The Freedom of Speech Thread

[viper37]

Here's a thread for discussing freedom of speech - whether it's arguing with fellow languishites about what their opinion is, whether it's to highlight freedom of speech issues in particular spots, or whether it's to wax philosophical about it.

Freedom of speech should be universal.  Anything can go, so long as they are topics of interest for the left.  Otherwise, we can not discuss it because it is insensitive.

[Admiral Yi]

They're concerned about associating the speaker with the reputation of the college in question, I think, because they themselves are associated with that college and because speaking at the college confers a certain amount of prestige.

If you think they're trying to deplatform the person entirely then it's no longer about colleges specifically, no?

I'm talking specifically about shouting down speakers on campus.

Your counterargument about the school's reputation is a decent one and I admit it's validity.  However in pursuing that goal they are obstructing the ability of the speaker to communicate to the audience that wants to hear them.  I see the ability to communicate unobstructed as a pretty basic right, and it shouldn't depend on your liking of the message.

[DGuller]

So an individual company is allowed to not deal with another entity, and that isn't a boycott.  If the people that are boycotting got together to form a company to act for them in the same way as they want to that you consider at issue, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

You're conflating the entities in the analogy of the marketplaces.  In the regular marketplace, the companies are typically the entities doing the competing.  It doesn't have to be companies, but the vast majority of the time it is companies, so that's why I was talking about companies rather than a more tedious term like "market players".  In the marketplace of ideas, it's the people who are the "market players".

Besides, boycott is just one of the prohibited anti-competitive behaviors.  If all the market players do get together and form a single company in order to be able to refuse to deal without it being a boycott, they'll probably steer clear of charges of boycott, but then they'll be guilty of monopolistic practices.  The point is that in the regular marketplaces, laws exist to ensure that products can get a chance to compete, even if they're shitty.

[Malthus]

I used to be more of a proponent of absolute freedom of speech than I am now.

What changed is the realization that our societies are under attack by clear enemies who intend to destroy us from within by means of weaponized disinformation, deliberately spread to do us harm.

An absolutist approach to freedom of speech means that the tools to fight that are - targeted refutations, so that the two can compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Unfortunately, I'm no longer sure that this is enough. When under this sort of attack, I would argue, exceptions to absolute freedom of speech should be made. Otherwise, we risk losing that liberal society in which freedom of speech can exist as a concept.

Of course the dilemma is that allowing exceptions can also diminish, and if careless, eliminate freedom of speech as well.

[DGuller]

I used to be more of a proponent of absolute freedom of speech than I am now.

What changed is the realization that our societies are under attack by clear enemies who intend to destroy us from within by means of weaponized disinformation, deliberately spread to do us harm.

An absolutist approach to freedom of speech means that the tools to fight that are - targeted refutations, so that the two can compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Unfortunately, I'm no longer sure that this is enough. When under this sort of attack, I would argue, exceptions to absolute freedom of speech should be made. Otherwise, we risk losing that liberal society in which freedom of speech can exist as a concept.

Of course the dilemma is that allowing exceptions can also diminish, and if careless, eliminate freedom of speech as well.

I came around to having exactly the same doubts for the same reasons.  I think propaganda became so effective that we can't just uncritically accept that what used to be the best policy remains the best policy.

[Jacob]

An absolutist approach to freedom of speech means that the tools to fight that are - targeted refutations, so that the two can compete in the marketplace of ideas.

I think part of it is that the marketplace of ideas is a lovely ideal, but that the outcome of the competition is subject to a whole host of forces other than just the quality of the ideas themselves (including monopoly creation, collusion, and various forms of corruption).

Compounding the challenge is perhaps the fact that the means for developing the skill set to critically evaluate competing ideas has increasingly become an arena of political struggle.

[Jacob]

I'm talking specifically about shouting down speakers on campus.

Your counterargument about the school's reputation is a decent one and I admit it's validity.  However in pursuing that goal they are obstructing the ability of the speaker to communicate to the audience that wants to hear them.  I see the ability to communicate unobstructed as a pretty basic right, and it shouldn't depend on your liking of the message.

I guess my question is why the audience needs to listen to the speaker on a college campus specifically? If the audience is so keen to listen to the speaker, couldn't they rent a hall / convention centre / church basement somewhere not on campus? And if so, is anything really lost?

I mean - it's possible that many of the protestors would still show up (minus however many are there because they don't want the speaker on their campus), but they'd just be protesting outside. College students and staff would have much less leverage over locations outside of campus and would be unlikely to get the speaker disinvited - and thus their protest would fair game from your POV, right?

[Admiral Yi]

Well presumably some or most of the prospective audience for the speaker are students.  Why do any students need to hear speakers on campus?

[The Brain]

I think a society where people can voice their opinions without fear is a good thing. Many people do not agree. That's just a matter of different values.

[The Brain]

If you accept stopping others from speaking or listening, intimidating people to make them stay silent, etc as legitimate tools, then you are essentially reducing societal debate to which side can put the most stormtroopers into the streets, which is very destructive. Destructive in many ways, and one of them (not the most destructive) is that a willingness to use stormtroopers is not evenly distributed among opinions, but tends to be stronger at extremes.

[Josquius]

I think the principal bone of contention is whether controversial speakers on college campuses should be shouted down and/or whined about until they are disinvited.

I oppose this.

Isn't that free speech itself though?

[Sheilbh]

I think the constitutional v private distinction is relevant only to the US. In most of Europe, for example, there isn't an absolute right to free speech. It's a right that is balanced against other rights and risks, so the question is normally around whether the balance is right.

I think we are moving too far against free speech (and could do with some enhanced legal protections) in a few ways.

An example is that the EU's sanctions include the broadcast or distribution of RT or Sputnik. This includes by ISPs and social media platforms. The Commission has said this should be interpreted by ISPs and platforms as a duty to stop the spread/broadcast - so they need to monitor content and prevent RT/Sputnik content from being searched or coming up in search results. The Commission acknowledges this is in tension with other bits of European law (generally ISPs/SMPs are not allowed to monitor content, and have to take it down retroactively not prospectively), but there's wider issue of free speech and paternalism around information. I think it's going too far.

Separately in the UK there's the Online Safety Bill which I've posted about in the Brexit thread. But it basically creates a duty of care from platforms to their users. This includes a grab-bag of stuff that isn't really related but is just to address news stories over the last 7 years that it's been drafted (age gating, eating disorder content etc). But it includes a general concept of content that might be "legal but harmful" which would obviously be problematic for platforms who have a duty of care (and "harm" is defined wildly). The European DMA and DSA are doing something similar.

I think my worry with both of these within Europe is that the balance isn't right and that tthe state its abdicating its responsibility to adjudicate that balance. It's handing it over to private companies like Google and Facebook - who will probably take a risk averse, legally conservative position to avoid being caught by either sanctions or that "duty of care" by accident. I'd add that we know from examples like Tumblr that actually the first content that goes tends to be from minority groups.

I've said it before but on the US cancel culture/free speech - I think a huge chunk of it would be solved by proper employment rights and an end to at will employment. At the minute it is very easy to end a bad news day/bit of controversy by firing someone - and because it's easy to get results in that way it's also what people focus on.

Edit: Also re. the European situation - we may be comfortable with these restrictions for those purposes and in this context, but it's setting a precedent and I think we need to be careful. As ever once emergency-ish powers are in the toolbox, lots of things look like emergencies.

[frunk]

You're conflating the entities in the analogy of the marketplaces.  In the regular marketplace, the companies are typically the entities doing the competing.  It doesn't have to be companies, but the vast majority of the time it is companies, so that's why I was talking about companies rather than a more tedious term like "market players".  In the marketplace of ideas, it's the people who are the "market players".

Besides, boycott is just one of the prohibited anti-competitive behaviors.  If all the market players do get together and form a single company in order to be able to refuse to deal without it being a boycott, they'll probably steer clear of charges of boycott, but then they'll be guilty of monopolistic practices.  The point is that in the regular marketplaces, laws exist to ensure that products can get a chance to compete, even if they're shitty.

I'm conflating them because they overlap.  Companies by their nature are designed to allow groups of people to act together for a common purpose, usually but not always to make money.  You have a problem with groups of people acting together to boycott something, but if a company with equivalent market power did the same thing you wouldn't have a problem with it.

None of the boycotts by any group of people in the US has approached the power or organization of, well, even a medium sized company.  That's not even close to monopolistic behavior, and so wouldn't move into that realm.  Just about all the big economic shifts due to social politics have been companies saying they are not doing business in a city or state due to legislation, not groups of individuals boycotting.  Individuals boycotting haven't really moved the needle.  Hobby Lobby and Chik Fil A are both doing fine, despite being targets of boycotts for many years.

[crazy canuck]

I think it's important to clearly draw a distinction between freedom of speech as a constitutional protected right, and freedom of speech as a general concept.

The constitutionally protected right seems to be the easy part.  I think most thinking people would agree that the constitutional freedom of speech constraints the actions of the government, but not private citizens.  I think there is also a general agreement that this kind of freedom of speech should have few limitations, though to be honest I'm not convinced that the modern society can handle weaponized propaganda without a few more limitations on constitutional freedom of speech sprinkled in.

The freedom of speech as a concept is what so many people misunderstand in so many ways.  My thinking is that by law you are allowed to grant as little or as much freedom of speech to others as you want, to the extent of the power you can project, but that doesn't mean that you should.  If you do choose to use your personal power to limits free expression of speech, then don't act like you're a proponent of free speech, just because you're not violating a constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.  Also, if you think that canceling someone is just a marketplace of ideas at work, it would be helpful to remember that the marketplace of goods and services does not in fact tolerate coercion, boycott, or intimidation.  It's actually a crime to engage in that in the real marketplaces.

To summarize my position, as a private citizen, you are legally allowed to shut other people up to the extent that you have the power to do so.  You are also allowed to publicly burn books with heretical ideas.  IMO, both are contemptible behaviors to engage in, regardless of your legal right to do so, and deserve similar judgment.

I'm not very certain whether you are for or against speech which is critical of other speech.  Do you shut that down because it might have the effects you don't like?

Do you see the inherent conflict in saying you say everyone should have the ability to express themselves except the circumstances where you don't like the results?

[crazy canuck]

A broader question. For those who believe that freedom of expression extends beyond freedom from government control, what mechanism do you think should be used in the private sphere to regulate conduct you think restricts freedom of expression?