Free Speech and Censorship

ToothyMaw

Censorship, as defined by the encyclopedia Britannica, is as follows: it is the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. Furthermore, it occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law.

This definition might seem a little presumptuous; suppression of speech occurs even not in the context of furthering a good - or perhaps, as I will argue - suppression rarely furthers a good, except in the most extreme cases.

Noam Chomsky once said the following: “Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

This is absolutism; either one is for it, or one is against it - there is no middle ground. Yes, maybe you should not be allowed to yell “fire!” in a movie theater, but that is an action that will cause people to get hurt and in which no ideas are being imparted. Thus, it shouldn’t be protected. I would argue that any speech, no matter how odious, should be permitted if it is both meaningful and not a clear and direct incitement to violence. Even impassioned speech, which might cause violence depending upon how it is interpreted, should be allowed imo because one cannot account for every single interpretation and action taken by those listening or reading; some people are just angry, idiotic, mentally ill, etc.

Of course if someone wants to just post absurdist memes or something that should also be protected, but I feel like the meaningfulness test can eliminate a little bit of problematic speech. Other things, like death threats, are indeed meaningful but shouldn’t be allowed, obviously. With regards to impassioned speech: it occurs on both the right and left, but as far as I can tell it more often results in violence when coming from the right (probably because the right is generally more authoritarian, and authoritarians have fewer issues with using political violence).

So what of the censorship going on today? What about Trump, for instance? As the ACLU notes, sometimes the speech of those in power “can reveal intent or uncover the meaning of policies in ways that matter for voters and courts alike.” A collection of Trump’s tweets with regards to the Muslim travel ban can be found here, a series of statements which contributed to the striking down of said travel ban. As ridiculous and xenophobic as the statements were, they provided a clear and consistent picture of Trump’s agenda. Thus, for the sake of making the intentions and positions of politicians clear, the speech of politicians should have robust protections.

Furthermore, do we really want to see the views we disagree with fester? No - the solution is more constructive or corrective speech. Wherever there are Nazi marches there should be counter protestors. Wherever someone makes a claim considered controversial but still valid, they should be given protections. Any progressive worth their salt would agree with this (even though progressive policies, such as Medicare for all and a living wage, are overwhelmingly popular). To the lefties in favor of suppression of speech: what if it gets turned around on you? What will save you from the censorious beast once it gets a taste for blood? Your unimpeachable orthodoxy? Human progress is slow enough - we don’t need to be silencing each other.

As for an argument that I dredged up from another thread saying that censorship is necessary because humans in our current state are not perfectly rational: Where does it end? Should we have a tiered society in which only the super-rational, trained philosophers are allowed to vote on the things that matter? Should we have prepackaged, government-created news pamphlets delivered to the less-than super-rational class via the postal system?

That would be a crappy society because if you do enough reading on something, even if you are of subpar intelligence and not perfectly rational, you can almost always get to the bottom of it. And if you can’t you can just defer judgement. It’s that simple.

I would love to read some objections.

Pinprick

↪ToothyMaw

I think there’s a lot to consider. To begin with, you have to decide how you’re going to interpret speech. Context is extremely important in this regard. There’s a big difference, for example, in a UFC fighter threatening violence against another competitor, and me doing so towards the cashier at Walmart. However, irl context and intent isn’t so easily obvious. Also, I don’t want to assume too much, so could you explain the reasoning behind your claim that death threats should obviously not be allowed?

Cheshire

You wouldn't want to turn the emergency management notification system over to some one that simply had a wild imagination and strong feelings regarding what cities ought to be evacuated. Trump is a case where the speech was being made from a vantage point that couldn't lose credibility fast enough to match the quality of the statements. Generally people will give up some free speech temporarily to fulfill the duties of a job or function; others apparently will not.

Judaka

↪ToothyMaw

Everyone agrees that free speech should have some limits, the one which is pertinent here is the exception of violence and oppression. Perhaps this is best defined as a disagreement between enlightenment principles and postmodernism. Free speech is used by those in power as a means of oppressing minority groups, basically, the free speech of some leads to the oppression of others. Postmodernism says that rather than our rationality being imperfect, it's a product of our race/gender/wealth and our rationality just reinforces convenient logic. So Trump talking about banning Muslims is a rich, white, powerful male using his free speech to oppress and disadvantage Muslim minorities. To protect these minorities, a valid response might be censorship, which's far easier than alternatives and if oppression is occurring then the stakes are arguably high enough to go to such measures. Violence could be redefined as causing damage, which speech can do, violent speech can be argued to be censored.

NOS4A2

↪ToothyMaw

Violent speech…one can scan the annals of medicine and not find a single case of anyone being injured by words. This is because violence is caused by certain human actions, and the act of speaking is not one of them.

“Violent speech” fits neatly into a more accurate category of speech, which is speech the censor does not like. History is replete with such magical claims against speech, used as they were in order to justify censorship. Speech “corrupts the youth” as in the trial of Socrates. Making contrary world-views explicit leads to “disorder and mischief” against the one true faith, as in the inquisition of Galileo. Nowadays laws teach us that others can be “incited”, encouraged, roused into various fits of immorality—hatred, discrimination, lawless action—by speech.

But is this true? Is the mere possibility, essentially a fantasy, of the corruption of Athenian youth a good enough reason to silence the expressions and life of a philosopher, and thereby deny posterity the insights he may have imparted otherwise?

The overestimation of the power of speech is a sin, as is the censorship applied in its name, and the untold casualties thrown to the noose and stake testify that censorship is where the violence always lies.

Book273

↪ToothyMaw

Not sure if you will get a lot of objections. I can think of one poster that seriously supports censorship and the blind following of government, but outside of that, nada.

I always thought if one only wanted to hear one's own opinions...find a mirror.

ToothyMaw

Everyone agrees that free speech should have some limits, the one which is pertinent here is the exception of violence and oppression. — Judaka

Trump talking about banning Muslims is a rich, white, powerful male using his free speech to oppress and disadvantage Muslim minorities. — Judaka

But others in power can use their own speech to defend against the slander and oppression, can they not? Just because one might be able to use free speech as a lever to impel some to treat Muslims poorly doesn't mean that said person needs to be silenced. If anything the statements Trump made on the travel ban, for instance, helped reveal just how xenophobic he is, and caused many to become even more obstinate in their opposition of his agenda.

With someone like Trump you just have to give him enough rope to hang himself, so to speak.

Postmodernism says that rather than our rationality being imperfect, it's a product of our race/gender/wealth and our rationality just reinforces convenient logic. — Judaka

But surely rationality can help us select between different logics, too? Maybe we can start from a neutral point and come to some conclusions that are not influenced by our wealth/identity?

ToothyMaw

I always thought if one only wanted to hear one's own opinions...find a mirror. — Book273

There are definitely a number of people who disagree with me on this one.

Book273

↪ToothyMaw

I suppose those who only want followers, not thinkers, would not be supporting freedom of speech, or thought, as it would threaten their positions and power. Sad really.

tim wood

I would argue that any speech, no matter how odious, should be permitted if it is both meaningful and not a clear and direct incitement to violence. — ToothyMaw

Your feelings on the Westboro Baptist Church and its practices? And, "no matter how odious"? Speech can get pretty odious. And who is to judge what incites - or who is to say the incited were not incited? There appears to be an informal time and place standard for speech. Wrong time or place can get you arrested, and maybe even to the Supreme Court.

There appears also to be a street standard, the "Coke upon Littleton of the fist." And that will vary depending on the street.

Free speech, then, an ideal. What is most disturbing to me is when an appropriate exercise of speech is suppressed or inappropriately constrained - that ought to be a crime with consequential penalties.

TheMadFool

The nub of the issue is you need good people to speak but for that to happen you need to let bad people speak (free speech) and, conversely, if you don't want bad people to speak, you can't let good people speak as well (cenorship).

The choices are, it's a classic dilemma (lose-lose), either let bad people speak (free speech) or stop good people from speaking (censorship). Like Protagoras did long ago in ancient Greece, we can offer a counter, more agreeable dilemma (win-win), either let good people speak (free speech) or stop bad people from speaking (censorship). It appears all that's needed is to change one's point of view and all is well...that ends well!

ToothyMaw

Your feelings on the Westboro Baptist Church and its practices? And, "no matter how odious"? Speech can get pretty odious. — tim wood

Trust me, I know how odious speech can get - I deal with odious speech on a regular basis. And yes, even the Westboro Baptists should be allowed to spew their bile.

who is to judge what incites - or who is to say the incited were not incited? — tim wood

I think that it is obvious when one is calling for violence, and if it is ambiguous it can be decided by the courts. If it matters enough then it can go to the supreme court.

Killer Mike said he wanted to see the world burn down in the aftermath of George Floyd's death. That might be considered incitement, but he also clearly said prior to that not to burn down one's own house but rather to mobilize and use one's voting power, to fortify it. And it was obviously straight from the heart.

Now should Killer Mike be arrested? Of course not, he would have to be taken out of context for it to even seem like incitement. But if one were to isolate that statement it might seem as much an incitement as some of Trump's tweets. As long as it isn't something like "overturn a democratic election via political violence" or "go and burn down your neighborhood drug store" it isn't incitement, and it is pretty clear when it is.

There appears also to be a street standard, the "Coke upon Littleton of the fist." And that will vary depending on the street. — tim wood

No doubt. And great reference btw.

ToothyMaw

The nub of the issue is you need good people to speak but for that to happen you need to let bad people speak (free speech) and, conversely, if you don't want bad people to speak, you can't let good people speak as well (cenorship). — TheMadFool

I wouldn't put it in terms of good and bad people, but rather good and bad speech. Everyone is capable of sifting through the news and ascertaining the truth of an issue unless they are willfully misinforming themselves (I know someone who is smart that is determined to read and regurgitate fake news like it's going out of style).

Now that I think about it, there really isn't even good or bad speech. It's more like that all speech should be allowed but only some of it advances human progress and understanding, but often times this "good" speech comes from the minority with less power over institutions and popular opinion. Thus the importance of free speech; hopefully people will recognize it when someone is speaking truth.

I also suppose, like Judaka said, free speech becomes a lever by which the rich and powerful can oppress minorities. But so what? The only way to battle such a thing is by correcting it with more speech; censoring the powerful would never be acceptable due to the inherent power dynamics in the US; the billionaires and executives and CEO's hold most of the power, and would turn the censorship around on the less powerful once the threshold has been crossed. I think that this is likely one of the only valid slippery slope arguments around.

ToothyMaw

explain the reasoning behind your claim that death threats should obviously not be allowed — Pinprick

We can't have people living their lives in fear, can we? It can be traumatic for someone to get doxed and have their life threatened. It directly causes undue suffering and doesn't constitute the imparting of any ideas, so I wouldn't want to see something like that protected.

tim wood

And yes, even the Westboro Baptists should be allowed to spew their bile. — ToothyMaw

But whenever and wherever they want? I suspect there will never be a clear line, but in place of that reasonable lines.

Example: On Sunday mornings in a neighborhood not too many miles from me, a fellow used to preach on a street corner in a housing development from an improvised stand. He's loud and objectionable and uses loudspeakers - but I live a town-and-a-half away.

I see at least three problems, with time, place, and manner. Sunday morning, a captive audience, and amplification. Do you see the same? And the reference, alas, how many of us recognized it?

ToothyMaw

On Sunday mornings in a neighborhood not too many miles from me, a fellow used to preach on a street corner in a housing development from an improvised stand. He's loud and objectionable and uses loudspeakers - but I live a town-and-a-half away. — tim wood

But whenever and wherever they want? I suspect there will never be a clear line, but in place of that reasonable lines. — tim wood

A noise complaint is valid, but I don't think it should matter that it's on a Sunday. But yes, I think the Westboro Baptists should pretty much be able to speak wherever and whenever - even if it might turn out to be dangerous for them. They should be warned, but they can make their own decisions. They're adults.

Kenosha Kid

This definition might seem a little presumptuous; suppression of speech occurs even not in the context of furthering a good — ToothyMaw

Well that's fine. Suppression is censorship when it serves the common good. But I'd also dispute the "of the common good" since that could cast mere censorship as broader suppression when in the defense of minorities, for instance.

I would argue that any speech, no matter how odious, should be permitted if it is both meaningful and not a clear and direct incitement to violence. — ToothyMaw

Much hate speech is not clear and direct incitement: it is rabble-rousing against a particular person or subset of people. Another poster here recently pointed me in the direction of an anti-trans website dedicated to giving the impression that trans = criminal, and not caring too much for facts in its efforts. it's not outright calling for violence against the trans community, but it's certainly doing its utmost to generate that sort of hatred.

There are also other ways of hurting people than physical violence. I don't think protecting speech that would encourage, say, distrust in the Irish work ethic is to be encouraged.

To the lefties in favor of suppression of speech: what if it gets turned around on you? — ToothyMaw

It does, of course. I've been censored often. And to not be hypocritical, one has to check one's own behaviour against that one claims to endorse or censure. But that's just not being a douchebag. Someone like Trump, who persecutes and vilifies anyone who disagrees with him while going out of his way to harm others with his free speech, is a hypocrite and a douchebag.

Reciprocity is key. What you should and shouldn't say isn't an objective set of rules, it's consensual politics: I don't want my feelings hurt and I don't want to hurt yours. And it mostly works. The problem is the people who don't want their feelings hurt but want to hurt your feelings, and have an inconstant relationship with censorship as a result.

ToothyMaw

Well that's fine. Suppression is censorship when it serves the common good. But I'd also dispute the "of the common good" since that could cast mere censorship as broader suppression when in the defense of minorities, for instance. — Kenosha Kid

The way I understand it is that it's more so that censorship is suppression of speech/ideas considered objectionable, harmful, etc. The intentions behind such suppression can be both in the service of a greater good or not so much. Suppression of speech on the basis of protecting minorities would count as suppression serving a greater good - at least for those in favor of it. Thus it would be censorship. Those opposed to it might argue that it doesn't serve what they consider to be a greater good. Thus they might not see it as censorship, but rather unjust suppression. Sorry if that's a little pedantic. I think we mostly agree.

Much hate speech is not clear and direct incitement: it is rabble-rousing against a particular person or subset of people. — Kenosha Kid

Yeah, I know. I think hate speech should be allowed, along with things like Holocaust denial.

Another poster here recently pointed me in the direction of an anti-trans website dedicated to giving the impression that trans = criminal, and not caring too much for facts in its efforts. it's not outright calling for violence against the trans community, but it's certainly doing its utmost to generate that sort of hatred. — Kenosha Kid

Once more, something like that needs to be countered, and censorship is the worst way to go about it. Banning it just adds to its draw and validates purveyors of hate; "Our views are true and they can't tolerate it - they have to censor us". Such things are just pushed underground, while keeping it in the open allows it to be addressed.

Trump, who persecutes and vilifies anyone who disagrees with him while going out of his way to harm others with his free speech, is a hypocrite and a douchebag. — Kenosha Kid

You will find only agreement here. The guy is the worst criminal to come about in a long time.

Reciprocity is key. What you should and shouldn't say isn't an objective set of rules, it's consensual politics: I don't want my feelings hurt and I don't want to hurt yours. And it mostly works. The problem is the people who don't want their feelings hurt but want to hurt your feelings, and have an inconstant relationship with censorship as a result. — Kenosha Kid

I personally have little regard for people's feelings - and maybe that is a fault - but I also have little in terms of feelings to be hurt. So, overall, hurt feelings is a pretty crappy reason for censorship, imo. But the hypocrisy you describe is definitely real.

Someone is going to jump in and call me a shitty philosopher or something now to be clever.

ssu

I think we ought to think about the reasons why free speech has become such an issue in the first place.

In my view there are several reasons for this:

a) Modern technology has created a situation were there aren't the old limits to public speech, but also tech has created new methods for censorship, surveillance and propaganda.

b) After the Cold War ended, terrorism was put on the pedestal as it never had been. The successful 9/11 attacks created a pro-security environment which changed just what was tolerated. The security-apparatus in all countries were enlarged.

c) Just what is considered "racist", "fascist", "communist", "hate speech" etc has changed, which has moved the Overton window. Because not much new has been invented to describe the present, the solution then has been to beat the old horses by redefining just what is harmful speech.

d) The two political parties in the US enjoy the "culture war", which has the effect that any topic that the two party system takes into focus becomes politicized. Because of the dominance of the US media in the Western World, these issues are copy-pasted everywhere instantly.

Pinprick

We can't have people living their lives in fear, can we? It can be traumatic for someone to get doxed and have their life threatened. It directly causes undue suffering and doesn't constitute the imparting of any ideas, so I wouldn't want to see something like that protected. — ToothyMaw

Ok, so death threats shouldn’t be allowed because they cause fear? So does yelling “spider” around my wife, who’s a legitimate arachnophobic. I agree about certain speech being traumatic, but the issue is where to draw the line. I’m sure whenever the president declares war it’s very traumatic for whom ever it is we’re about to start bombing. So when is it ok to induce fear/harm through speech? I’m sure you’re answer will be something like “whenever it imparts an idea.” But I think all speech communicates something, that is it’s purpose. Death threats communicate that I want you dead. Isn’t that an idea? It’s at least a thought, and why would communicating thoughts be any less worthwhile than communicating ideas?

ToothyMaw

Modern technology has created a situation were there aren't the old limits to public speech, but also tech has created new methods for censorship, surveillance and propaganda. — ssu

Absolutely true. Mark Zuckerberg proclaimed that social media platforms would allow the common person the ability to be heard unlike ever before; it would be a "fifth estate". In this case that appeared not to be true. While the case I linked has more to do with the school's infringement on the cheerleader's first amendment rights, it is relevant because the average person can create content and distribute it like never before with social media - but there is often times a cost, be it at the hands of a mob or a censorious school district.

ToothyMaw

↪Pinprick

Yeah, I'm having trouble with this one. Maybe death threats should be allowed some of the time. And all speech communicates meaning, yes. I would say, with regard to the president threatening to bomb a country or a people for no good reason: that just sounds like a terrorist threat, and so by our own laws said president is a terrorist and should be tried.

I suppose one could say that death threats inspire terror more than most things, and thus is different from abusing one's wife. If one person is issued death threats then others may begin to fear the same fate.

Kenosha Kid

Suppression of speech on the basis of protecting minorities would count as suppression serving a greater good - at least for those in favor of it. — ToothyMaw

Precisely: it's contingent.

Sorry if that's a little pedantic. I think we mostly agree. — ToothyMaw

That's fine,I was also being pedantic :)

I think hate speech should be allowed, along with things like Holocaust denial. — ToothyMaw

What about other acts of harm that involve speech? Lying, slander, etc. There's a Venn intersection between acts of speech and acts of harm, and I see nothing about speech that exempts it.

Banning it just adds to its draw and validates purveyors of hate — ToothyMaw

I don't really buy that leaving a website running that promotes hate of oppressed minorities is less harmful than removing it. I've heard this argument many times, but experiment, measurement, can and has put it to the test. Social media is proof positive that platforming vile crap just makes more suckers that believe it.

I personally have little regard for people's feelings - and maybe that is a fault - but I also have little in terms of feelings to be hurt. So, overall, hurt feelings is a pretty crappy reason for censorship, imo. — ToothyMaw

Substitute for "ass kicked", "rights removed", "opportunities limited" or all the other aims of hate speech.

ssu

Yeah, I'm having trouble with this one. — ToothyMaw

Why?

Since the emergence of the idea of "Free Speech", the limits and the abuse of this right has been debated and thought about. It's shouldn't come as something new. We have been able to decide where we draw the line, times and the society just change. A good rule of thumb is to use "common sense". And that "common sense" naturally tells something about the existing society we live in and it's norms at a certain time. In my view to seek an irrefutable and timeless guideline to all present and future societies is simply futile and plain silly.

Judaka

↪ToothyMaw

The question isn't whether one "needs" to be silenced, it's about whether there's sufficient justification and motivation for silencing. It's not about silencing people who think differently, it's about viewing speech as a vehicle for power. The consequences of that power can't be corrected so easily, it's not as though opposing views cancel each other out. Each person who stops to think, whether unfavourable treatment of a minority is justified and decides it is, is likely going to be worse now having done that than if they hadn't had the opportunity.

Defending free speech as a principle sounds nice but what is actually being defended? There are consequences on both sides of the issue and it's an evolving issue because technology evolves and changes the game. You use slippery slope fallacies to defend a hardline stance which doesn't actually make much sense. This idea of "festering" makes little sense. When a view is given a platform, even if only 1% of people agree with the message, that's just a numbers game. Reach enough people and 1% is a lot, views which don't recruit new members, wither and die.

There is only really a single problem I recognise which is "who decides what speech is harmful" and that is a very serious problem. Many posters here, who I agree with a lot, I would never want to trust to make this decision. There are some truly disagreeable ideas out there on what constitutes racism, sexism, anti-trans and anti-Islam and how these things (their interpretation of them) can never be appropriate. Postmodernism in general has a view valid points but is overall highly disagreeable to me. But I think that's where the discussion should be, to figure out what speech can be limited to protect the vulnerable, without tearing apart our ability to criticise political, cultural and social trends and decisions in a way that is too broad.

ToothyMaw

Defending free speech as a principle sounds nice but what is actually being defended? There are consequences on both sides of the issue and it's an evolving issue because technology evolves and changes the game. You use slippery slope fallacies to defend a hardline stance which doesn't actually make much sense. — Judaka

But in this case I think the slippery slope arguments are valid. Consider a left wing nationalist. Such views exist but are really not all that common. This potential radical is about as left of center as a radical libertarian is right of center - and both views could be prone to censorship if we left such decisions to the social media company executives/politicians. I think left-wing nationalism is actually potentially not that bad, whereas radical libertarianism is ridiculous; these two views are not equally valid but are equally dangerous to the establishment. So yes, I agree - the main issue is who is to decide what is harmful speech. And the speech that will go first is the speech that is critical of the establishment.

And if it is limited then it isn't even free speech anymore. I agree - there are downsides to the absolutist position - but limiting speech deemed offensive/harmful is just too risky imo.

ToothyMaw

Since the emergence of the idea of "Free Speech", the limits and the abuse of this right has been debated and thought about. It's shouldn't come as something new. — ssu

I was specifically referring to death threats. I don't quite know what I think about them yet (other than that they are horrible).

ToothyMaw

In my view to seek an irrefutable and timeless guideline to all present and future societies is simply futile and plain silly. — ssu

When did I say I was aiming to do that? I am just trying to start a discussion, if only to see where people's "common sense" lies.

ToothyMaw

I don't really buy that leaving a website running that promotes hate of oppressed minorities is less harmful than removing it. I've heard this argument many times, but experiment, measurement, can and has put it to the test. Social media is proof positive that platforming vile crap just makes more suckers that believe it. — Kenosha Kid

Studies?

ToothyMaw

Many posters here, who I agree with a lot, I would never want to trust to make this decision. — Judaka

Who would you trust?

tim wood

I was specifically referring to death threats. I don't quite know what I think about them yet — ToothyMaw

A crime.

Also a point I do not think yet touched is so-called freedom of speech is sometimes confused with a "right" to make other people hear you. And listen, if they could, but almost everyone knows you can lead a horse to water.... But there is no such right.

And often enough, opponents of free speech take themselves to the site of the speech to be offended, or go to the trouble of reading or watching it.

Back to the Westboro Baptist Church.

But yes, I think the Westboro Baptists should pretty much be able to speak wherever and whenever - even if it might turn out to be dangerous for them. They should be warned, but they can make their own decisions. They're adults. — ToothyMaw

But no one can just make their own decisions about whatever they want, especially if danger is an expectation. Ignorance and stupidity often do, and plenty of adults are both, but that not to be confused with any kind of reasonable or reasoned entitlement. I'd argue that the WBC can preach their toxicity at their church 24/7, for so long as the text itself constitutes no crime, but they have no right to preach it anywhere else they want to preach it.

It's akin to 2d amendment rights. You have a right to own a gun (some folks say), but you don't. You have a right of free speech, but you don't. In my opinion, much trouble comes from people who do not understand this point and think that their "right" is a license to do what they want, and it isn't.

Free Speech and Censorship

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions