The slow death of free speech

[Malthus]

My take on Mr. Steyn:

(1) "Free speech" = freedom from government repression over speech, not freedom from bad consequences in general from speech.

OTOH,

(2) "Civility" = the notion that it is unacceptable to shout down or boycott others over the content of their speech.

What is at issue here is not "free speech", but a breakdown in "civility". One aspect of this is shouting down and boycotting others. Another aspect of this is demonizing fellow citizens as morally corrupt enemies. Both left and right are guilty of corroding standards of civility - the left is more prone to shouting down or boycotting those who displease them, the right to lunatic theories about the alleged moral corruption of those who displease them. Naturally, Mr. Steyn, being on the right, has more to say about the former than the latter. 

Well said, that is more about what we are talking about here.

To my mind, I prefer a society in which civil discourse is the norm, even for abhorent views, so stuff like what Mr. Steyn is complaining about has a certain amount of traction - but he's pushing the wrong button here when he's complaining about a threat to "free speech".

But those movements lead to laws that infringe on free speech. Just look at what happened in Canada and Australia. Now thankfully the law in Canada was repealed, but the movement to do so in Australia seems to have sputtered.

The effect of such laws has been vastly overstated. In reality, they had far less effect on actual behavior than the civility-type stuff, even when they existed.

I do not accept that this is a "slippery slope". Decline in civility is a problem because of decline in civility, not because 'the feminazis will create government speech crime tribunals'.

The US has an amazing all-or-nothing approach to free speech in law, but has been discussed ad nauseum here, the actual 'freedom of speech' in the US is and was not markedly greater than in Canada, even when Canada had section whatever enacted. Its actual practical effect on chilling free speech was near zero. Of far greater concern is the trend on having people fired for saying things obnoxious - even though that has nothing to do with "free speech". That has orders of magnitude greater chilling effect - and it seems more prevelant in the US than Canada.

[Razgovory]

We already live in such a society.  We've always lived in such a society.  Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.

Do you think this is healthy & should continue?

It's not something that can be prevented.  Let's say you go to a job interview and decide it's a good time to express an unpopular view point, "I like to have sex with little children.  I wish it were legal, but the fucking Jews have outlawed it".  Guess what?  You ain't gone to get the job.  You express it in public and people are going to avoid you.

[Razgovory]

The death of free speech is very slow given that Australia's had that law on the books for over 20 years.

The US is exceptional in not having these sort of laws and most of them have been on the books for a long time. I think their threat to free speech is a bit overstated.

Maybe.  But we did not get to be exceptional in this respect by not being vigilant about this sort of thing.  I have no interest in living in a society where people are too afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined.

We already live in such a society. We've always lived in such a society.  Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.

Completely untrue. It was illegal to advocate abolition in half the country for decades. "Obscenity" was harshly censored for far longer than that.

That doesn't disprove what I said in the least.  Stop being an idiot.

[Malthus]

The death of free speech is very slow given that Australia's had that law on the books for over 20 years.

The US is exceptional in not having these sort of laws and most of them have been on the books for a long time. I think their threat to free speech is a bit overstated.

Maybe.  But we did not get to be exceptional in this respect by not being vigilant about this sort of thing.  I have no interest in living in a society where people are too afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined.

People are more afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined because of the decline in civility, than because of Canadian/Australian 'hate speech panels'.

In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.

[crazy canuck]

The US has an amazing all-or-nothing approach to free speech in law, but has been discussed ad nauseum here, the actual 'freedom of speech' in the US is and was not markedly greater than in Canada, even when Canada had section whatever enacted. Its actual practical effect on chilling free speech was near zero. Of far greater concern is the trend on having people fired for saying things obnoxious - even though that has nothing to do with "free speech". That has orders of magnitude greater chilling effect - and it seems more prevelant in the US than Canada.

Yeah, I would also add the chilling effect of our defamation laws.

[Valmy]

We already live in such a society.  We've always lived in such a society.  Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.

Nonsense.  Before the internet we could not dig up what somebody said or did 10 years ago and use it to destroy their lives today nearly as easily.  And good on you if you never speak an unpopular opinion during your entire life but that is not most of us.

[Valmy]

People are more afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined because of the decline in civility, than because of Canadian/Australian 'hate speech panels'.

In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.

Yeah the civility thing is a big deal to me.  The censorship and garbage that Australia does are obnoxious but are actually less terrifying.

[derspiess]

It's not something that can be prevented.  Let's say you go to a job interview and decide it's a good time to express an unpopular view point, "I like to have sex with little children.  I wish it were legal, but the fucking Jews have outlawed it".  Guess what?  You ain't gone to get the job.  You express it in public and people are going to avoid you.

That's a rather extreme example.

[crazy canuck]

We already live in such a society.  We've always lived in such a society.  Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.

Nonsense and bullshit.  Before the internet we could not dig up what somebody said or did 10 years ago and use it to destroy their lives today nearly as easily.  And good on you if you never speak an unpopular opinion during your entire life but that is not most of us.

Why does one require the internet to be held accountable for taking an unpopular opinion?  It wouldn't take much searching of the internet to find cases of that happening when the internet did not exist.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe.  But we did not get to be exceptional in this respect by not being vigilant about this sort of thing.  I have no interest in living in a society where people are too afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined.

By exceptional I mean 'very different'

From what I can tell the columnist's not had his livelihood ruined. In fact it looks like he's profited quite a lot from becoming a cause celebre. Unlike English law which has a criminal offence about this, Australian law just creates a civil option for complainants. Looking up cases most are settled through conciliation (only 3% go to a trial) and the settlements include things like 'visiting an Aborigine community centre' as well as money.

The Australian law does also include this exemption:

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
                     (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
                     (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
                     (c)  in making or publishing:
                              (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
                             (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

[Razgovory]

We already live in such a society.  We've always lived in such a society.  Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.

Nonsense and bullshit.  Before the internet we could not dig up what somebody said or did 10 years ago and use it to destroy their lives today nearly as easily.  And good on you if you never speak an unpopular opinion during your entire life but that is not most of us.

Technology only makes it easier to find old statements.  Expressing unpopular opinions still carried risk of social sanctions before the internet.

[Sheilbh]

Do you think this is healthy & should continue?

Probably. I think without social norms about what you can and can't say the entire world would be like the worst of Reddit.

[Sheilbh]

The US has an amazing all-or-nothing approach to free speech in law, but has been discussed ad nauseum here, the actual 'freedom of speech' in the US is and was not markedly greater than in Canada, even when Canada had section whatever enacted. Its actual practical effect on chilling free speech was near zero. Of far greater concern is the trend on having people fired for saying things obnoxious - even though that has nothing to do with "free speech". That has orders of magnitude greater chilling effect - and it seems more prevelant in the US than Canada.

I totally agree.

[crazy canuck]

In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.

You are correct.

[Valmy]

Why does one require the internet to be held accountable for taking an unpopular opinion?  It would take much searching of the internet to find cases of that happening when the internet did not exist.

Because private information was a lot more private back then?  Sure back in the day if you were stupid enough to get something published in a major newspaper or something or recorded by some big media outlet that was bad.  But this is a totally new thing entirely.