How Democracy Dies

[crazy canuck]

Back up a bit.  Of course people must accept the consequences for that they say.  Freedom of speech and expressive rights are constitutionally protected from state interference.  But there are all kinds of ways one can suffer adverse impacts and even legal liability in the course of exercising those expressive rights.

There are limits to the freedom of speech, because that freedom conflicts with other important freedoms, that is true.  The issue is with the Orwellian word salad that draws a distinction between freedom and consequences, as if freedom means being physically enabled to do something rather than being allowed to do something without retaliation.

Freedom of speech relates the the limit the state may place of expressive rights.  Those restrictions are minimal.  Therefore, as a matter of law, there are very few things a person living in a free and democratic society is prohibited from saying.  However, there can, and should, be consequences, for exercising that freedom of expression in ways that harm others.  What kind of world would you create if there was no responsibility for what one says.

[crazy canuck]

Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

Freedom from having the state restrict speech.

Freedom of speech is a principle, not just a constitutional protection.  Constitutional protections guard against the state infringing on your freedom of speech, but you're not going to have a free society if private lynch mobs still successfully shut people up without state's help.

Back up a bit.  Of course people must accept the consequences for that they say.  Freedom of speech and expressive rights are constitutionally protected from state interference.  But there are all kinds of ways one can suffer adverse impacts and even legal liability in the course of exercising those expressive rights.

And some of those ways are clearly in opposition to the culture and society we should want.

Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it a good thing. Surely gun control would teach us that.

*Progressives* of all people should be militant about protecting peoples ability to speak freely and express ideas without fear of having your livelihood or personal integrity attacked, rather than the ideas that speech expresses attacked.

We are seeing examples of people being forced out of their jobs at univerisities of all places because they said something that some minority decided to take objection to - if you cannot speak your mind in academia, where can you? That should be the LAST bastion of free exercise of ideas, even bad ideas!

I don't disagree that you have to deal with the consequences of your speech. But I think as a society we need to be, we MUST be, careful about what we decide those consequences ought to be, and be much less tolerant of a vocal and impassioned minority deciding that the way to win the battle of ideas is to simply make ideas they don't like (or even ideas that meet some form of ideas they don't like even if the ideas themselves are harmless) too dangerous to articulate because you will lose your job, rather than lose the debate.

Regarding your first point, sure.  I certainly don't agree with everything that private actors, businesses and citizens do and say about what others do and say.  But that is all part of what we accept in a free and democratic society that assiduously protects expressive rights.

The question of expressive rights at universities is a special case because, as you point out, that engages principles of academic freedom which, in my view (helped along with the kind of assistance of Oex for providing some source material for some work I was doing) is different from freedom of expression and is of a different nature worthy of even greater protection.  The difficulty I have with your assertion that academics do not enjoy academic freedom is simply not borne out.  If anything academic freedom is more assiduously protected by universities now than it ever has.  You may an article that was posted on Languish some time ago that had the stats on that.

In the relation to your last paragraph "We" don't decide the consequences.  That is the whole point of the strong protections in law against the state interfering with expressive rights.  Private actors can and do decide how they will react.  That is part of how the marketplace of ideas works.

[The Brain]

Yup. Berkut, there is no such thing as civil society. Shut up about it already.

[Valmy]

In the relation to your last paragraph "We" don't decide the consequences.  That is the whole point of the strong protections in law against the state interfering with expressive rights.  Private actors can and do decide how they will react.  That is part of how the marketplace of ideas works.

I mean bullying and fear are a great way to control the marketplace of ideas and make sure only proper ideas are expressed but I would not really call that a marketplace.

[DGuller]

Freedom of speech relates the the limit the state may place of expressive rights.  Those restrictions are minimal.  Therefore, as a matter of law, there are very few things a person living in a free and democratic society is prohibited from saying.

You may disagree with my statement that freedom of speech as a concept extends beyond the legal protections, but it's not going to be a productive conversation if you don't acknowledge what I said.

However, there can, and should, be consequences, for exercising that freedom of expression in ways that harm others.  What kind of world would you create if there was no responsibility for what one says.

You can't both have freedom and prohibitive consequences for exercising that freedom.  If you think that prohibitive consequences are warranted, have the courage to be open about denying the freedom.

Private actors can and do decide how they will react.  That is part of how the marketplace of ideas works.

Ever marketplaces have prohibitions against boycott, coercion, or intimidation, in advanced countries anyway.

[Solmyr]

Okay, so I looked up the info about that Netflix firing. According to the media I read (at least CNN and WSJ), he used the n-word on multiple occasions despite being told it was inappropriate. Nowhere does it say that his words were taken out of context. Sounds like he has only himself to blame here.

About freedom of speech. It means that you can say whatever crap you like, sure. If you then get called out on it, get told to fuck off and shut up, etc., is simply other people exercising their freedom of speech. And of course, if your speech is actually harmful, like promoting racism or genocide, then you certainly should suffer more severe consequences. With freedom comes responsibility and there needs to be some way to protect those who could be harmed. That's true in many spheres of life, otherwise we'd be living in some fucked-up libertarian dystopia.

[The Brain]

If only there was something about sticks and stones.

[Valmy]

About freedom of speech. It means that you can say whatever crap you like, sure. If you then get called out on it, get told to fuck off and shut up, etc., is simply other people exercising their freedom of speech. And of course, if your speech is actually harmful, like promoting racism or genocide, then you certainly should suffer more severe consequences. With freedom comes responsibility and there needs to be some way to protect those who could be harmed. That's true in many spheres of life, otherwise we'd be living in some fucked-up libertarian dystopia.

Huh. But who gets to decide if my speech was harmful? Who gets to decide if I was promoting racism and genocide? Is there a tribunal? Someplace I can appeal to?

Of course not. It is mob rule. You are guilty until proven innocent (I guess...I am not exactly clear how you could do that). There is no justice in such a system.

That sounds like a "libertarian dystopia" to me. No laws and no rules.

Anyway this has resulted in the destruction of many innocent people's lives but is unable to actually stop white supremacy or Donald Trump getting elected so what fucking good is it? Is this idiom of twitter mobs actually making the world more just? Better?

[crazy canuck]

Yup. Berkut, there is no such thing as civil society. Shut up about it already.

If one wishes to impose one's view of a civil society that can certainly be achieved.  But it is at the cost of freedom of expression.  It is the great irony of those who rely on freedom of expression arguments to argue that expressive rights of others ought to be restricted.

[The Brain]

Yup. Berkut, there is no such thing as civil society. Shut up about it already.

If one wishes to impose one's view of a civil society that can certainly be achieved.  But it is at the cost of freedom of expression.  It is the great irony of those who rely on freedom of expression arguments to argue that expressive rights of others ought to be restricted.

I don't think you understand the discussion.

[crazy canuck]

In the relation to your last paragraph "We" don't decide the consequences.  That is the whole point of the strong protections in law against the state interfering with expressive rights.  Private actors can and do decide how they will react.  That is part of how the marketplace of ideas works.

I mean bullying and fear are a great way to control the marketplace of ideas and make sure only proper ideas are expressed but I would not really call that a marketplace.

Fear of making a stupid comment - yep is exactly how part of it works.  Not sure what you are characterizing as "bullying" but be sure that if anyone here starts spouting white supremist views here on Languish, they are likely to feel bullied when we reply.

[crazy canuck]

Freedom of speech relates the the limit the state may place of expressive rights.  Those restrictions are minimal.  Therefore, as a matter of law, there are very few things a person living in a free and democratic society is prohibited from saying.

You may disagree with my statement that freedom of speech as a concept extends beyond the legal protections, but it's not going to be a productive conversation if you don't acknowledge what I said.

However, there can, and should, be consequences, for exercising that freedom of expression in ways that harm others.  What kind of world would you create if there was no responsibility for what one says.

You can't both have freedom and prohibitive consequences for exercising that freedom.  If you think that prohibitive consequences are warranted, have the courage to be open about denying the freedom.

Private actors can and do decide how they will react.  That is part of how the marketplace of ideas works.

Ever marketplaces have prohibitions against boycott, coercion, or intimidation, in advanced countries anyway.

You have just undermined about 200 years of thought regarding freedom of expression and the limits that freedom has.

[Solmyr]

About freedom of speech. It means that you can say whatever crap you like, sure. If you then get called out on it, get told to fuck off and shut up, etc., is simply other people exercising their freedom of speech. And of course, if your speech is actually harmful, like promoting racism or genocide, then you certainly should suffer more severe consequences. With freedom comes responsibility and there needs to be some way to protect those who could be harmed. That's true in many spheres of life, otherwise we'd be living in some fucked-up libertarian dystopia.

Huh. But who gets to decide if my speech was harmful? Who gets to decide if I was promoting racism and genocide? Is there a tribunal? Someplace I can appeal to?

Of course not. It is mob rule. You are guilty until proven innocent (I guess...I am not exactly clear how you could do that). There is no justice in such a system.

That sounds like a "libertarian dystopia" to me. No laws and no rules.

Anyway this has resulted in the destruction of many innocent people's lives but is unable to actually stop white supremacy or Donald Trump getting elected so what fucking good is it? Is this idiom of twitter mobs actually making the world more just? Better?

Most civilized nations have laws about hate speech, as it happens. They seem to work fine.

[DGuller]

Yup. Berkut, there is no such thing as civil society. Shut up about it already.

If one wishes to impose one's view of a civil society that can certainly be achieved.  But it is at the cost of freedom of expression.  It is the great irony of those who rely on freedom of expression arguments to argue that expressive rights of others ought to be restricted.

I don't think you understand the discussion.

Yeah, that's a really productive thing to say.  While you're at it, why don't you tell a man in a wheelchair that he's not walking?

[Oexmelin]

There seems to be a lot of different things being discussed at the same time - things that are intimately intertwined, of course - but in this sort of discussion, nuances come to matter a lot.

The concept of "Freedom of speech" was initially developed in incredibly tightly-knit societies of the 18th century, where princes employed spies to report back what was being heard - usually in taverns, or in context of what was then being called "sociability", i.e., having a dinner party. What mattered *then*, was the context of utterance, and the possibility of repression - not so much the place where this speech was being uttered (nor, it should be said, the reaction of the crowd. This came to matter a lot more during wartime in the young American or French Republics). 

Ever since then, however, my sense is that concept of property has come to bear a lot more on the issue of freedom of speech. We readily accept that the person who owns a space gets to control who gets to say what, and how, and when. Whether that space is a mall, or a place of employment, or even a virtual one like Facebook. This came to matter a lot more than before: industrialization created spaces that were a lot more crowded, for a lot longer, than anything the 18th century had ever known (with the considerable exception of plantations). For a lot of the aggressively elitist regimes of the 19th century, this was great. The "right kind of people", got to speak their mind, and "the mob" - their workers - got to shut up for most of the day.

Over the course of that time, freedom of speech was also being intertwined with freedom of the press -- but they were not intended to be exactly the same thing.

And for most of the 19th and 20th century, "freedom of speech" was always severely curtailed for certain parts of the population. Whether through state violence, or systematic repression, or private violence tolerated by the state, a lot of people were indeed deprived of the actual means to exert their freedom of speech, even as regimes proclaimed their commitment to the principle. To claim that women, or free people of color, were free to express their opinions, in the 19th century can be technically true, but they often exposed themselves to grievous harm if they did. In short, "freedom of speech" is always easier when your ideas are uncontroversial, and is always more comfortable when enforced through threats uttered by others. You can be a pacifist racist in the 19th century: both satisfied at your own open-mindedness, and safe from having to dirty your hands. Others will do it for you.

The problem we seem to be having now, to me, is this:

if we focus on freedom of speech as the sole protection against state censorship, we abdicate quite a bit of its control in the hands of private players, whether it is mall operators, or gated communities, or Facebook, or Twitter. Does "freedom of speech" mean much, when it has to be exercised in increasingly narrow, residual "public" spaces? Are we comfortable with the fact that so much of the limits of expressions are set by a few players (who have no clear idea of what they are doing with it).

On the other hand, if freedom of speech means the capacity to express ideas freely, what do we do with heinous ideas? Should we do nothing? Should we ensure that Nazis feel safe, and protected, in spouting their trash? Should we be happy that gay people feel threatened with violence, or with job loss, or ostracism?

It was much easier to defend maximal freedom of speech when heinous ideas - that is, ideas that seem utterly at odds with the project of a democratic society - were always a fringe movement, a few isolated nutters. When the consensus was clear. The state usually got those nutters in other ways, anyways - infiltrated their groups, monitored their activities, beat them up in demonstrations, or roughened them up in gay bars, etc. And some historically marginalized groups have also remarked that it was easier to defend maximal freedom of speech when you never had to deal with consequences. There was no price to pay for being an abject racist, or a reactionary chauvinist, or a raging homophobe. Or, the price to pay was not commensurate with the price paid by those ostracized.

I don't know what the solution is.

I understand why "doxxing" emerged, or why groups want to flex their muscle against the expression of racist ideas: it is an opportunity to turn the tables. To have people, who historically enjoyed the full extent of their freedom of speech, to live with the consequences. Part of the problem is that our communities are a lot more ethereal than they ever were in the 18th century, our corporations, a lot more powerful, and our state, a lot more committed to surveillance. Doxxing can be ruthless now, because you may never have to deal with that racist asshole, face-to-face. Speech can now be monitored a lot more closely than ever before by state officials, but I don't know on what grounds I should defer to Mark Zuckerberg's conception of acceptable speech.