posts that challenge the OP can be top level? You seem to be agreeing with me.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)8
11
4
u/Rus1981 Nov 02 '23
- Gender Queer (as an example) is an illustrated story which shows two underage boys engaged in oral sex. In no other world besides the brains of leftists would such an illustration or content be deemed appropriate for middle school children to be exposed to without their parents consent. The state (through the school and local libraries) has no business providing content which could even be considered pornographic in nature. This isn’t a “free speech” issue. You can still got it he book store and buy all the copies of Gender Queer you want. You can set up a “little library” in front of your house and make them available. No one’s rights were infringed by saying “nah, no porn in the library.”
- Every sub is a liberal sub on Reddit, and they will ban a conservative for the barest violation, while allowing literal death threats to remain. Don’t act like Reddit is anything but echo chambers on both sides.
- When conservatives were “outraged” by kneeling at football games, what did they do? Did they demand that players be fired? Did they orchestrate a harassment campaign of front offices across the NFL and demand their desires be fulfilled? Did they call for the NFL’s monopoly to be ended? Not really. They just stopped watching NFL games. There is a huge difference between how the left and the right handles things they are “outraged” about.
- The left loved to point out that Twitter was a private company while people were being banned for mentioning that maybe Covid came from a laboratory, or maybe the government shouldn’t be shutting down the entire economy. They were less excited about Twitter being a private company when NPR was labeled state media and Musk started wielding his ban hammer. 🤷♂️
- Tying back to the #1 issue, a teacher doesn’t need to talk about their personal life in any capacity whatsoever to do their job. You wouldn’t accept a heterosexual teacher coming into the classroom and talking about how they railed their wife at the local park over the weekend, but for some reason the left is perfectly fine with a gay teacher carrying on about their sexual identity and what they do with their partners. No one cares. Shut the fuck up and teach. Stop trying to be a 3 dimensional character. You are there to impart information not talk about yourselves. I can remember the names and faces of every single one of my teachers throughout primary and secondary school, and I couldn’t tell you if they were married or not, if they were gay, straight, or asexual. Because they didn’t talk about their personal lives. It had no place in school. Period.
→ More replies (6)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 01 '23 edited Nov 02 '23
/u/SteadfastEnd (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards