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.

 

[offthehandle]

Because people are purposefully not taught the dangers that history teaches. In fact, they may even be taught to opposite.

The enemy is always 3 steps ahead, minimum.

And that is why Free Speech is so important. Being squashed and deindexed by Google, websites who do not get discovered, they are not given a platform. Same with those who use social media constantly- censored for views that do not fit the narrative. Big Tech is a huge enemy, and they are ahead of the curve. Google even erased the "Do no evil" b.s. as I recall from their mission statement.

I just would hope individuals will move back to their own websites, and a simple website creator is made and some sort of new form of linking system- like an independent (for lack of a better term) "peer to peer indexing" system is created.

 

[Nametree]

This started as an excellent thread and many pitched in valuable comments but it seems to have gotten derailed. Pitching in some thoughts of my own if it's not too late.

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 (...) You can't pick an choose who gets freedom, and if you value your own liberty you cannot entrust politicians and private companies (...)

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.

A few thoughts here. I think a core issue with classifying anything as outside the boundaries of free speech is, in a sense, that it's a slippery slope - any level of censorship is arguably bad for an ideal democracy.

And yet, I can't shake the thought that free speech is not the absolute most important thing in a society.

One of roles of a government is, arguably, to protect its citizens. As some have pointed out, one's right to free speech should not trump another's right to safety. Practical free speech is different, then, than free speech in the abstract.

I see some bringing up the idea that disallowing Holocaust denial is problematic. Sure, if what we're talking about is the ideal of free speech in the abstract, then it is problematic - anyone should be able to say whatever they want in a society where that ideal is upheld above all else. I argue that society has never, and can never exist within the boundaries of any government that strives to protect its citizens.

This is where I get stuck, morally, philosophically, etc. Can someone explain to me why it is desirable to allow people to deny the Holocaust? (Beyond the slippery slope argument, which is insufficient in my mind).

This isn't something two can disagree about, there's no nuance to the truth that the Holocaust did happen. Saying it didn't isn't a matter of opinion, it's a harmful act of disinformation, so disallowing that is an important act of protecting the truth and protecting people.

Ultimately, I agree with Bernard's conclusion - you can choose what voices to engage with. But as much as I think it might be dangerous precedent to ban any form of speech, I think it's all the more dangerous to allow extreme hateful opinions and disinformation that can lead to actual harm to be broadcast without check.

And that is why Free Speech is so important. Being squashed and deindexed by Google, websites who do not get discovered, they are not given a platform. (...) Big Tech is a huge enemy, and they are ahead of the curve. Google even erased the "Do no evil" b.s. as I recall from their mission statement.

In this entire conversation very few seem to acknowledge that Google and the rest of big tech are private companies, and, while they have to abide by the laws of the countries where they operate, there is nothing preventing them from making their own rules.

Choosing your customers can be entirely within the boundaries of free speech. That can mean "deplatforming" some - using quotes here because you're free to buy another domain, start another blog, email your audience directly, and Google/Twitter don't owe you anything.

It is not Google's responsibility or mission to give everyone a platform.

Should it be? Perhaps that's an ideal situation, but frankly I see no way for that to happen in a capitalist society.

Ultimately, I would argue that while these "enemies" need to be kept in check, we live in a world where free speech is much much freer than before Google, Twitter and Facebook. But free speech ain't free.

 

[Corey]

Unwatch Thread

 

[offthehandle]

Choosing your customers can be entirely within the boundaries of free speech. That can mean "deplatforming" some - using quotes here because you're free to buy another domain, start another blog, email your audience directly, and Google/Twitter don't owe you anything.

Apparently the EU doesn't agree with you about "making their own rules", but it was just a small fine. No real big deal at all... heck no big deal at all you know... Only $10 Billion so far. lol. Soon the US will wake up and do something also.

"BRUSSELS (AP) — Europe’s antitrust regulators slapped Google with a big fine Wednesday for the third time in less than two years, ordering the tech giant to pay 1.49 billion euros ($1.7 billion) for freezing out rivals in the online advertising business.

https://apnews.com/701658e16440433f840e15869b101fa8

The ruling brings to nearly $10 billion the fines imposed against Google by the European Union. And it comes at a time when big tech companies around the world are facing increasing regulatory pressure and fierce political attacks over privacy violations, online misinformation, hate speech and other abuses."

 

[frank-germany]

...
And yet, I can't shake the thought that free speech is not the absolute most important thing in a society.
.. Practical free speech is different, then, than free speech in the abstract...

..Can someone explain to me why it is desirable to allow people to deny the Holocaust? (Beyond the slippery slope argument, which is insufficient in my mind)...

Ultimately, I agree with Bernard's conclusion - you can choose what voices to engage with. But as much as I think it might be dangerous precedent to ban any form of speech, I think it's all the more dangerous to allow extreme hateful opinions and disinformation that can lead to actual harm to be broadcast without check....
Should it be? Perhaps that's an ideal situation, but frankly I see no way for that to happen in a capitalist society.

Ultimately, I would argue that while these "enemies" need to be kept in check, we live in a world where free speech is much much freer than before Google, Twitter and Facebook. But free speech ain't free.

thanks a lot.
you found a good way to describe it.

...
Ultimately, I agree with Bernard's conclusion - you can choose what voices to engage with.

that is true for the intelligent adult person only.

you want to protect children
and easy to be manipulated person from that
I guess.




that is a little complex
so not everybody will agree

 

[biggie]

Yep. Lol. Except when Govt is playing Robin Hood and giving away other peoples hard earned tax money for those who want HUD housing, food stamps and welfare benefits.

Hi

so I guess US of A citizens, who can't afford the luxury life or are having hardships don't deserve to have decent shelter,healthy food and access to healthcare?

speaking of :
gov a mint" giving away other peoples money:

In terms of individual countries, the following receive the most in economic [not security] aid:

• Afghanistan ($US650,000,000)
• Jordan ($US635,800,000)
• Kenya ($US632,500,000)
• Tanzania ($US534,500,000)
• Uganda ($US435,500,000)
• Zambia ($US428,525,000)
• Nigeria ($US413,300,000)

In terms of security aid, the countries receiving the most help are:

• Afghanistan ($US5 billion)
• Israel ($US3.2 billion)
• Iraq ($US1.3 billion)
• Egypt ($US1.3 billion)
• Syria ($US541,500,000)
• Jordan ($US364,200,000)

that's a lot of tax duckies going to other people, people who can't vote in US of A elections.
here are some who receive most gov a mint contracts:
http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Top-100-US-Government-Contractors.html


in the richest nation on the planet, why do many of it's citizens still live in poverty?

the poor are the least likely to vote and the most likely to be disenfranchised by the same system that gives billions to other countries and US contractors

imo...

 

[Bernard Wright]

Thank you Nametree for your very thoughtful reply. I would like to look at a couple of things you stated before fully gathering my thoughts.

...any level of censorship is arguably bad for an ideal democracy.

I agree with the statement that censorship is bad, and indeed it is bad under all forms of government. Regarding the "ideal" government, I believe it has been implied that I contend for a government that allows every man to reach his/her full potential. If I had not made it clear, I now have. And I will reiterate that, with respect to reaching one's potential, the government's designated role is to allow that pursuit.

And of course, to pursue anything less than the ideal government is time wasted.

And yet, I can't shake the thought that free speech is not the absolute most important thing in a society.

You then discuss protection, but you do not explicitly state what is more important than free speech. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll stop here and ask you to make clear what principle(s) is more important than an individual's right to hold their own beliefs and act according to their will, so long as those two things do not infringe upon the rights of another member of society.

 

[offthehandle]

Hi

No more foreign aid to appease the aching conscience of those mandating others pay for it.
Look at NATO, Trump brought to attention of the public that rich EU countries renegged on their promises.

I moved this to the political thread, as this off topic from free speech, thank you for your understanding.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/the-nps-official-usa-political-thread.764342/page-1358#post-7165570

 

[offthehandle]

Watch from 3:25 on. Free Speech is ALL Speech.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/the-nps-official-usa-political-thread.764342/page-1358#post-7165651

 

[bmugford]

Watch from 3:25 on. Free Speech is ALL Speech.
Show attachment 113612

In fairness, if you are for "free speech" and against "hate speech", that is technically still free speech as it is just your position and you are allowed to speak it freely.

Brad

 

[Nametree]

Apparently the EU doesn't agree with you about "making their own rules", but it was just a small fine. No real big deal at all... heck no big deal at all you know... Only $10 Billion so far. lol. Soon the US will wake up and do something also.

I suppose I could have been more specific. By "making their own rules" I mean more crafting terms of service that protect them in situations where they may wish to police certain kinds of speech.

An ongoing argument worth considering is whether Twitter &co can be considered as public squares, which at least in the US would mean they have less leeway to remove speech that they consider against their terms of service. So far no suit has been brought on to my knowledge that successfully argues they are public squares.

What you quote is a matter of unfair competition more than free speech as discussed here, but yes it's interesting to look at how the EU is leading the charge in keeping these companies in check. They also want to fine Google/Twitter 50 million Euros every time they fail to remove terror propaganda content within an hour of being notified by authorities - law hasn't passed but wouldn't surprise me if it does.

 

[Nametree]

And of course, to pursue anything less than the ideal government is time wasted.

I don't disagree with any of that, but in practice, any government is less than perfect, so in what order do we pursue these ideals matters in my eye. I think a government's more realistic (and urgent) role is to protect the safety of individuals before being concerned with allowing pursuit of potential.

In a society where the default is we are all equal, no matter the race, gender, beliefs, and everyone respected everyone else's rights to exist and thrive - that's a society that should pursue free speech in the absolute.

You then discuss protection, but you do not explicitly state what is more important than free speech. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll stop here and ask you to make clear what principle(s) is more important than an individual's right to hold their own beliefs and act according to their will, so long as those two things do not infringe upon the rights of another member of society.

That's the key. I think safety and protecting the rights of all individuals is more important than some individuals' rights to say whatever they want. I argue that the kind of speech that some want to protect here actively threatens the safety of individuals.

 

[offthehandle]

Euros every time they fail to remove terror propaganda content within an hour of being notified by authorities - law hasn't passed but wouldn't surprise me if it does

The core problem you can’t regulate good taste, class, morality. All you can do is punish it. But who is the judge? Cultures are different all over the world.

Most normal Western people won’t take video and post publically acceptable beheadings that occured in another country on Youtube but they do exist, someone who was offended reported the one I was simply illustrating here earlier. But from the point of view of where it originated, it is perfectly normal occurence daily, so its acceptable and done within a different cultural setting. I could argue it either way really.

Who is in charge here over the entire world anyway?

Nobody.

Why is it that people allow Google and other bots to scrape their data and feed their machine? Survival, and solely to get ranked in the SERP’s. Because we have allowed them to grow and control it all, and do so in order to get ad revenue or sell products.

I believe each country should censor themselves at their own expense, employ their own Citizens who are “offended” and feel they need to protect THEIR citizens. Not Google or any other company. There should be a free and open internet for all, and just like you don’t walk down a dangerous street at night but I might, you and I as individuals take all our own personal risk and responsibility.

Beheadings are perfectly legal in SA. Prostitution is legal all over, except in a few countries. China does not want its Citizens to be “Corrupted” by the Western ideas. Sports betting is legal over the internet in some countries but not others like the USA. Marijuana is legal in Uruguay, but they will might put you to death for selling it in Singapore. Gay rights are ok in some countries and others they will throw the person in jail. There is no world concensus on very much other than certain basic criminal activities if you look at the entire picture.

The Internet does not need a concensus. It should not have one either. Your Govt rights to censor should be within your jurisdiction or where you choose to live.
NZ fines their people for posting a video in their country, based on their laws, on their citizens. These laws don’t apply anywhere else, yet Google and the rest of tech are pressured to censor by public outrage and opposition and NZ Govt.

Google is fined in the EU for gaming the “system”. Google could choose not to do business in the EU. They won’t.

The EU GDPR is forced on the rest of the world, yet the rest of the world does not necessarily agree with it apparently and it has become an issue with whois for example.

The US first Amendment I posted earlier in the thread. That doesnt apply anywhere else, yet it might be similar elsewhere. It is under attack by people who want to change it. Same with the US Electoral College, drug laws, etc.

 

[Bernard Wright]

...I think a government's more realistic (and urgent) role is to protect the safety of individuals before being concerned with allowing pursuit of potential.

...That's the key. I think safety and protecting the rights of all individuals is more important than some individuals' rights to say whatever they want. I argue that the kind of speech that some want to protect here actively threatens the safety of individuals.

Referring to your final sentence: I don't know whether you read all of my posts in this thread. I've written a lot, so few probably have. I made it clear to Bob that I agree that, of course, verifiable threats, calls for violence, etc. are not permissible under free speech laws. I think this is well known.

I suppose you are aware that you are advocating fascism. I will add herein another update to my premise, as I continue to tie this all back to my original post; the premise being that fascism is evil. And as I stated in my initial post, the objective is to limit evil. I strongly believe that a fascist nation state would result in much more evil and loss of life than would any alternative, as history has taught us many times. I hadn't anticipated I would be discussing the merits of fascism vs. democracy (democratic republic, etc.) and so on in this thread, and I'm not really inclined to at this time. I appreciate you taking the time to engage. Lots of interesting perspectives in this forum.

 

[offthehandle]

 

[lock]

The problem with freedom of speech is not many really understand what it actually means. It isn't a licence to run your mouth off about whatever you like in public. It is actually defined and it isn't as free as you are lead to believe. You may be able to say what you like amongst your peers but see where it leads you in a public forum. You cannot just say what you like.

Freedom of speech what mother %$^&ing bull$%^$ you say the wrong thing they will lock your a55 up quick. .... IceT

 

[Nametree]

I made it clear to Bob that I agree that, of course, verifiable threats, calls for violence, etc. are not permissible under free speech laws. I think this is well known.

I've read most of it, though I did miss where you explicitly said that. I would think it is well known, but reading some opinions here made me doubt it. I think where we might differ is what consists as a threat:

If I read your perspective correctly, you would not think this is a verifiable threat - he doesn't say he's gonna go out and shoot left wing activists, after all. I think it's absolutely a threat and should not be protected.

I suppose you are aware that you are advocating fascism.

I think that's a leap and a reductive interpretation of what I'm saying. Trying to understand why you may think that, I can only think that you see my argument as pro some sort of newspeak. I don't think governments should police words or limit language, but I see more harm in letting hateful and threatening speech flow unchecked than in silencing a few fringe opinions. The Holocaust started with anti-semitic hate speech.

Of course I believe fascism is evil. I see you are worried about allowing politicians or the government to decide what is and is not free speech, what is and is not evil. But a functioning democracy needs some guidance, some control.

Freedom and free speech aren't always perfectly aligned, but practical free speech that serves a democracy and its people must be aligned to freedom itself. Policing speech that infringes on a group's freedoms is protecting freedom.

 

[Bernard Wright]

The problem with freedom of speech is not many really understand what it actually means. It isn't a licence to run your mouth off about whatever you like in public. It is actually defined and it isn't as free as you are lead to believe. You may be able to say what you like amongst your peers but see where it leads you in a public forum. You cannot just say what you like.

Freedom of speech what mother %$^&ing bull$%^$ you say the wrong thing they will lock your a55 up quick. .... IceT

You are correct that there are limitations to freedom of speech, as has been pointed out previously in this thread. It is a falsehood to suggest that I am unable to say the same thing in public as I may say to my peers. A threat is a threat, regardless of whom it is made against. Libel against your friend is no less illegal, and so on.

Of course we are to act responsibly in society. First, it is my individual responsibility to act in a manner that is in my best interests and is in alignment with my morals, and speaks on behalf of my opinions, will, beliefs, goals, etc. accordingly. Next, I am responsible for conducting myself in a manner that is respectful of my friends and loved ones, and their opinions, etc. After that, my responsibility reaches to my peers, such as those in this forum. And my sphere of influence continues to expand, as does my duty to act responsibly toward that sphere, until we eventually reach the world as a whole. The responsibility starts at the center, that center being the individual, and works its way outward. It does not start with any government-imposed mandate. I will say the government level in this sphere of influence falls somewhere beyond the peer level.

To clarify, as a free person, I have more responsibility to act in a manner that respects the opinions, will, belief, goals, etc. of myself and my peers than I do to act in accordance with reverence for my government. I also have a responsibility to conduct myself in a manner that is in accordance with the law, and I will face the legal consequences of violating law. If I wish to change the law, I may participate in a civic process by which this is to be achieved. Regarding this thread, my involvement and intention is to honor the long-held tradition of free speech in the US, which I perceive to be under threat by those who would unwittingly allow the laws (and rules, in the name of private entities) to change without having given the issue proper consideration. There is much to be lost.

I posted this link in another thread and I will post it here. Some might benefit from this educational lecture as I have. It is an excerpt from a series recorded many years ago entitled "Introduction to Logic" by Leonard Peikoff. Quoting rappers is argumentum ad verecundiam. It's the first fallacy discussed in the lecture.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3pjwgjjtza023dg/Intro To Logic (Lecture 2_pt1.mp3?dl=0

 

[Bernard Wright]

@Nametree I couldn't think of a more appropriate term than fascism when I composed that post. I would have preferred to have used a less emotive term, but I couldn't think of one. Nonetheless I would argue that what you are putting forth has the makings for fascism. Under the policies you suggest, in time I believe a fascistic, military state, will arise and wreak havoc as it has done in the past.

Show attachment 113707
If I read your perspective correctly, you would not think this is a verifiable threat - he doesn't say he's gonna go out and shoot left wing activists, after all. I think it's absolutely a threat and should not be protected.

I believe in the merits of the US legal system. If you have shown a verifiable threat, this man should be faced with the appropriate legal repercussions. If he is an American citizen, he is afforded the same due process that you would be granted if someone were to make a legal claim against you or any of your actions. No citizen has the right to convict and sentence another citizen. To do so would be vigilantism. If you believe strongly that this was a threat, I encourage you to notify the legal authorities.

Returning briefly to the topic of fascism, I honestly don't want to delve into it deeply and you seem very bright, so I presume you can already deduce from my previous posts the road I would lead us down if I were to explain the way in which your prescription would result in chaos and death. In trying to keep this post to one theme, I will reiterate that we should rely on the rule of law. If you see a transgression, make it known to the proper legal authorities. And this holds true for private entities, such as registrars and social media platforms. Private entities should be held to the legal standards of the country in which they are domiciled. Entities domiciled in the US should align themselves with the freedom of speech laws that govern the US, and should coordinate with law enforcement when a law is breached. Such entities have no legal right to be vigilantes, just as no individual has that right.

 

[BarryDavis]

It is easy to protect popular speech. If we don't have the freedom to say things that others find unpopular, We wouldn't have a freedom to speak.

It is human nature to want to control others. We seek conformity. Without "Rights and Freedom" government would control all beliefs and morals.

There are often consequences for unpopular speech. Doesn't that seem reasonable? On the other hand we also have the right to ignore or not listen to unpopular speech.

Freedom of speech does not empower us to commit slander, Perjury, or verbally break nondisclosure agreements. Our founding fathers decided that people should have "Rights and Freedoms".

Our founding fathers believed that God gave us rights and freedoms that only God could take away. In addition they created laws to protect our "Rights and Freedoms". Thomas Jefferson said, "Laws define where one man's rights ends and another mans rights begins.