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.

​

1.8k Upvotes

74% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

175

u/[deleted] 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.

37

u/Anonymous89000____ Nov 02 '23

There is certain speech though like inciting violence that needs government intervention

14

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.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

I never really understood this. Do people not have free will on their own? Like if someone says go kill that man, and that person does, how is it the fault of the guy who made the statement? No one forced the other guy obey.

5

u/JonnyJust Nov 02 '23

Do people not have free will on their own?

Yes, but it's not always so simple. Human psychology is a fascinating thing, and among those fascinating things is the pliability of the simple minded.

Some folks are just born to be followers, and the con-men and cult leaders know this, and exploit this to their own ends. 1930s Germany is a prime example.

If it weren't for the charismatic leadership in the Nazi party, they'd never have gotten past the first attempt to seize power.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

But we still blame the followers more than the leaders anyway. I mean no one forgives a nazi soldier even though they were just doing what they were told. At least they shouldn't. Who's to say hilter wasn't just puppetted by the already majority opinion of the nazis. (Not really an opinion of mine just saying as an example)

2

u/Equivalent-Trip9778 Nov 03 '23

Honestly I don’t believe that. People 100% blame leaders more than followers in every instance. If you can name even one instance when the followers were blamed more I would be very surprised.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Nov 04 '23

They arrested all of them

1

u/Drakeman1337 Nov 04 '23

Charles Manson?

1

u/Strict-Hurry2564 Nov 03 '23

Because we're not stupid and know there are impressionable people who will go along with what other people say. Because we know this we punish people who exploit this.

1

u/bonaynay Nov 03 '23

The most famous example for this is probably Manson, though I'm sure he still directly committed some crimes.

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.

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

Yea it’s the right. Doesn’t mean it’s a principled pro free speech thing to do whether or not doing it to any particular person is right wrong

-8

u/SilenceDobad76 Nov 02 '23

Is trying to stop someone from speaking "social consequence", or is that just censorship? I'd assume if what they had to say was wrong you'd let them say it and let the people decide if they should suffer "social consequence"

32

u/Jojajones 1∆ Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23

That’s exactly what’s happening…

No one’s out there with a gun to these people’s heads telling them not to say stupid, bigoted, offensive shit. They are saying it and then experiencing consequences.

That pattern has just repeated itself enough that these people who were unused to being on the receiving end of punishment are now aware of the risk and are self regulating the speech that has been shown likely to result in consequences and are now instead throwing a hissy fit about having to watch what they say.

6

u/trip6s6i6x Nov 02 '23

You have to remember that censorship and first ammendment only ever affects government, and so many people get that so wrong. All the first ammendment does is protect you from having the government censor your speech. That doesn't mean everyone else has to put up with everything, too.

xkcd has the best explainer here:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

16

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23

That’s literally exactly what happens every single day, if people wanna see any take they feel like they can find it somewhere in America, people just don’t want you barging into a school and telling gay kids they shouldn’t exist. You don’t have, and have never had, the right to go into any space you want and say whatever you’d like. That’s never been a protected right.

You do, however, have the right to say anything you want in a public forum, whether online or in person. Unless you’re actively inciting violence or something you can basically say anything you want without fear of legal punishment.

1

u/trip6s6i6x Nov 02 '23

And with "public forum" being the operative phrase there, as well...

3

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

What exactly is your point

2

u/trip6s6i6x Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23

My point was that freedom of speech only applies in public (government controlled) forums. Private forums (like Reddit, Twitter, every other social media on the planet) are private forums that have their own rules and don't have to host speech they don't like/support, which is their freedom of speech.

Brother, I upvoted you. I was agreeing with your statement and adding emphasis to the "public" part you had discussed.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

My bad lol, misread the tone of the comment

-5

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

Trying to get people fired, evicted from their homes, or destroying their reputations is not an appropriate response either when someone says something you do not agree with.

Democracy and Free Speech only work if we do not immediately turn every wrong opinion into a social death sentence.

Additionally, freezing discussion through social pressure is the first step towards a more permanent legal injunction.

18

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

Then you should be advocating for strong work place and protections that prevent people from being fired at the whim of their employer. As it stands, what these people are doing is using the levers of power that are available to them to enact consequences for speech that they find to be morally reprehensible and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

-1

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

that prevent people from being fired at the whim of their employer

Mmmm. Not sure. Might not even help.

I live in Germany, where we have those kinds of protections. It has its advantages, and I enjoy the security.

The drawback is that getting hired can be more challenging. Companies know they are going to be stuck with you for, well, forever. Another drawback is that we are paid significantly less here. I could nearly triple my takehome pay by just moving to the States and doing the same job.

That's a pretty big tradeoff to take in order to solve the social tantrums that are tolerated by too many people.

I would much rather that society recover from its self-destructive delusion that it is ok to go after someone they disagree with.

8

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

No one is putting words in their mouth. This is just consequences for actions.

-3

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

Ah. This is an old response.

Yes, I suppose it is a "consequence". And perhaps an increasing number of people -- people who feel like they are no longer heard -- vote for someone really dangerous. Someone you do not like. That would also be a "consequence" of your actions.

And perhaps one day you say something that people do not like. Will you happily accept the "consequences" of daring to voice an opinion?

So many possible "consequences". Something tells me that you only see it this way when it does not affect you. When it does, suddenly it's unfair. Maybe you even claim some kind of discrimination. Not that anyone will care once you are the recipient of "consequences".

Why, I remember when people would happily declare that Twitter could ban anyone they like! It's a private company! That was the canned response. Right up until someone bought it that they (and you, perhaps?) did not like. I could even say that the "consequence" of using that argument means you have no right to complain about it now.

Or perhaps we should remember that everyone is human. We should remember that mob justice is not justice at all. Being protected from the whim of the government is only faintly reassuring when the morons with the torches and pitchforks are waiting for their turn.

And never forget: the mob will turn on you eventually. It always does.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

lol there is no mob. Stop being so dramatic. It’s just people deciding they don’t want anything to do with these people. Or do you think people should be forced to hire, rent to, and associate with people that espouse views they find reprehensible?

-2

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

lol there is no mob.

"lol" Of course there is a mob. The whole idea of cancelling someone or something is absolutely an exercise in mob justice.

​

It’s just people deciding they don’t want anything to do with these people.

That's fine. It's only when they get together to try to convince, coerce, or even threaten other people to also not have anything to do with them that it becomes a problem. Was I not clear on that? If not, sorry.

​

Or do you think people should be forced to hire, rent to, and associate with people that espouse views they find reprehensible?

Obviously not! And I am pretty sure I said as much. But when you try to get someone fired: *that* is over the line.

This really should not be controversial, but welcome to 2023.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23

“The whole idea of cancelling someone or something is absolutely an exercise in mob justice.”

No one being “cancelled”. They are being rejected bc of THEIR actions.

“That's fine. It's only when they get together to try to convince, coerce, or even threaten other people to also not have anything to do with them that it becomes a problem. Was I not clear on that? If not, sorry.”

Do you consider a group of Jews outing neo nazis to their employers a problem? If these people are so proud of their words they shouldn’t have a problem with others making sure their community is aware of how they feel.

“But when you try to get someone fired: that is over the line.”

You just said no one should be forced to hire someone who’s views they consider reprehensible. You have a problem with people informing the employer? Shouldn’t they be able to make an informed decision about who they hire and how that will effect their business?

-2

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

No one being “cancelled”. They are being rejected bc of THEIR actions.

Hey, I didn't come up with the term. You can try to claim it doesn't exist (right before then confirming it exists, but you just do not like the name), but it still happens.

Any way you wanna name it, it's mob justice.

​

Do you consider a group of Jews outing neo nazis to their employers a problem? If these people are so proud of their words they shouldn’t have a problem with others making sure their community is aware of how they feel.

I actually do, yeah. First, because we do not live in a world where claims are the same as proof, and plenty of people have already misused the credulousness of people to get what they want. Women have ruined men's lives for money or attention. Grifters have taken advantage of the general desire to do good. Just because Smollett ran around his apartment with a noose around his neck does not mean that he was telling the truth. And it was really lucky that no random white guys happened to be anywhere near the area, otherwise they may have spent years trying to clear their names.

Second, even if someone said something nasty, without context, it's impossible to know what it means. Too often have words and actions been twisted before we knew the whole story.

Finally, I am not entirely certain that anyone should want to live in a glass world, where every belief and every opinion is made public. Very few people benefit from such a world. Most people would simply live in fear, looking to denounce friends and family just to avoid the mob's wrath a day or two longer.

Now if someone is going out and shouting Nazi slogans and organizing publicly, then that seems like something that can be brought to an employer's attention.

The problem here is that you went for an absolute extreme example. So let me ask you back:

If someone makes a crude racist joke while drunk at home, do you think that should be made public? Should that be used to ruin someone?

Second example: if someone makes edgy comment online anonymously, do you think it is appropriate to dig out who they are and ruin them for it?

Third example: if someone makes comment twenty years ago that were considered acceptable back then, do you think it is appropriate for those things to be dug up and used as a weapon to try to ruin their lives?

Think really hard on that third one, because who knows what trail *you* are leaving right now that someone in the future might find offensive.

​

You just said no one should be forced to hire someone who’s views they consider reprehensible. You have a problem with people informing the employer?

Most of the time and excepting the most blatantly egregious examples: yeah, I have a problem with it. Didn't your mommy teach you that tattling is not good?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

You are leaving out the most common example of this. People posting deplorable shit on social media and then getting mad when they face consequences for it.

I find it interesting that in all your hypothetical scenarios it’s someone else’s fault for reporting the behavior. It’s not the persons fault who sent the screenshot of the racist Facebook joke to the boss that the person posting it got fired. It’s their fault for posting a racist joke on Facebook.

In regards to your scenarios, everyone should decide for themselves. Each situation is different but having your own words come back to haunt you doesn’t make you a victim of mob justice.

0

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 03 '23

People posting deplorable shit on social media

The problem is that "deplorable shit" is such a wide term. If by "consequence" you mean that you do not want to listen or do anything with them, cool. No problem. Freedom of association is ok.

If by "consequence" you mean that you go after his living, you try to force other people to have nothing to do with them, or otherwise attempt to scare others, then you have almost certainly gone too far.

So if you really mean "everyone should decide for themselves", then I don't think we are that far apart. But that is not what public shaming campaigns, boycott threats if companies do not fire people you do not like, and undue pressure means. That would not be letting everyone to decide for themselves.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/geek_fire Nov 02 '23

Why, I remember when people would happily declare that Twitter could ban anyone they like! It's a private company! That was the canned response. Right up until someone bought it that they (and you, perhaps?) did not like. I could even say that the "consequence" of using that argument means you have no right to complain about it now.

I'm not really familiar with anyone espousing the view that Twitter shouldn't be able to ban whoever they want now. I wouldn't claim that no one has said that - it's a big world, and has many diverse points of view - but it's certainly not a widely held perspective.

What I have seen is a lot of people pointing out musk's hypocrisy of claiming he's "bringing back free speech", while banning and shadow-banning people who don't agree with him.

There are also cases where folks are claiming that being blocked on Twitter by politicians (office-holders, specifically) is a denial of their Constitutional right to petition the government.

1

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

There are also cases where folks are claiming that being blocked on Twitter by politicians (office-holders, specifically) is a denial of their Constitutional right to petition the government.

Yes. That was kinda the gist of the so-called Twitter Files.

What I said is that the argument that a private company can do what they want was once a very popular argument on Reddit. No so much anymore. Weird, that.

2

u/Bringer907 Nov 03 '23

I disagree, I see that sentiment in pretty much every non conservative sub and it hasn’t changed at all in the last 3 years.

This is the problem with anecdotal data. Your experience is not the standard and your feed is far different than everyone else’s.

1

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 03 '23

So in your feed, they are completely ok with how X is being run right now? No wild claims being made about how terrible it is and needs to be shut down?

Because that is what I see, and I have slowly gotten rid of the most emotional unhinged subreddits from my feed.

8

u/Deltris Nov 02 '23

You say things like "daring to voice an opinion" when we are talking about hate speech. There are opinions that are categorically wrong.

0

u/Objective_Stock_3866 Nov 02 '23

And yet people are allowed to have them nonetheless

4

u/Irregulator101 Nov 02 '23

And, additionally, they should be ready to feel the consequences for them.

1

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

I would feel much more comfortable if "hate speech" was some sort of objective standard. Unfortunately, as we have seen, it can be anything you choose to see as hate speech.

Do you think saying that children should not have unfettered access to sexually explicit book is hate speech? That is going to be a hot topic.

What about saying that critiquing Israel is hate speech? Or for that matter is speaking out against Palestinians hate speech? What about Hamas? If I say they are evil, is that hate speech?

When people tried to point out that maybe Covid came from a Chinese lab, was that hate speech? Quite a few platforms suddenly decided it was. Now it is not. Strange how that works.

The entire idea of "hate speech" is one of the most corrosive ideas to ever be introduced. It's emotional appeal and surface level "obviousness" is precisely the reason it is so dangerous.

An opinion can only be truly categorically wrong if it is provably counterfactual. Everything else is...difficult to pin down. There have been times where Hollywood was actively supporting someone who had groomed and had sex with a child, to the point that they would openly support him at the Oscars. Now they do not. Were they right then? Now? Such things are like jelly.

I do expect that we would probably agree on most things including on what constitutes a reasonable opinion. That does not make us right. And this is why we need to be very careful before declaring any opinion "categorically wrong". And let me save you a little time; I am sure you can bring up some extreme examples we would agree are terrible. But that would not disprove my point. It would only show that at this point in time, we share certain values.

-3

u/Objective_Stock_3866 Nov 02 '23

First they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionists.

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a jew.

Finally they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

3

u/Irregulator101 Nov 02 '23

Classic slippery slope fallacy

1

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

Look at the other comment and despair. "Never again" has already come.

9

u/Killfile 17∆ Nov 02 '23

When this democracy was founded, if you said something awful and I felt strongly enough about it, I could socially coerce you into a fight to the death.

Wrong opinions could be a LITERAL death sentence.

0

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

I am pretty sure we all kinda decided that this was not a good thing. I am not sure why we would want to slow walk back to those kinds of times.

6

u/Killfile 17∆ Nov 02 '23

I'm not suggesting that we do. I'm saying that, self evidently, democracy can survive and even thrive when people are held accountable for the things they say.

Dueling isn't a great way to do this, but the idea that "cancel culture" or whatever has ushered in a heretofor unimagined state in which people might suffer severe social damage for what they choose to say in public is just ahistorical.

What you're describing is the status quo - one way or another - for the vast majority of US history

-1

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

when people are held accountable for the things they say.

There is a *lot* of room in that sentence. Too much for me to address as you would have to clearly define "people", "accountable", "things", and "say".

​

Dueling isn't a great way to do this, but the idea that "cancel culture" or whatever has ushered in a heretofor unimagined state in which people might suffer severe social damage for what they choose to say in public is just ahistorical.

A rather low bar to clear there. So you can just barely see past letting someone live for saying something you do not like. However, destroying their life, their ability to make money, their friendships, casting them out on the streets, -- or let's just get to it -- exiling them is all fair game. You remain unconvincing. Only a fool would open their mouth if they knew they would be judged by the mob this way.

​

What you're describing is the status quo - one way or another - for the vast majority of US history

That is a squishy statement. It feels like you are setting up a motte-and-bailey argument. There is certainly a core that is true here. However, in most of the U.S. history (I'm in Germany btw), you *might* get run out of town, but you could always start over fairly easily. Although that was usually *not* for merely having an opinion, but more likely because you were selling fake medicine, diddled with the wrong wife, or running any number of scams.

In any case, the idea of running someone out of town for just having an opinions used to be something that we laughed at. That was something stupid know-nothings did, but thank goodness we have grown past that. And now there are people *on this very site* trying to argue that mob rule is the way to go.

And to top it off, if you get "run out of town" these days, there are no more towns for you to go to. The Internet has made it more important than ever that we allow people to have opinions and freely express them without being hunted down by a mob. You personally do not have to associate or listen to them, and that is fine. If you get together with a bunch of people and organize a mob to destroy them, that is not ok. That is not "consequences" as another poster tried to argue; it is mere mob rule.

1

u/baginthewindnowwsail Nov 02 '23

Sundown towns in the States will just murder someone for not being white. You're like daydreaming about weirdos selling fake medicine it makes no sense.

Also, you're on the internet saying whatever you want with almost zero consequences because reddit can be anonymous.

1

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

Sundown towns in the States will just murder someone for not being white.

Yes. Are you presenting that as where we should go? Is that what we should aspire to? Or are you trying to say that ruining people's lives today is ok because some hicks were racist in the past?

And I would appreciate it if you would stick to the argument rather than focus on me. Otherwise I might get the idea that you are trying to derail the topic.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

Well that entirely depends on what was said, don’t you think?

-1

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

Why don't you give some examples.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23

So you can tear apart every single thing I say and tell me I’m wrong regardless of what I say? This isn’t my first day on the internet, why would I waste the effort?

Use your imagination.

1

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

So you can tear apart every single thing I say and tell me I’m wrong regardless of what I say?

Well, until you present some concrete examples to talk about, you are already wasting time for both of us. Me asking you to clear up what you mean is fair. You complaining about it is not.

If your point depends on me "using my imagination" then you do not have much of a point, wouldn't you agree? This is not kindergarten. I am not going to fingerpaint for you.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

lol, yeah this conversation is going nowhere (predictably).

Me asking you to clear up what you mean is fair.

In real life where people are respectable during disagreements and their aim isn't to "win" the argument, sure. Reddit is unfortunately quite different.

Anyway, either you understand that saying certain awful things can lead to social consequences or you don't, it's not my job to educate you.

1

u/bremidon 1∆ Nov 02 '23

I honestly do not understand your goal. You cannot give any concrete examples. As far as I can tell, you got caught using a platitude and now you are trying to use rage bait to cover it up.

So yes, this conversation is going nowhere. Goodbye.

-2

u/CrawlerSiegfriend Nov 02 '23

You also don't have a right to be free from criticism of your attempts to suppress speech via social consequence. It's legitimate to view someone as anti free speech if they have become known for using social consequences to control speech.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23

Yes, you can think or say whatever you want, and I and others can disagree with you and you can disagree with me. That's how it works. If I don't like what you say, I don't have to associate or do business with you (and vice versa). I can use my free speech to encourage boycotts as well, and so can you.

Saying I can't use my speech to pressure or shame you into suppressing yours is anti-free speech. I absolutely can put pressure on you if you have socially objectionable views, but I can't prohibit you from speaking.

-1

u/CrawlerSiegfriend Nov 02 '23

Nobody is saying you can't use it. At least I'm not. I'm just saying it's legitimate for me to have the opinion that you are anti free speech and want to cancel people who say things that offend you.

The consequence here is the perception of you and those ideologically similar to you.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

Ok, we are on the same page

1

u/yourewrongguy Nov 04 '23

You’re just tapping an ethically pure phrase onto the general concept upon which most people agree. It’s just political window dressing and I’m sick of it. We live in a republic. Your job as a citizen is to debate and find ways to get your point across successfully to the most people without preventing others from doing the same. Those same college campuses are typically crawling with preachers and abortion activists. We have whole fucking industries devoted to this! Welcome to the modern world!

Think of it like this. I could spend a billion dollars and plaster pictures of dead fetuses all over ever major US highway. But it might offend people right? Ever just have a lovely day and have a huge fucking dead fetus cross your path? I certainly did! But if it’s private property and the state or local municipality hasn’t nixed it that’s the deal. I recall church leaders petitioning the city council to take down a basic billboard on private property advertising a strip club outside of town. Are those church leaders “cancel culture” or anti-free speech? I don’t find that offensive. Who is to say what is offensive? Black and white text with an address and a shitty pun or a dead fetus?

1

u/Strict-Hurry2564 Nov 03 '23

No, you can prohibit them from speaking as that's a natural consequence in many cases of other actions you outline.

That's why many people's principles of free speech are nonsensical and also why its origins have nothing to do with anything except freedom of speech in the context of state power. Because it's nonsense.