The Freedom of Speech Thread

[Jacob]

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.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm for it.

[Jacob]

I'm for it.

Including the freedom to tell other people to shut up? Or should that type of speech be curtailed?

Second question: does the concept of freedom of speech refer to government regulation, or should private actors be obliged to tolerate all speech as well (f. ex. should I be able to restrict freedom of speech inside my house?)

Third question: does freedom of speech imply that those with power / capital should be able to capture the market and present biased information while shutting down competing viewpoints? Does it change anything if the presented information is obviously false vs essentially factual but biased? Or does freedom of speech mean commercial interests should be regulated and things like "fairness doctrine" is a positive for free speech? Or are things like "fairness doctrine" detrimental to free speech?

[mongers]

I'm all for it, but think people should accept that some will disagree and after having agued the contrary case have the right to blank/ignore or tell others how they disagree with them.

[Eddie Teach]

Of course you should be able to tell people to shut up.

Q2- freedom of speech from government is what is enshrined in constitution. However, people are also free to advocate free speech in other fora.

Q3- That's more a question of antitrust legislation. Nobody should be able to monopolize speech, but media companies shouldn't be obliged to present any particular pov. Though this gets fuzzier when they're monopolizing a wave length. 

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[Jacob]

I think there are a few issues that a coherent stance for free speech should address:

1) Is it acceptable to use speech to attempt to deplatform other speech? (Bonus question: where should the line be drawn between "this is a platform that people should not be deplatformed from" vs "yeah, we're just not interested in hearing what you're saying.")

2) Does free speech means that capital is allowed to control media, or does it mean that other parties can demand access to platform? Essentially, if someone gains monopoly on media does free speech mean they can say whatever lies they want while restricting access to other points of view? Or does it mean that other voices have a right to present their views in spite of not being part of the monopoly?

3) Given the degree to which speech curation by market leaders and deliberate misinformation strategies can severely affect the public discourse and whip up violence is any sort of regulation of free speech acceptable? Or is any sort of falsehood acceptable? How does free speech intersect with things like national security, bullying/ doxxing, oppression of minorities, calls to violence?

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think you've framed #1 correctly.  People who shout down a speaker arent' saying we don't want to hear you, they're saying those other people who do want to hear you are not allowed to.

[Jacob]

I don't think you've framed #1 correctly.  People who shout down a speaker arent' saying we don't want to hear you, they're saying those other people who do want to hear you are not allowed to.

Well, presumably those people and the speaker could go to a different venue. I may not be allowed to speak at Yale about how Admiral Yi is a menace to society and should be locked up, but I could always rent a farmer's field and have a free speech festival... or maybe do a podcast, or get a speaking engagement at Prager U or on Fallwell's campus or on Fox or whatever.

Typically people protesting about speech on a campus are concerned about that one event, not about preventing the speaker from reaching any audience whatsoever.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think you've framed #1 correctly.  People who shout down a speaker arent' saying we don't want to hear you, they're saying those other people who do want to hear you are not allowed to.

Well, presumably those people and the speaker could go to a different venue. I may not be allowed to speak at Yale about how Admiral Yi is a menace to society and should be locked up, but I could always rent a farmer's field and have a free speech festival... or maybe do a podcast, or get a speaking engagement at Prager U or on Fallwell's campus or on Fox or whatever.

Typically people protesting about speech on a campus are concerned about that one event, not about preventing the speaker from reaching any audience whatsoever.

Right, they're concerned about that speaker reaching the audience that has assembled in that room on campus to hear that speaker.

They're not concerned that they themselves will hear it, otherwise they would just stay out of the room.

[DGuller]

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.

[Eddie Teach]

Guller, what do you mean by boycott?

[DGuller]

Guller, what do you mean by boycott?

It means companies banding together in order to prevent some other company from being able to compete, such as by agreeing to refuse to deal with them.  Refusing to deal with someone on your own is just your right, but a collective agreement to refuse to deal is a boycott.

[frunk]

Guller, what do you mean by boycott?

It means companies banding together in order to prevent some other company from being able to compete, such as by agreeing to refuse to deal with them.  Refusing to deal with someone on your own is just your right, but a collective agreement to refuse to deal is a boycott.

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?

[Jacob]

Right, they're concerned about that speaker reaching the audience that has assembled in that room on campus to hear that speaker.

They're not concerned that they themselves will hear it, otherwise they would just stay out of the room.

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?