Opinion Freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from consequences.

[SandisLL]

Relocate to Russia, North Korea or Iran and after this cry....
Ha ha ha.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Relocate to Russia, North Korea or Iran and after this cry....
Ha ha ha.

Good job pointing out why freedom of speech is so important.

 

[SandisLL]

Good job pointing out why freedom of speech is so important.

Ohh.
Call stuff in ukraine as war: risk to get 15 y prison sentence in Russia.
Not proper tweet in Iran might cost even 30+ years prison sentence or capital punishment or life sentence witout options to appeal....

 

[jeremyemilio]

See, this is the one that is most important for people to understand because it is the one that is based on real concepts that most people are not taught and, consequently, do not think about.

We're taught to accept that if there's no market, capitalism will just let it die. Or that the government can't intervene. But the concept of society as thing that can and does act upon the world is one that people have not been exposed to adequately.

There are 3 forces in action: the economy, the government, and society. Everyone is understands what it means when the economy acts upon something. People buy or don't buy something and an outcome occurs. People can accept that a product they like disappears because people don't buy it. Everyone understand what it means when the government acts upon something. The government passes a law and then utilizes the arms of the government, primarily the policing power, to make that outcome occur. People can accept that a law is legitimate, even if they don't like the law, and thus accept the consequences of the law.

But people stop there.

They never asses what it means when society acts upon something and makes an outcome occur. Because of the U.S. (or western) focus on individuality, the idea of the proactive society isn't given much thought or weight. We see the individual as "ACTIVE" and society as a passive thing upon which our individuality impresses outcomes. In reality, society is active. It enforces a collective will and forces outcomes. No different than the economy or the government. In common parlance, this active society is what creates cultures. Society rewards some things, punishes others and through these actions creates social norms and customs. The more inflexible the society, the more it acts to reward old customs and punish new customs. The more flexible the society, the more it acts to reward the new and punish the old.

This is what underpins all of civilization. It is what creates economic powers and governmental ones and the rules that govern them. But social power pre-exists both. In the U.S., many people have forgotten this and fixate on economic and government power. So when they see social power in action, it bothers them. They haven't studied it. They don't it being discussed in the news. It feels foreign to them when it is the most natural and most powerful of the 3.

This is very well laid out, and there's nothing here I disagree with. I think the place where there's a disconnect between you and I is simply in what we think about society being a regulator of speech. I lean very hard in the direction that sees that as a bad thing that goes against liberal principles, much in the same way that government regulation of speech is illiberal, whereas you seem to lean hard into the idea that social capital should be thought of more like economic capital, as a powerful force that determines the direction of discourse in a free market of ideas.

I understand the position. I simply wouldn't define it as liberalism. Likewise, I wouldn't define actions that actively bring economic power to bear on silencing voices as being in keeping with liberalism. In either case, I believe very strongly that in a liberal society ideas should be left to die of natural causes, whereas you believe that social power, at least (unclear at this point about your thoughts on economic of government power), has a legitimate role to play in dragging ideas out into the street and shooting them dead.

 

[jeremyemilio]

I don't think you're responding to the right person here. I agree that liberal principles matter, which is precisely why people who care about freedom of speech should push back on the idea that freedom of speech means the gov't should force you to host stuff you don't think you should or even that "freedom of speech" means that no filtering is ever appropriate. It doesn't even seem to cross your mind that people who have sites (or run any kind of forum) also have a right to freedom of speech or that facilitating productive discussion requires limiting participation in particular discussions (while freedom of speech ensures that people have a right to express their views *somewhere* but not necessarily everywhere). You're operating as if disagreeing with you is just disagreeing with freedom of speech and thus missing the real discussion.

Clearly we're both responding to the wrong person, because I've never in my life said or thought that platforms or publishers should not have the freedom to choose what they host or publish, or that government has any place whatsoever in forcing anyone to host/publish anything. I'm extremely confused that we keep getting circling back to a set of principles on which we're in such lock step, and that it keeps getting put on me as though I'm arguing the side of the issue that is the opposite to the side we both agree on.

 

[jeremyemilio]

Again, I think you're reading "everyone should have freedom of speech" as an anti-free-speech position.

As I stated in the reply above, I have no idea how you come to that understanding of my position.

 

[aries]

Calls for violence are not the same as poking fun at or insulting someone.

Violence > Feelings

So why wasn't Trump locked up for inciting the Insurrection? Seems like one rule for a few and a different rule for us plebs.

 

[aries]

It's not even a complex subject. The problem is that people seem to think that because the government cannot punish them for something then society cannot punish them either. And that's where they're wrong.

The even deeper problem is that people cannot accept when society views what is punishable differently from the individual. Let's say John really likes some obscure comic book. Fucking loves it. But society doesn't care for it. Society writes bad reviews and eventually pushes the comic out of print. That's life. But John simply cannot fathom that society would disagree with his preference so much that society would actually cause the end of that thing.

When that happens John insists that society must keep his comic book in print because he, John, is still interested in reading it.

The world doesn't work that way. Society, live a river, flows in a direction and not everyone is willing to swim with it. They can fight that direction, swim against the current, as much as they want but in the end society will continue to flow as it will. The sooner people realize this the happier they will be as people, even when they're not getting their way.

Exactly. If I go around targeting and sleeping with hundreds of married women, i've committed no crime (in countries where it is not a crime) but if I somehow manage to not be physically attacked or killed should I expect to not be shunned by my community if my activity becomes public knowledge?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Even though this is technically correct, I don't always agree with how this argument is used.

Free Speech is a rule, but it's also a principle. If you believe in the principle of free speech, you should be opposed to almost anything that stifles free speech. Intimidation or retribution, as a reaction to one's speech whether legal or morally justified conflicts with the principle of free speech.

Twitter has the right to ban people, and the public has the right to organize boycotts, but if you really believe in the principle of free speech you shouldn't be supportive of them doing so.

ie I support Twitters right to ban anyone, but I think it's shitty when they ban someone over controversial speech.

It depends. The purpose of having freedom of speech as a principle is that in order to have a society governed by reason (as opposed to religion, hereditary power, tradition, or mob passions) it is necessary to allow people to tell the truth (including moral truths) to the best of their ability. The principle that every individual discussion or discussion space has to include any particular views is entirely different and doesn't have any clear basis. On an individual (or group) level, listening to a wide range of views can be useful, but that's entirely different. Not really an issue with Twitter, anyway, as it allows about as wide a range of views as any forum that has ever existed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Clearly we're both responding to the wrong person, because I've never in my life said or thought that platforms or publishers should not have the freedom to choose what they host or publish, or that government has any place whatsoever in forcing anyone to host/publish anything. I'm extremely confused that we keep getting circling back to a set of principles on which we're in such lock step, and that it keeps getting put on me as though I'm arguing the side of the issue that is the opposite to the side we both agree on.

Clearly there is some real disagreement here, which you present as me opposing freedom of speech and I believe is you not understanding the principle involved. You described what you think my position is here: "your idea that it only really matters if speech is shut down through government action." That is not, in fact, my position. I think that freedom of speech means that people should be free to speak--not free of criticism or fact-checking and not free to speak in everyone's living room, but free to speak in society. If we're talking about violent suppression of speech (whether from the gov't or from non-governmental actors), they are not free to speak, and that is clearly a problem. If we're talking about economic sanctions of some sort, there is a gray area, and competing liberal principles (free association, for example--or speech that coordinates disassociation vs other forms of speech). If it's people raising objections to speakers in a particular forum, that seems to just be one person's speech against another one's, with both being free to speak. You skip the real issues in your response.

As I stated in the reply above, I have no idea how you come to that understanding of my position.

My view is that everyone should have freedom of speech, and free association is part of that, while compelled speech runs counter to it. If someone thinks that their college shouldn't host a speaker, that might or might not be a problem, but as long as that speaker has a voice and is allowed to speak somewhere (and invariably, the types of people we're talking about are among the most widely heard voices in the world), it's not a freedom of speech issue.

 

[panamaican]

This is very well laid out, and there's nothing here I disagree with. I think the place where there's a disconnect between you and I is simply in what we think about society being a regulator of speech. I lean very hard in the direction that sees that as a bad thing that goes against liberal principles, much in the same way that government regulation of speech is illiberal, whereas you seem to lean hard into the idea that social capital should be thought of more like economic capital, as a powerful force that determines the direction of discourse in a free market of ideas.

I understand the position. I simply wouldn't define it as liberalism. Likewise, I wouldn't define actions that actively bring economic power to bear on silencing voices as being in keeping with liberalism. In either case, I believe very strongly that in a liberal society ideas should be left to die of natural causes, whereas you believe that social power, at least (unclear at this point about your thoughts on economic of government power), has a legitimate role to play in dragging ideas out into the street and shooting them dead.

You are correct, I see it very differently. Society is the only legitimate regulator of speech. And society terminating an idea is a natural cause. Because what is more natural than society?

The way I see it, if society does not have a legitimate role in "dragging ideas out into the street and shooting them dead" then you cannot have civilization. Civilization, not government or economies, but civilization itself. Because civilization only exists when society (social capital, social power, whatever term we choose to use) starts creating rules and limitations on behavior.

To put in more natural examples: Let's take cursing at children. There's no freedom of speech issue. There's no law against it. There's no economic incentive in favor or against it. But we all know it's wrong and there is a social price to pay when people do it in front of others. Why? Because social capital has deemed it so. We openly accept social restrictions on all sort of public speech. If you disagree, go into a mall, walk up to a woman you don't know and start calling her a stupid cunt in front of her husband/boyfriend. Post-ass beating, see what percentage of society thinks that your speech was acceptable, even if they also think the ass-beating was illegal.

The trans scenario is another instructive example. Trans people want to flip and play games with their pronouns. Yet I frequently see people say that society should not participate in it. That society should stick to the birth pronouns and the trans community should accept that.

There's a lot of inconsistency (or hypocrisy depending on your worldview) in this space from people who want to hold up "free speech" as immune from society's pressures. And then those self-same people will then turn around and insist that preserving culture or common sense means that some other speech should be pressured to change or remain the same.

The reality is much simpler. Society is the only legitimate regulator of anything, including speech. It creates governments to enforce those regulations. It creates economies to maximize production within those regulations. It regulates everything and trying to stop it from doing so is futile.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There's a lot of inconsistency (or hypocrisy depending on your worldview) in this space from people who want to hold up "free speech" as immune from society's pressures. And then those self-same people will then turn around and insist that preserving culture or common sense means that some other speech should be pressured to change or remain the same.

Another area of inconsistency on this one is on positive vs. negative freedom ("freedom to" vs. "freedom from"). Traditionally, the right (or libertarians who deny being on the right like @jeremyemilio) has fallen very heavily on the side of negative freedoms being important and positive freedoms being irrelevant, but on this issue, it's completely flipped. My view is that positive freedom does matter--that if you have a formal right to free speech but no means of exercising it meaningfully, that's a problem (not as big of one as a lack of negative freedom). But to demand that every particular forum carries your words is taking it to a ridiculous extreme. Also, I don't see how someone argues that a bakery should be free to turn away orders for cakes for same-sex weddings *and* that websites can't turn away commentators because they don't like their views (not that's even happening on Twitter).

 

[panamaican]

Another area of inconsistency on this one is on positive vs. negative freedom ("freedom to" vs. "freedom from"). Traditionally, the right (or libertarians who deny being on the right like @jeremyemilio) has fallen very heavily on the side of negative freedoms being important and positive freedoms being irrelevant, but on this issue, it's completely flipped. My view is that positive freedom does matter--that if you have a formal right to free speech but no means of exercising it meaningfully, that's a problem (not as big of one as a lack of negative freedom). But to demand that every particular forum carries your words is taking it to a ridiculous extreme. Also, I don't see how someone argues that a bakery should be free to turn away orders for cakes for same-sex weddings *and* that websites can't turn away commentators because they don't like their views (not that's even happening on Twitter).

I have to agree. It's why I've come to find myself further and further from self-proclaimed Republicans when it comes to discussions that center around principles. They'll decry the power of society to interfere with their likes/wants while leveraging that same power against dislikes. They'll insist that all perspectives must have a seat on the stage and then insist that if someone doesn't want you on their stage, they can keep you off.

None of it is about the principles. It's all about personal preference. They just use the words to support their personal preferences with no interest at all in the real meaning behind those principles.

 

[Scerpi]

So why wasn't Trump locked up for inciting the Insurrection? Seems like one rule for a few and a different rule for us plebs.

Because it wasn't an Insurrection.

Because if Jan 6th fits the definition, then BLM was carrying out insurrections all of the country for over a year. Where actual people died from their actions and people's businesses were burned and destroyed. Setting fire to government buildings and trying to trap people inside. Often promoted and instigated by Democrats.

Real Terrorist actions that lead to scared cities defunding police departments... and a huge spike violent crime across the country.

 

[jeremyemilio]

You are correct, I see it very differently. Society is the only legitimate regulator of speech. And society terminating an idea is a natural cause. Because what is more natural than society?

The way I see it, if society does not have a legitimate role in "dragging ideas out into the street and shooting them dead" then you cannot have civilization. Civilization, not government or economies, but civilization itself. Because civilization only exists when society (social capital, social power, whatever term we choose to use) starts creating rules and limitations on behavior.

To put in more natural examples: Let's take cursing at children. There's no freedom of speech issue. There's no law against it. There's no economic incentive in favor or against it. But we all know it's wrong and there is a social price to pay when people do it in front of others. Why? Because social capital has deemed it so. We openly accept social restrictions on all sort of public speech. If you disagree, go into a mall, walk up to a woman you don't know and start calling her a stupid cunt in front of her husband/boyfriend. Post-ass beating, see what percentage of society thinks that your speech was acceptable, even if they also think the ass-beating was illegal.

The trans scenario is another instructive example. Trans people want to flip and play games with their pronouns. Yet I frequently see people say that society should not participate in it. That society should stick to the birth pronouns and the trans community should accept that.

There's a lot of inconsistency (or hypocrisy depending on your worldview) in this space from people who want to hold up "free speech" as immune from society's pressures. And then those self-same people will then turn around and insist that preserving culture or common sense means that some other speech should be pressured to change or remain the same.

The reality is much simpler. Society is the only legitimate regulator of anything, including speech. It creates governments to enforce those regulations. It creates economies to maximize production within those regulations. It regulates everything and trying to stop it from doing so is futile.

The examples you use are, to my mind, not purely freedom of speech related (although there is some overlap). Your bringing in other domains, such as abuse (cursing at children) and harassment (walking up to a woman you don't know and calling her disgusting names).

I'm not that sort of free speech advocate. I realize that some people are, but like you I don't think that sort of approach is at all compatible with civilization. Nor is it compatible with true liberalism, which holds the dignity and equality of fellow humans as a keystone principle.

This is not at all what I'm discussing. A more apt example for me would be someone speaking in a public space (sans threat and sans harassments, because those are different issues) and others literally shouting them down to ensure that their ideas cannot be heard. I see that as illiberal behaviour.

Now let's be entirely clear, here, because this is the part that I think you and @Jack V Savage are not registering about my stance on this. I'm not arguing that it should be illegal to shout someone down. Nor am I arguing that government has any business in this interaction at all. I'm simply arguing that people who do these sorts of things are acting in ways that are at odds with the liberal principle of valuing free speech.

Also, it comes as no shock that not everyone values free speech. To value free speech, regardless of whether one agrees with the message being spoken, has been a minority position since the beginning of human history. It's the hypocrisy and twisting of ideas surrounding freedom of expression principles that I'm critiquing (as you also do above). For instance:

1. Shouting someone down and then claiming that doing so is an act compatible with free speech principles because said principles give you the right to freely express yourself through shouting. Yes, you are legally protected. Shouting is absolutely your right. But you are not using that right in the advancement of free expression. You are using it, quiet literally, to stifle the expression of someone else. If that's how you want to behave, have at it. But don't dress it up as free speech and present yourself as a free speech advocate.

2. Using glib catch phrases like "freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from consequences." To an extent, that's exactly what freedom of speech equals. Or at least certain types of consequences. Firing someone from their job for something they said may well be legal, and it may even be appropriate. But that doesn't make it compatible with the spirit of valuing freedom of expression, at least in that context. It's even possible that in that context freedom of expression isn't appropriate. But that's not the same as trying to twist the very definitions of words and concepts to suggest that meting out consequences for speech is a mechanism of free speech.

For a concrete example, I'm a teacher. I am not permitted to name kids that I teach and bash them on social media. If I do, I'll be penalized and possibly even fired for it. That's exactly as it ought to be. Free speech is absolutely not a cover for that sort of behaviour because me being free to publicly speak my mind on my own students simply isn't appropriate in that context. To paint that reality as being "free speech with consequences," though, is twisting the concept of free speech entirely. What's really happening is that in that situation I do not have free speech, nor should I.

3. Pretending to be a free speech advocate and then engaging in behaviour that belies that claim. I don't report people on Sherdog, for instance, even though it's entirely within my rights to do so. I don't do it because I believe in allowing people to have their say, even when I disagree with or am offended by what they say. Not everyone is like me that way, and that's okay. It really is. But I would argue (am arguing) that aside from reporting egregious behaviour that steps well over the lines discussed above that move into threats or abuse or harassment, reporting posts that offend one's sensibilities is an anti-free speech act. Which, again, is one's prerogative. But just own it.

 

[Spounman]

Sure, you have the freedom to say anything you want, but that also means you must own up to the things you say and be willing to face the consequences for the things you say. And sometimes those consequences are very negative. For example, if I came on here and said all Trump supporters should be rounded up and put in a camp chances are I would be banned or at the very least get double yellows. Or if I threatened to assassinate Biden then chances are the FBI would be breaking down my door. And with that said, you have the right to be a racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic asshole on Twitter and other social media platforms, but other people have the right to call you out on it and those social media companies have the right to suspend or ban you for it. Discuss.

In other news you can talk shit to a hell's angels biker's face but they may show you some painful consequences

 

[Spounman]

Because it wasn't an Insurrection.

Because if Jan 6th fits the definition, then BLM was carrying out insurrections all of the country for over a year. Where actual people died from their actions and people's businesses were burned and destroyed. Setting fire to government buildings and trying to trap people inside. Often promoted and instigated by Democrats.

Real Terrorist actions that lead to scared cities defunding police departments... and a huge spike violent crime across the country.

They piss their pants over a group walking through the capitol. I saw an insurrection over the weekend

 

[panamaican]

The examples you use are, to my mind, not purely freedom of speech related (although there is some overlap). Your bringing in other domains, such as abuse (cursing at children) and harassment (walking up to a woman you don't know and calling her disgusting names).

I'm going to stop us right here because cursing at children and calling a woman you don't know a disgusting name is purely freedom of speech.

"Abuse" and "harassment" are society's labels for free speech that society does not support. But absent society's attempt to condemn those things...it is still just free speech.

And this is the core principle that cannot be ignored when I say that people do not understand the role of society.

 

[regmma123]

"You ain't takin my freedoms of peach away"

-MTG

 

[jeremyemilio]

Another area of inconsistency on this one is on positive vs. negative freedom ("freedom to" vs. "freedom from"). Traditionally, the right (or libertarians who deny being on the right like @jeremyemilio) has fallen very heavily on the side of negative freedoms being important and positive freedoms being irrelevant, but on this issue, it's completely flipped. My view is that positive freedom does matter--that if you have a formal right to free speech but no means of exercising it meaningfully, that's a problem (not as big of one as a lack of negative freedom). But to demand that every particular forum carries your words is taking it to a ridiculous extreme. Also, I don't see how someone argues that a bakery should be free to turn away orders for cakes for same-sex weddings *and* that websites can't turn away commentators because they don't like their views (not that's even happening on Twitter).

I'm confused. You've tagged me, and then laid out a critique of a host of ideas I've never once advocated for in my life, nor do I believe in.

Twitter (like any social media platform) has every right to turn away any commentator it likes. Nor have I ever demanded that every (or any) particular forum must carry anyone's words. Everything you describe here is entirely foreign to me and my views.

Also, I may have some libertarian leanings, but only where the ideas overlap with orthodox liberalism. My view on freedom of speech is especially liberal. It conforms with the views of the likes of Rushdie, Vonnegut, Atwood, et al. Everything I've expressed in this thread is in keeping with long held and very well defined liberal free speech principles.

My first reply in this thread went as follows:

Surely it equals freedom from SOME consequences, though, no?

You can't call it free speech if you are throwing people in jail as a "consequence" for using their free speech, can you? (Using a threat on the life of a sitting president as an example really doesn't do it here.

Beyond this, I do find it odd that suddenly many people see free speech as nothing more than a legal issue describing the relationship between government and its interests, and citizens and their voices. Surely there's a principle of free speech that goes beyond that? A philosophy that is inclined to champion fair and free exchange beyond the scope of mere legal protections?

Spoiler

I had a back and forth with the OP, which included them responding that:

Well I don't value free speech beyond the legal aspect of it tbh... Good thing I never claimed to be a freedom of speech champion then.

And it went on that way between us until at some point you jumped in to state that:

It's not that important that every dumb idea is expressed in every setting, and the idea that it is has nothing to do with freedom.

Which was a complete non sequitur that has nothing to do with anything I've ever suggested. I don't understand how I'm supposed to respond. Would you like me to play devil's advocate for the point of view you've saddled me with, even though I don't subscribe to it? Because I don't feel like it's necessary. You seem to be doing a fine job of building up arguments I've never made and then tearing them down without any help from me.