news Free Speech

[Bernard Wright]

Many seem to think freedom of speech should be a protection offered only to those with popularly-held beliefs, which I find ironic. Here is my logic. Perhaps you can tell me where it is flawed.

There is evil in the world. Most of us would rather there not be. I think that's a fair premise.

However, evil, on its face, is not objective, and what falls under "evil" cannot be relegated to any governing body, even if that body were democratically elected. Moreover, ostracizing "evil" from polite society will create resentment and an underground network where it is out of sight and out of mind, until it rears a very large head.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say banning certain modes of thought and communication from the internet is effective. I think there have been examples of popular figures whose prominence has waned after being deplatformed by Twitter, so maybe the method does work. Is this not a precedent that could (and in time, likely would) lead to unforeseen consequences that hit closer to home as cultural pendulums swing?

So, 10/10 on the bad scale gets banned today. Maybe next month we work our way down to 8/10 on the bad scale. So, in a few months, we're all content with everything on the internet being a 1 to 7. Feels good to be a 1! The powers that be really like you 1s. ...Look out 6s.

But some people reeeealy want those 7s gone, and they lobby. So the governing body that draws the line declares all 7s gone. No internet presence for you. But now concern arises among even those who are proponents of the system. It's becoming scary to see how quickly a 7 can lose their voice and be banned from the marketplace of ideas, just for going against popular opinion. But this is only a minority of people who hold this concern. Most people are fine with it. In turn, that minority gets put under the microscope, and who would have thought? They're SEVENS. Boot 'em.

In my hypothetical world, consensus is somehow reached that 7 shall remain the line. However, what is defined as a 6 or a 7 can change over time, and once someone is deemed a 7, there is no turning back because they have been ostracized. You can't come back in 7s! And the 8s, 9s, and 10s are out of sight, out of mind.

Are the 7s, 8s, 9s, and 10s, still alive? You bet they are. And that's a lot of people, and some of them are not only evil, they are intelligent and capable.

This is an oversimplification. There is much nuance and complexity in the real world, and that is the point. We cannot draw straight lines between good and evil, and who we should let participate in society. I see the only solution to keeping things from unraveling into utter chaos to be allowing some chaos and dissent to remain the in the system. Allowing any group of people, or any political faction to dominate, might actually result in short-term benefits. I'm not saying it won't work in the short term. My point is, who draws the line, and who decides what falls on either side of the line, is not something I am comfortable placing in the hands of others, even if they are elected officials. Don't be so naive as to think that the politicians are going to get it right and create utopia. And don't think you will either. The world is complex.

Road to Hell. Good intentions.

 

[Slanted]

@Fancy.domains

You raise good points. Freedom of speech is not absolute. Some limits are recognized in most places, though they vary:

Libel and slander are illegal in most places. (In the UK, injunctions are more limiting that anything in the USA.)

Terrorist cookbooks are, I presume, illegal too, since they can be linked persuasively to violent acts, which are illegal.

Holocaust denial is more complicated. As you say, it's illegal in some EU countries. I remember discussing that issue online myself somewhere about a year ago. In the USA, freedom of speech is more absolute; and such a limitation wouldn't be possible.

Where to place limits on speech is a discussion that society will never stop having. Locke was a huge advance over the centuries that preceded him in Britain, yet even he wanted to ban atheists and catholics. We've made progress since. Yet artists, communists and socialists, members of the LGBT community, and others weren't very free to speak during the 19th and 20th centuries, even though Mill had articulated the general principle already.

To the extent that those groups flourish today, it's not because the government changed its laws about freedom of speech. The U.S. constitution is exactly the same as it was in the backward slave-owning days when it was written. So what changed, if the law didn't? If freedom of speech ONLY exists as a legal obligation not to make laws prohibiting it, and that is the same in the 21st century as it was in the 18th century, then what accounts for the tremendous freedom to speak that such groups now enjoy? (At least in the USA, to stick with that example.)

The only change has been an awakening in the general public. Private platforms, companies, organizations, groups, publishers, and their members – they have built a consensus out of phililosophers' earlier ideas and established social norms that are more tolerant and permissive. In other words, people became conscious of freedom of speech as a value, embraced it, and voluntarily practiced it wherever they held sway.

 

[bmugford]

That's fine. I think you're talking about legal requirements to protect free speech. But I'm talking about the principle itself, which is more important fundamentally. Throughout most of history, and in many countries today, and in most contexts of daily life, there is no legal assurance of freedom of speech – exactty as you say. So the only freedom of speech that matters to us in those contexts is the abstract principle, which it is critical to defend.

I am generally a strong proponent of free speech & expression.

Clearly though "free speech" is not unlimited. That has been determined legally and for good cause.

Some examples of speech/expression that is not protected -

- Saying fire in a crowded theater
- Threatening someone
- Making false statements about certain things
- Inciting violence with speech
- Certain forms of obscenity
- Defamation / Libel
- Many others...

You can say that is tautology, AKA it is a crime because it is illegal.
But if all those were considered "free speech" the world would be a far worse place.

There has to be reasonable limitations to what is acceptable as a society.

Never in my life have I heard anyone claim that. Every 5-year-old child knows that if it calls its mother a $&@!%#!, then it won't get any ice cream.

Such an obvious concept right? Maybe Rob should have thought of that before he posted what he did.

Brad

 

[frank-germany]

Life can be tragic. We have no right to privacy in the public square. We can be video recorded against our will, whether we are eating ice cream or falling victim to a crime.
I would defend the right of anything you have proposed to remain free under freedom of speech laws.

so you are saying

when you are gathering with like-minded people
in a room that is reserved for a certain group of people

and a manic comes in and shoots you and your friends
a maniac who doesn't belong to that group
and was not invited

now comes in and shoots you and your friends to death
and films it

it's then your own fault
-regardless that you are now dead and can't complain-
that you have been in a "public space"
- I highly doubt it's public before the filming happened -
and now it's ok for the whole world to
to watch you die
and shall listen to what sick ideas this mad guy has to tell the world


really ?
thats what free speech is for you?

think twice
or better
10 times

I think it's a brilliant idea not to give these people a voice
and no attention too

when you don't listen to them
and don't talk about them
and don't spread their ideas
they have no reason to do so again

it makes no sense
if nobody cares

 

[xynames]

Pres. Grump is very much against free speech. He only wants to hear what flatters and supports him or his “policies.” He’d love for us to be a society of North Koreans who bow down to him.

And yet there are supposed free speech advocate conservatives who champion him. Why?

 

[frank-germany]

...all or nothing and we lock our own doors at night, but we do not lock our neighbors inside their homes from the outside, even if they are scary.

unfortunately, life is not as simple.

there is no all or nothing
no black and white
no good or evil

thats just a mean to help the simple structured minds
to be able to live a day to day life.

and it's a great way to manipulate the masses

really sad
but that this is simply not the truth.

most things exist in a much more complex situation
and are neither black nor white

but I feel with you when you can't agree
how could you?
we are all limited to what we are
no way out

 

[Bob Hawkes]

most things exist in a much more complex situation and are neither black nor white

With respect to free speech, and many things, this is so true.

 

[biggie]

Hi All

this is good thread for discussion

not just for discussing the subject, but also for me, to get a chance to read between some lines
.
in the US of A, free speech is tied to politics, philosophy and the dollar bill

but Brad made a profound statement:

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

for the minorities of the US of A, they have always had to watch what they say and do

freedom of speech and freedom of expression are not free for them, free speech has a cost
Martin Luther King had a dream and he got assassinated for expressing it
or look at Colin Kaepernick, Muhammad Ali or https://www.history.com/news/1968-mexico-city-olympics-black-power-protest-backlash

Obama, perceived as Muslim by the Tea party, was very careful not to raise social rights issues for african americans, but he pushed hard for 3 different kinds of restrooms.
he knew what to say and what not to say.
wonder what would have happened if he took same hard line approach as Trump does now?

think about what Trump said last year, about NFL players kneeling
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...players-who-kneel-during-anthem-idUSKBN1KA2VG

sure, Trump is exercising his right to free speech on twitter:
just browse some of his latest
http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/archive

twitter is a social media platform, but what the TOS, and can anybody talk negatively about anybody else without facing consequences or getting banned?

can you do it?

the right to vote, is a form of free speech and yet voter suppression is still going on:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...ression-a-southern-tradition-still-flourishes

it's all about power, who has it at the time and who wants it in the future.
remember the song "fight the power" by public enemy?

there's a line in the song :
Our freedom of speech is freedom or death
We got to fight the powers that be
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...13623322B4ACD6932A6B13623322B4AC&&FORM=VRDGAR

if you got power, you can control speech
if you don't fear consequences of free speech, only then can you speak freely

I got more, but i'm hungry right now.



imo...

 

[Corey]

Free Speech in what Country @Bernard Wright ?

Cheers
Corey

 

[offthehandle]

No consequences to this. Call to kill police. GD hosted them with their nameservers 2013-2015. Now cloudflare, Gab and Stormer get booted. Bias?

And here, their website was modified from radical in 2014, to G- rated now. But the motive is questionable imho.

https://web.archive.org/web/2015010...it-revolutionary-violence-and-a-love-on-fire/

"If the sole purpose of black theology “is to apply the freeing power of the gospel to black people under white oppression,”12 then the “thing” for black people in America is revolution!"

"“If the riots are the black man’s [sic] courage to say Yes to himself, then violence may be . . . the only expression of Christian love to the white oppressor.”

 

[Slanted]

Clearly though "free speech" is not unlimited. That has been determined legally and for good cause.

Yes. I think we all agree on that. We even cited the same examples of speech that is illegal.

There has to be reasonable limitations to what is acceptable as a society.

I've never met anyone who doesn't think so.

However, it's important to remember that what "has been determined legally" may or may not align with ethics or the public good. That depends on the laws that have been enacted, for starters. And what "has been determined legally" is, by it's very nature, not absolute or universal.

The law is completely different depending on a person's time and place. For example, atheism and blasphemy is still illegal in many countries – even punishable by death:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-atheist-is-punishable-by-death-a6960561.html

I'm more sympathetic to laws prohibiting Holocaust denial in some EU nations, even though I'm not sure that I entirely agree with that prohibition, which in the USA would itself be illegal.

In the UK journalists can be prohibited by a "super injunction" from discussing an ongoing legal case, even if the general public is gossiping about it.

And so forth. Lawyers can interpret their local laws. But the more fundamental question is what kind of freedom society wants. The big question is about defining freedom of speech as a value or principle. Where should it be the custom? Where are its limits?

The law can't decide that for us. If the law is just, then it's we who ratify the law. If the law is unjust, then we must change it. Same with any formal policy – that of a company or NGO or club or online forum. In most spheres of daily life, as you rightly point out, there is no law guaranteeing any freedom of speech at all. Yet, to some extent, we do expect and benefit such freedom in our interactions with others in various contexts.

Here on NamePros, for example, we are able to express competing or controversial opinions with relatively little censorship. There is some intervention, of course; but there is also a lot of free latitude. That's not laziness on the moderators' part. It's a policy or a goal or a value to allow free expression to a large extent.

In some contexts, we expect more freedom of speech than in others. For example, I've heard domainers say that bloggers have every right to block comments from people they disagree with or who criticize them. After all, it's their blog. True. They have that right. But is it right to do so?

Same question but a different context: Google is a private company too, exactly like the blogger. What if Google decided to block comments from people they disagree with or who criticize them? So that speech would not show up search results, and Chrome would not allow you to view those comments. After all, it's their website (Google.com) and their browser that can display or not show whatever Google pleases. They have that right. But few of us would judge them in the same way as the blogger.

We all have our own ideas and ideals when it comes to free speech, as this example with Google and the blogger illustrates. We feel instinctively that it is wrong for Google to block comments on ideological grounds, even if some here would give an individual blogger that right.

But there is no law requiring Google to protect freedom of speech by showing a comment Google prefers to block. Legally, I assume Google.com has the same right to NOT publish content that some blogger has. We therefore can't appeal to any laws to tell us what is right. We must think about freedom of speech as a general principle, which is voluntarily practiced by private individuals, organizations, and companies. It is a matter of philosophy and custom primarily – and not the law.

Such an obvious concept right? Maybe Rob should have thought of that before he posted what he did.

No kidding. You're referring to Rob's misguided tweet, which republished a video. There is another thread for people who want to keep criticizing Rob for that dumb decision. Arguably, there is a free-speech issue involved there too. I mean insofar as Facebook and Twitter and other platforms all decide to ban a video that is not illegal, that clearly stifles discussion about said video. Of course, they are free to block whatever they want. But it is not surprising that some people who feel very strongly about free discussion chose to republish the video elsewhere. Does that mean Epik's CEO should have gotten involved? No, it was a bad decision. Does that mean Rob's statement that the video looks like a hoax is ok? No, it was insensitive to the victims and muslim community. But even Rob has the right to be wrong.

This thread isn't about Rob. It's about free speech as such.

Above, I made the point that people will judge Google by a different standard than an individual blogger if Google.com stops publishing content simply because Google disapproves of it. Even though Google.com is just a website like the blogger's website, the general public has come to view Google as a utility that SHOULD remain neutral and not censor search results. And that's a reasonable perspective, isn't it? The importance of search engines for online communication cannot be overstated. Google may have no legal obligation to protect free speech by displaying the content it finds rather than censoring it. And yet we all probably believe Google ought to protect free speech and remain neutral. Ethically and for the public good, they should.

Online communication depends on domains to a large extent – for email and websites of every kind, including Google.com. Domains can be blocked because someone disagrees with the content published on the domain. Maybe that's a vocal majority angry about offensive content. Maybe it's a tiny special interest group like the pharmaceutical lobby. Maybe it's just some personal opinion by the owner of the registrar. Perhaps he hates some ethnic group or the LGBT community, and therefore decides to de-platform a website dedicated to that community. All of this is legal. Registrars are private companies and can eject whomever they please, as long as they can cite something in their policy. No registrar is required to uphold freedom of speech.

Yet if all registrars act in this way, then freedom of speech online becomes practically impossible. There is a strong argument to make for registrars acting as a neutral utility. Even if the general public still hasn't realized this, it's important to consider. For example, when Gab was in the news because of violence perpetrated by 1 of its forum members last year, the public campaigned to force GoDaddy to ban the domain. And when the domain came to Epik, they lobbied Epik in the same way. They would, in fact, have lobbied all registrars to ban Gab.com, resulting in the content disappearing from the internet. Some of you may say: "Yes, a forum that permits very offensive content ought to disappear." But would the same lobbying efforts have been directed at Google – to censor Gab.com in search results and block it in browsers? It's the same end result. But most people will react differently and say, "No. A search engine should be neutral."

But if neutrality and non-censorship is crucial for search engines and browsers, then it should also be crucial for domain registrars. Otherwise there is nothing for search engines to find, nothing for browsers to browse.

 

[frank-germany]

This thread isn't about Rob. It's about free speech as such.

I thought so until now

 

[Bernard Wright]

it's then your own fault
-regardless that you are now dead and can't complain-
that you have been in a "public space"
- I highly doubt it's public before the filming happened -
and now it's ok for the whole world to
to watch you die
and shall listen to what sick ideas this mad guy has to tell the world

In such case, any fault is in the hands of the maniac, clearly. And the video would certainly be reviewed by legal authorities who would draw the same conclusion.

I think it's a brilliant idea not to give these people a voice
and no attention too

when you don't listen to them
and don't talk about them
and don't spread their ideas
they have no reason to do so again

Again, thank you for your opinion. I again contest the idea. Taking away such a voice, even of a murderous maniac, sets a legal precedent that will, with certainty, be exploited by those in power who want to move the boundaries of acceptability into the realm of political opponents, or even special interest groups such as the LGBT, as I stated above. You can't pick an choose who gets freedom, and if you value your own liberty you cannot entrust politicians and private companies to always have your best interests in mind.

I do agree with one thing you stated, and I will reiterate it.

when you don't listen to them
and don't talk about them
and don't spread their ideas
they have no reason to do so again

Yes. Exactly. Give everyone a voice, but endorse and engage with only those voices you choose. Choose well, and be cognizant of the great fortune you have in being able to make your own choice. This goes for all things in life.

 

[frank-germany]

I mean insofar as Facebook and Twitter and other platforms all decide to ban a video that is not illegal.

Not illegal???
the USA is not the only country that has access to the internet

""
Two men, aged 44 and 18, have appeared in the Christchurch District Court on charges related to sharing the helmet-cam video of the shooting at the Al Noor Mosque. Philip Neville Arps and the teen, who has name suppression, are due to appear again next month. A Masterton woman has also been arrested but, according to reports, hasn't been charged.
""


""
Well, people have already been charged, after Chief Censor David Shanks made it illegal to watch the attacker's 17-minute video by classifying it as "objectionable".
""


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/ch...ng-christchurch-mosque-shooting-videos-spread



and read this:

""
Many who watched the shocking video of the gunman attacking the mosques in Christchurch will still have those searing images in their mind.

For some it may become the dominant memory of the massacre and the cause of lasting anguish and guilt.

Neuroscience educator and child development expert Nathan Wallis says once something has been seen you can't un-see it.

Many who either chose to watch the video of worshippers being killed, or watched it briefly by accident, may have to face up to what they saw.
""


""
One reader, Kevin, asked: "What about teens or children or anyone really who saw that shocking video before they realised what they were seeing and stopped watching. How do you get those terrible scenes out of your mind?"

Wallis said children who had seen the video and were upset by it needed to be taught how to process what they had seen.

"Tell them that it is normal for them to be traumatised by seeing that, even when the child says they are not affected," Wallis said.

"It makes it safe for them to come back later to talk to you about it. It's really important that they do talk about it eventually to get it out of their head."
""
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/ch...d-the-shocking-video-but-how-do-you-forget-it

 

[frank-germany]

"
Facebook says that it removed 1.5 million videos of the New Zealand mass shooting

1.2 million were ‘blocked at upload’
"

what a world

 

[Bernard Wright]

unfortunately, life is not as simple.

there is no all or nothing
no black and white
no good or evil

This is why allowing anyone to place limits your rights is dangerous. What is black to them might be white to you.

I might be a broken record here, but LGBT is a great example. If the laws had been set in the 1950s that LGBT would never have a voice, then we today would have no LGBT voice in society.

Now that LGBT does have a voice, thanks to free speech, if free speech were to not be defended, LGBT would surely one day return to "black" status. Free speech is one of the fundamental principles on which our modern society has been built. It must be defended in order to keep what we have.

 

[frank-germany]

This is why allowing anyone to place limits your rights is dangerous. What is black to them might be white to you.

I might be a broken record here, but LGBT is a great example. If the laws had been set in the 1950s that LGBT would never have a voice, then we today would have no LGBT voice in society. And without free speech, it would surely one day return to "black" status. Free speech is one of the fundamental principles on which our modern society has been built. It must be defended in order to keep what we have.

it has nothing to do with "free speech" to post a link to video
or upload a video from a 3rd party

you may speak your thought as we both do here
that's "free speech"

you can shoot a video
that's free speech

to upload a video from somebody else
that has committed a mass murder
has nothing to with free speech

that is illegal support of a crime

- I guess thats illegal in every country -

 

[Bernard Wright]

Free Speech in what Country @Bernard Wright ?

Cheers
Corey

Thanks for chiming in. It's hidden in my (long) third post that I am referring to free speech in the US.

 

[Bernard Wright]

that is illegal support of a crime

I wonder whether a court might eventually weigh-in regarding whether it is indeed support of a crime. It is documenting a crime, surely. The extent to which it is supporting the crime is rather a case-by-case situation, dependent upon the reason for which the video was broadcast.

There have been videos of tragic crimes by which deep analysis has been conducted to expose perpetrators who otherwise would not have been exposed. Some cases have involved police offer shootings of civilians. Thanks to these videos, the truth can be exposed.

 

[xynames]

Looks like in NZ people take action
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/new-zealand-women-headscarves
to wear headscarves to support the Muslim community

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...hooting-all-military-style-and-assault-rifles
and to ban all assault rifles

while in the US we have too many who just talk or (like Bernard Wright) want to talk and talk and talk (ostensibly freely, but sometimes with their own conservative right wing agenda).

When I see Bernard Wright supporting those wearing Muslim head scarves as free speech versus supporting so passionately an alleged white supremacist like the Rob Monster then I’ll give his supposedly neutral position respect.

In the meantime, my position is that some rights (gun ownership, posting of inflammatory prejudicial content with no socially redeeming value) do need to be either curbed for public safety (officially) or publicly scorned (unofficially). The latter scorn is what the Monster has received, and deserves.

 

[Bernard Wright]

Looks like in NZ people take action
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/new-zealand-women-headscarves
to wear headscarves to support the Muslim community

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...hooting-all-military-style-and-assault-rifles
and to ban all assault rifles

while in the US we have too many who just talk or (like Bernard Wright) want to talk and talk and talk (ostensible freely, but with their own conservative right wing agenda).

When I see Bernard Wright supporting those wearing Muslim head scarves as free speech versus supporting so passionately an alleged white supremacist like the Rob Monster then I’ll give his supposedly neutral position respect.

A few things. First, I would very much prefer to keep Rob's name out of this discussion. This is about free speech. Also, I have not made my politics clear to anyone on this forum aside from my advocacy of free speech. You may read into my comments as you choose, but I am not here to deliberate left vs right, but the merits of the free speech laws that allow the open discourse and sharing of ideas among all political views.

Lastly, it seems rather juvenile to say "Do this or you're a bad guy..." That is setting trap, and even as I do acquiesce that you obviously have shown a valid and noble use of free speech, it can be suggested that I only do so to appease those who deep inside wonder whether I am still a bad guy. I will state it very clearly that I believe in a marketplace of ideas where participants may speak freely. The more this marketplace is utilized, the better the economy of ideas becomes and the richer we all are, in turn.