I linked this particular video because he addresses the crux your post in a clever way. — Emptyheady

Indeed. It's bitter sweet for me that I am forced to give Gavin ample points here (probably because I've laughed at him too many times by now), but when he's right he's right.

I've been thinking a bit about the left right dichotomy in terms of how the correlation between the liberal/authoritarian personal rights spectrum and the collectivist/individualist economic spectrum is starting to be upset. Where once I saw the economic left associated with ideologically liberal principles now seems less certain. At the same time as the libertarian (economically conservative) right seems to be growing, a new authoritarian left is also taking shape in the form young progressive social media charged collectivists. The older liberal left (me I guess) now feels an odd kinship with the likes of Mcinnes and Farage and it makes me start to wonder whether there is some affable center we should come to in the name of actually promoting liberty.

Maybe the values of free-speech simply need to be re-learned in a new and increasingly connected world who for whatever reason was not able to digitally export them off the bat. The internet is itself a place that could be so drastically altered by draconian censorship that in some ways it's more important an issue than ever. I am just so continuously flabbergasted as to why people who I thought were like minded in this way are unable to come to grips with this reality while Nigel 'Frikin' Farage is already shouting it in exuberance from atop the Notre-Dame cathedral... It's like they're trying to change the character narrative of Trump himself from Dr Bannonstein's Igor into a sun-baked Quasimodo.

Maybe the values of free-speech simply need to be re-learned in a new and increasingly connected world who for whatever reason was not able to digitally export them off the bat. — VagabondSpectre

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment.. if there was some governmental means by which all speech could be forced to be truthful, would we still need free speech? I've been pondering the origin of the emphasis on free speech, on the evolution of government, how a governmental form gives way to a different form...

My thoughts:

1. There is a need to distinguish the authoritarian left from the libertarian left who support similar ideology in terms of ends, but do not use the same methods to achieve said ends. There is a difference between trying to cancel an event through direct and immediate action and trying to cancel an event by raising awareness of the event's content and having no one show up. There is a difference between saying that we should not say certain speech because it may be harmful or insensitive, and saying that we should not allow certain speech because it may be harmful or insensitive.

2. Regarding trying to get disinvites and canceling speakers to events on college campuses, I think this is where we might run into problems. It seems odd to say that aiming to get a speaker disinvited is an inherently bad action. If someone invited to speak at a college supported Nazi ideology, we hardly would bat an eye. I generally support the notion that more freedom is better. However, I understand the pragmatic view the college staff have to take and the oddity of saying a private institution should not be responsive to its members.

I am not entirely sure what this would entail. I cannot think of a thought experiment that would not lead to a situation where the justifications for free speech are applicable. Do you have something in mind?

What would you say the justification(s) for the right to free speech is(are)?

So do you think Fascists, Communists, The Left or The Right, Anarchists can tolerate ideologically free speech or don't these groups make the presupposition (Example: Milo's being turned down by Berkeley's due to Marxist or/& Anarchist protesters or Milo being turned down by CPAC ostensibly for moral reasons) that their followers & perhaps by implication that the pubic will be hurt in some manner by any such speech. The assumption that the masses are too immature to handle certain ideological sophistry, that the masses are unable to think as adults.

if there was some governmental means by which all speech could be forced to be truthful, would we still need free speech?

No, because no one would have anything to say.

So do you think Fascists, Communists, The Left or The Right, Anarchists can tolerate ideologically free speech or don't these groups make the presupposition (Example: Milo's being turned down by Berkeley's due to Marxist or/& Anarchist protesters or Milo being turned down by CPAC ostensibly for moral reasons) that their followers & perhaps by implication that the pubic will be hurt in some manner by any such speech. The assumption that the masses are too immature to handle certain ideological sophistry, that the masses are unable to think as adults. — Cavacava

Do you think the masses are able to think as adults? I think history shows that widespread emotional maturity just... doesn't happen. Embracing democracy means embracing the occasional Oh Shit.

But isn't freedom of speech really more about the press? I mean.. originally? I'm thinking it's in the First Amendment because British troops confiscated printing equipment that had been used to complain about the British military.

No, because no one would have anything to say. — Cavacava

Hmm... LOL.

The epistemological/intellectual aspect of conservatism, a free market for ideas, because humans are fundamentally limited and fallible.

lazy copy-paste:

"They are the different visions of human nature that underlie left-wing and right-wing ideologies. The distinction comes from the economist Thomas Sowell in his wonderful book "A Conflict of Visions." According to the Tragic Vision, humans are inherently limited in virtue, wisdom, and knowledge, and social arrangements must acknowledge those limits. According to the Utopian vision, these limits are “products” of our social arrangements, and we should strive to overcome them in a better society of the future. Out of this distinction come many right-left contrasts that would otherwise have no common denominator.

Rightists tend to like tradition (because human nature does not change), small government (because no leader is wise enough to plan society), a strong police and military (because people will always be tempted by crime and conquest), and free markets (because they convert individual selfishness into collective wealth). Leftists believe that these positions are defeatist and cynical, because if we change parenting, education, the media, and social expectations, people could become wiser, nicer, and more peaceable and generous." (Pinker 2002)

I'm familiar with rightism, yes. But interestingly, the central columns of rightism are not identified in the American Bill of Rights. There was no need to.

We identify rights when there's a need. I think the 1st Amendment was responding to a situation that doesn't really exist now. If Vagabond is right, that we should recall the value of free speech, I think that means we need to focus on what we're looking to address. Is it a looming Leftist Threat? Obviously not.

This would actually increase the need for free speech protection. The right to be wrong can be important too, ironically most so in world where a ministry of truth actually exists.

The goal of a scientist is to discover truth, but sometimes the only way to do it is by exploring hundreds of false hypothesis while in search of what works; the examples provided to us by distinct untruth often proves a didactic experience. The right to be wrong is a necessary part of trying to discover more and more truth. Cacava is quite right to say that if we could only speak truth then we would never have anything (new) to say. Nothing new would ever get discovered and nobody would be permitted to voice a disagreement if they so happened to have one.

We identify rights when there's a need. I think the 1st Amendment was responding to a situation that doesn't really exist now. If Vagabond is right, that we should recall the value of free speech, I think that means we need to focus on what we're looking to address. Is it a looming Leftist Threat? Obviously not. — Mongrel

It's a looming cognitive threat at it's core. Fighting brownshirts with brownshirt tactics isn't inherently a leftist threat and thankfully the majority of leftists aren't engaged in the kind of chicanery I'm criticizing. It is out there though and it is more prevalent than I would like, hence this thread.

I do think there's a slippery slope of increasingly alarming physical threats which does justify the reaffirmation of free speech values, ideally before the slipping accelerates.

Seeking to have a speaker you fear dis-invited can be wholly proper, and you can even demonstrate against and protest the speaking event and the speaker themselves without infringing on the free-speech of others (it can be stupid to do though if you only give them free publicity). But when a protest crowd decides to block entry to an event, they're infringing on the right of the speaker to hold and share their own political views, and the right of every would be listener to hear them and to judge for themselves. Once doors are physically blocked it's a short march toward even more direct physical confrontation. Storming the stage to shut down an event and throwing rocks into crowds aren't your dad's social sanctions. Given their current prevalence, are they about to bring an end to the so called great social experiment of America? No, but at what point does the creeping of this fringe behavior and political mindset into media, academia, and popular culture warrant serious redress? It's mostly the young and stupid giving a face to these nameless idiots, but as they literally and figuratively grow up their ranks will be filled by the next wave of infants, fully charged with their own piss...

The fact that this behavior happens to be coming predominantly out of the left is for me like finding cat poop in my closet (but I don't own a cat), and so in a way I feel an extra obligation to find out just where it's coming from. The threat we need to address are the causes and lapses in society which are leading to such a severe erosion of fundamental democratic principles, especially in the younger generations which are set to become the most socially interconnected groups in human history.

The first amendment would not have been overly relevant in a fresh and new free America, but the founding fathers duly recognized it's importance none the less having seen first hand what persecuting particular religions, controlling and manipulating public discourse through control of media, preventing citizens from gathering peacefully, and preventing the protest of their own government could wind up supporting in the end.

The founding fathers are old, dead guys Vagabond. They each owned slaves and it was the onset of executive corruption. Things have changed.

Using an example of possibly sexually harassing words as something we ought to censor is actually a very bad example to use to make the argument for anti-hate speech laws because we already have a very detailed set of existing laws which handle issues of verbal harassment, sexual harassment, stalking, intimidation, and sexual assaults. The difficulties of trying to set proper speech standards for such dynamic, informal, and context dependent situations in and of itself is a legislative nightmare... — VagabondSpectre

Whilst I appreciate your detailed answer, you have unfortunately misconstrued my point in use as the remarks were not an example of hate speech, but rather the absurdity to disregard hate crimes because no one was physically hurt. Violence needn't be aggravated assault and can also be emotional and psychological. But, I certainly agree with you nonetheless that it is wholly dependant on the particular circumstances; bullying legislation here in Australia requires a particular set of circumstances before it could be considered serious harassment - such as repeated behaviour that is clear and/or evidenced - that would enable the judge to ascertain the potential damage it could/has caused to the victim. Someone just yelling out absurdities once to a person is not considered bullying. Ambiguity in legislative terms is necessary to enable this judicial process to work effectively, something the positive, inflexible regulations in the amendments stifle.

I'm not sure how discrimination from and within employment is facilitated by hate-speech, but there is also a rather large set of anti-discrimination law and human rights laws already on the books which are designed to handle cases of human rights abuses in the workplace (many overlap with the anti-harassment laws). There are many instances of speech that we can all agree are criminal, but we don't need to appeal to hate-speech for 99% of those instances. — VagabondSpectre

Research has shown that people who have "foreign" names have a unlikely chance of getting a job interview; it is that invisible discrimination that I made reference to vis-a-vis the ramifications of hate speech in the broader context. But, certainly, yes there are a number of protective instruments that empower workplace rights.

Regarding the psychological harm that might be incurred as the result of experiencing ridicule or hearing an idea that makes you feel unsafe, these are the natural pangs of cognitive and emotional development in my opinion. If ideas in and of themselves make someone feel unsafe, then they've got psychological issues of their own that need sorting, and when it comes to ridicule, there's a difference between justifiable political speech which includes ridicule and verbal harassment or bullying. If I publish a client-patron anarcho-communist gift-economy manifesto I'm opening the door completely for the use of ridicule. Ridicule is often the first and last line of defense against bad ideas. Likewise if someone publicly publishes a picture of themselves on the internet and says "Am I hot?", they are opening the door very widely to ridicule and speech that we might otherwise classify has harassment. Context matters. — VagabondSpectre

Whilst your opinion is duly noted, unfortunately psychological harm is a great deal more vicious than mere pangs of cognitive and emotional development. Laws here have changed only recently (inclusive of my own petitioning) which we call Brodie's Law because of a young girl who committed suicide from the repeated bullying done to her by male staff. Psychological - and sometimes psychiatric - injury is serious and we cannot brush the circumstances aside and blame Brodie needed to sort out her own issues and the inevitable result was her fault. That is victim-blaming, again, your failure to see that the actions themselves are wrong despite the injury it has caused.

Prevention is absolute and we asses [depending on the legal jurisdiction] the level of impairment caused by the experience/s but tort cases often demonstrate the failure in duty of care and whether or not adequate responses were made to remedy the situation just as much as it is about whether the acts were repeated over a period of time. Laws are established for the people, to protect them and to keep bad behaviour in check and without adequate checks and balances, people and organisations would continue to cause havoc in society.

If you censor the very idea of white supremacy all you will do is give it the appeal of a forbidden fruit and increase the already inflated fear of it in others. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and if liberal and progressive morals and ideals really do have merit, then we should not be afraid to put them in the ring against any opposition. But deciding that the masses at large are not capable of making sufficiently rational decisions when it comes to the finer points of governance and ideology is to throw the baby of democracy out with the bigoted bathwater. And by absolutely protecting people from the emotional difficulties and occasional harshness of the real world you will be hampering their ability to develop any real resistance to it.

If I agreed though and we sat down to write out the list of every political idea which could possibly compel someone to an ideological extreme, how large would that list be and what would it look like? What if I felt that the tenants of socialism inherently provoke some people to the ideological extreme of infringing upon my natural land ownership rights? What if I felt that irrational religious beliefs inherently lead to terrorism? That very long and immutable set of every idea we forbid would be nothing more than an expression of our own imperfect moral and material assumptions about the very uncertain future of a very complicated world, to the exclusion of all others. — VagabondSpectre

This is just mere gobbledegook. It is not just about white supremacy and whether these extremists are more or less appealing is completely besides the point. Is it wrong? Yes. No.

Whilst I appreciate your detailed answer, you have unfortunately misconstrued my point in use as the remarks were not an example of hate speech, but rather the absurdity to disregard hate crimes because no one was physically hurt. Violence needn't be aggravated assault and can also be emotional and psychological. But, I certainly agree with you nonetheless that it is wholly dependant on the particular circumstances; bullying legislation here in Australia requires a particular set of circumstances before it could be considered serious harassment - such as repeated behaviour that is clear and/or evidenced - that would enable the judge to ascertain the potential damage it could/has caused to the victim. Someone just yelling out absurdities once to a person is not considered bullying. Ambiguity in legislative terms is necessary to enable this judicial process to work effectively, something the positive, inflexible regulations in the amendments stifle. — TimeLine

By your own description the 1st amendment flexes to additional stipulations wherever we choose to add them. Anti-harassment laws are a good example which exist quite happily in US criminal law. If you can show that an action is a reasonable source of fear for physical safety or damage to property, that can be prosecuted. The existing laws in the end are meant to protect individuals, not broad demographic categories.

Research has shown that people who have "foreign" names have a unlikely chance of getting a job interview; it is that invisible discrimination that I made reference to vis-a-vis the ramifications of hate speech in the broader context. But, certainly, yes there are a number of protective instruments that empower workplace rights. — TimeLine

"Foreign names"... You mean any name that is too far deviated from what people are used to? Not: "typical names of foreigners"?. Research shows that race isn't a factor so much as the non-average nature of the names themselves. Turn out Deansandrae D'Squarius Green Jr. , Maleficent Constance, Dong-Quay-Lo (he got hired), Abdulla Rahman Al-Genin and Billy-Joe Cletus Brown all get the short end of the interview stick. But if you put photos on those resumes and give everyone typical names, seems to even things out. I don't know why people don't like different sounding names, but how do you suggest we fight this? All they need to do is abbreviate their name to something common in the header, problem solved. No hate speech (subconscious thought?) laws required.

Whilst your opinion is duly noted, unfortunately psychological harm is a great deal more vicious than mere pangs of cognitive and emotional development. Laws here have changed only recently (inclusive of my own petitioning) which we call Brodie's Law because of a young girl who committed suicide from the repeated bullying done to her by male staff. Psychological - and sometimes psychiatric - injury is serious and we cannot brush the circumstances aside and blame Brodie needed to sort out her own issues and the inevitable result was her fault. That is victim-blaming, again, your failure to see that the actions themselves are wrong despite the injury it has caused. — TimeLine

Experiencing ridicule is a part of life. Everyone is going to experience it at some point and we're never going to outlaw it altogether. What we do outlaw though is harassment and bullying. Quite obviously bullying and harassing women in the work place is not ridicule as a part of justifiable political speech. Nor is it merely "hearing an idea that makes you feel unsafe". I really don't get how you've taken the examples I've given of justifiable ridicule and instantly equated them with the worst sort of harassment and me with "victim blaming". We need better anti-harassment and bullying laws, or have them better enforced, not laws which rigidly outlaw words and ideas for our own protection.

Interestingly Trump would probably be with you in this. The amount of ridicule he has received over the last year or so might actually be more than any single person in such a short period of time ever in history. Surely if we outlaw all ridicule because of the deep emotional trauma that it might lead to then ridicule of Trump would at this point be the the majority of all crime committed day to day.

We can and do legislate behavior, but we ought not legislate against certain thoughts and ideas themselves, even if they can be emotionally or psychologically offensive. We can legislate the manner of their transmission and even some aspects of their content (is it harassing? Is it physically threatening?) but we air on the side of caution when it comes to outright banning the holding and communicating of certain ideas because to do so deprives us of the ability to actually understand the issues in question, thereby weakening the decisions of the public. Democracy is meant to function with a well informed public, not a sheltered one.

The founding fathers are old, dead guys Vagabond. They each owned slaves and it was the onset of executive corruption. Things have changed....

...This is just mere gobbledegook. It is not just about white supremacy and whether these extremists are more or less appealing is completely besides the point. Is it wrong? Yes. No. — TimeLine

So you hereby claim glorious and honorable right of list maker who lays great foundation for ideological future of mankind?...

Once and for all defining the forever-banned speech, ideas, and thoughts we must protect the world from isn't actually something we can reasonably do.

Should we hold a referendum on that instead?

P.S(.A) If someone is harassing or bullying you, contact the police. If someone told a joke at your expense, or stated an idea you are afraid of, contact your nearest adult.

By your own description the 1st amendment flexes to additional stipulations wherever we choose to add them. Anti-harassment laws are a good example which exist quite happily in US criminal law. If you can show that an action is a reasonable source of fear for physical safety or damage to property, that can be prosecuted. The existing laws in the end are meant to protect individuals, not broad demographic categories. — VagabondSpectre

This, in turn, stipulates that the amendments themselves are unnecessary and could have once perhaps been used as a guide but now redundant amid changes to our understanding of human rights and freedoms, particularly following the Nuremberg trials. If it is indeed about protecting individuals, not only is the separation between the judicial, executive and parliamentary powers necessary to ensure that either are not corrupted or influenced - something clearly problematic in the US - but that due to the tensions of positive laws such as rights vs. freedoms, ambiguity in legal frameworks is necessary to enable common law jurisdictions to assess on a case by case basis and apply decisions according to the fundamental rule that the intent of the law itself was developed by the principle of protecting the people. This is how landmark cases here is Australia - like Mabo v Queensland - were applied by the high court and why our government continues to try and challenge it.

All they need to do is abbreviate their name to something common in the header, problem solved. No hate speech (subconscious thought?) laws required. — VagabondSpectre

You're still not getting it, are you? You are consistently attempting to justify pernicious acts by purporting the victims are the ones requiring flexibility and adaptation, on the contrary, it should be those that discriminate that should be adapting. It is almost a master-slave dialectic, as though the master - the far-right who you purport should be allowed to speak freely - while the slave - everyone else who you purport should adapt, the latter almost at fault for not. This is a incorrect way of analysiing the situation. How about we reverse your line of though here, that the far-right adapt by our acknowledgement of the madness of such extremism and extremist rhetoric, whereby a pluralistic and inclusive society dedicated to righteousness would ensure that it is the far-right that should adapt.

I really don't get how you've taken the examples I've given of justifiable ridicule and instantly equated them with the worst sort of harassment and me with "victim blaming". We need better anti-harassment and bullying laws, or have them better enforced, not laws which rigidly outlaw words and ideas for our own protection. — VagabondSpectre

You seem to be tossing in confusion as to your position and I think that it really quite simply lies in your misunderstanding of how the legislature functions. You are holding victims partially responsible for actions committed against them and this is an attitude and a barrier that requires elimination, as you say below:

If ideas in and of themselves make someone feel unsafe, then they've got psychological issues of their own that need sorting — VagabondSpectre

Experiencing ridicule is a part of life. — VagabondSpectre

If someone told a joke at your expense, or stated an idea you are afraid of, contact your nearest adult. — VagabondSpectre

We can and do legislate behavior, but we ought not legislate against certain thoughts and ideas themselves, even if they can be emotionally or psychologically offensive. — VagabondSpectre

What exactly is the first amendment then? Hence the necessary ambiguity.

Interestingly Trump would probably be with you in this. The amount of ridicule he has received over the last year or so might actually be more than any single person in such a short period of time ever in history. Surely if we outlaw all ridicule because of the deep emotional trauma that it might lead to then ridicule of Trump would at this point be the the majority of all crime committed day to day. — VagabondSpectre

You are still gobbledygooking, buddy.

So you hereby claim glorious and honorable right of list maker who lays great foundation for ideological future of mankind? — VagabondSpectre

Ideological? As I said earlier, in Australia we have legislation that ensures all parliamentary bills adequately adhere to human rights principles to avoid corruption prior to being passed and changed into a law. If the separation of powers remains, corruption is minimized and laws are made by the people for the people.

This, in turn, stipulates that the amendments themselves are unnecessary and could have once perhaps been used as a guide but now redundant amid changes to our understanding of human rights and freedoms, particularly following the Nuremberg trials. — TimeLine

So the American Constitution is just a redundant guide then because we once convicted Nazis of war crimes?...

Let's see where this goes folks...

... tensions of positive laws such as rights vs. freedoms, ambiguity in legal frameworks is necessary to enable common law jurisdictions to assess on a case by case basis and apply decisions according to the fundamental rule that the intent of the law itself was developed by the principle of protecting the people. This is how landmark cases here is Australia - like Mabo v Queensland - were applied by the high court and why our government continues to try and challenge it. — TimeLine

I really don't get what this has to do with free speech clauses, but O.K.

You're still not getting it, are you? You are consistently attempting to justify pernicious acts by purporting the victims are the ones requiring flexibility and adaptation, on the contrary, it should be those that discriminate that should be adapting. It is almost a master-slave dialectic, as though the master - the far-right who you purport should be allowed to speak freely - while the slave - everyone else who you purport should adapt, the latter almost at fault for not. This is a incorrect way of analysiing the situation. How about we reverse your line of though here, that the far-right adapt by our acknowledgement of the madness of such extremism and extremist rhetoric, whereby a pluralistic and inclusive society dedicated to righteousness would ensure that it is the far-right that should adapt. — TimeLine

Wait a minute, are you still talking about odd names on resumes not being selected? How do we fight against people innately not calling to interview people with names they've never heard before?

I'm just spit balling here, but hows' abouts' we silence the far right and force "different name" mandates upon employers such that they need to hire more of the most oppressed class currently in America: The differently named.

"The far-right should adapt" in this context bears the same sentiment as "send them to the re-education camps". (Better finish that cirriculum ;) !)

You seem to be tossing in confusion as to your position and I think that it really quite simply lies in your misunderstanding of how the legislature functions. You are holding victims partially responsible for actions committed against them and this is an attitude and a barrier that requires elimination, as you say below: "If ideas in and of themselves make someone feel unsafe, then they've got psychological issues of their own that need sorting... Experiencing ridicule is a part of life... If someone told a joke at your expense, or stated an idea you are afraid of, contact your nearest adult.... " - Vagabond — TimeLine

I'm ridiculing you, you know...

I realize only now that it's entirely possible that me alleging "you should contact an adult" if and when your feelings get hurt could actually cause your feelings to get hurt (what cruel irony!). Which, theoretically, could trigger the draconian law you want to be put in place that will see me physically sanctioned for victimizing you with my emotionally harmful and therefore hateful-speech.

What level of ridicule need I muster for you to consider my speech ban-worthy? Does it all depend on your subjective and emotional reaction?

We can and do legislate behavior, but we ought not legislate against certain thoughts and ideas themselves, even if they can be emotionally or psychologically offensive.... " - Vagabond

What exactly is the first amendment then? Hence the necessary ambiguity. — TimeLine

The first amendment is the thing that tells the US government to NOT make any laws which abridge people's right to religion, or abridge their right to political opinions and to peacefully speak those opinions, for the sake of freedom, truth, and democracy.

You are still gobbledygooking, buddy. — TimeLine

How is pointing out that Trump is the largest recipient of verbal harassment in recent human history "gobbledygooking"? Care to substantiate your disagreement?

You're the one who equates any and all ridicule with land grabbing and bullying someone to the point of suicide, who equates free speech with national socialism, and is suggesting that constitutions are really just antiquated forms of guidelines from old dead slavers, but I'm the one "gobbledygooking"?

Ideological? As I said earlier, in Australia we have legislation that ensures all parliamentary bills adequately adhere to human rights principles to avoid corruption prior to being passed and changed into a law. If the separation of powers remains, corruption is minimized and laws are made by the people for the people. — TimeLine

I'm asking you specifically for example statements or ideas (not contextually enhanced bullying/harassment) which you feel, on their own, ought to be forbidden from public speech or topics of public discourse.

But how can we be sure that banning certain ideas is really by the people and for the people if we're then not permitted to discuss the ideas in question?

Please though, which ideas should we ban?

I agree that this is a worthwhile topic. I do wonder whether the example given is a good one though. The suggestion is that it advocates the curtailment of free speech, and violence against fascists. I don't see that in the quotes from Mark Bray. He describes three tactics:

1. pressure the venue owner to try and cancel [a fascist] event
2. Physically confronting [fascists]
3. pressuring ... employers [of fascists] to get [the fascists] fired

Of these, only item 2 could be seen as having anything to do with violence. But whether it actually does depends on the context. A non-violent demonstration, chanting slogans, is a physical confrontation, as is facing up to somebody and saying that you abhor their policies. If there is evidence of the 'antifa' movement systematically advocating violence against fascists, it needs to be brought out and discussed. I am not aware of such evidence. Rather, it is the fascists that advocate violence, as we saw in the Trump rallies where he encouraged attendees to beat up their detractors.

For free speech, only 3 is possibly relevant. Item 1 does not affect free speech because it is about removing a platform that somebody is using to broadcast toxic views. Free speech is about having no punishments for expressing views, not about providing a platform from which such views can be expressed.

Item 3 is potentially a worry, as it does imply a punishment on the employee for having expressed views. If that sort of thing is happening, I would be concerned about it. But again, context is critical. There was a case in Australia of a feminist commentator who influenced an employer to fire someone that made a vicious, public, violence-encouraging, sexist attack on her. But the key link is that the attack was made using a facebook account that publicly described the employee as an employee of that employer. Hence the employer was unwillingly associated with the attack and - IMHO - was reasonable to fire the person for bringing the employer into disrepute. The situation would have been utterly different if the employee's facebook account had made no clear connection with the employer. Indeed, the way the feminist exerted the influence was to ask the employer - 'Did you know that this person posted these comments [providing link], on an account in which he describes himself as your employee?'

Some concrete examples would very much help to determine whether there is actually any problem, or any inconsistency, in the movement against fascism.

How do we fight against people innately not calling to interview people with names they've never heard before? — VagabondSpectre

?

hows' abouts' we silence the far right and force "different name" mandates upon employers such that they need to hire more of the most oppressed class currently in America: The differently named. — VagabondSpectre

Again, ?

The far-right should adapt" in this context bears the same sentiment as "send them to the re-education camps". (Better finish that cirriculum ;) !) — VagabondSpectre

So it sounds ridiculous? Yet, it is not ridiculous to say that everyone else should adapt to the rhetoric of the far right? Why and what exactly is your reasoning here? Do you sympathize with white supremacy?

I realize only now that it's entirely possible that me alleging "you should contact an adult" if and when your feelings get hurt could actually cause your feelings to get hurt (what cruel irony!). Which, theoretically, could trigger the draconian law you want to be put in place that will see me physically sanctioned for victimizing you with my emotionally harmful and therefore hateful-speech. — VagabondSpectre

Goodness. I hardly think my previous responses expressed any alleged hurt of feelings.

The first amendment is the thing that tells the US government to NOT make any laws which abridge people's right to religion, or abridge their right to political opinions and to peacefully speak those opinions, for the sake of freedom, truth, and democracy. — VagabondSpectre

As I have said several times, positive laws such as the first amendment requires ambiguity to apply common law fluidity on a case-by-case basis. It is not that freedom of speech itself that is wrong, certainly not, but the question we should be discussing rather than me having to swim through a sea of awkward remarks is whether freedom and equality is mutually exclusive? This is what needs to be discussed, rationally and with evidence.

...who equates free speech with national socialism — VagabondSpectre

There it is.

I'm asking you specifically for example statements or ideas (not contextually enhanced bullying/harassment) which you feel, on their own, ought to be forbidden from public speech or topics of public discourse.

But how can we be sure that banning certain ideas is really by the people and for the people if we're then not permitted to discuss the ideas in question?

Please though, which ideas should we ban? — VagabondSpectre

I guess I will need to reiterate but in this instance it may be that you failed to read what I wrote to another member in this thread, which I find understandable. I also do find it understandable that perhaps I was not using the best examples, so I will go directly to the source of law to exemplify my point.

In Australia, we have legislation - namely the Racial Discrimination Act that legally enables perpetrators of racial hate speech to legal account without flagrantly opposing freedom of speech. There needs to be a clear disproportionate harm caused by the hate speech to ever risk the human right to speak freely. The freedom to communicate - particularly on political subjects - on topics of public interest is fundamental and plays a very important part in Australian culture and democracy. One important element is that it needs to be a case-by-case - procedurally thus within the common law jurisdiction - that assesses this proportion.

Jones v Toben that convicted hate speech did so following the publication that vilified Jews by claiming the holocaust never occurred, that Jews who claim that it did have a lower intelligence and their intention is merely for financial gain. Other malicious remarks included all deaths caused by Stalin was secretly caused by Jews and since the publication is reproduced and considered public source for news, they were forced to remove the content. Similarly, topics that threaten national security are also subject to similar regulations.

Tests to ascertain whether one has breached racial vilification laws is not subjective [as in, how one person felt] but entirely objective and explicit even if there is one complainant. Considerations of community standards and the likely impact - that must be serious - would have on the community in question.It is to level or have a fair balance.

The relevant definitions can be viewed here

This is a topic of concern still and has only recently been once again raised to the public fore. I mentioned sexual harassment and bullying for a reason, particularly relating to liability and torts that involve racial vilification.

Free speech is about having no punishments for expressing views, not about providing a platform from which such views can be expressed. — andrewk

Very true. We are not entitled to hijack any platform except the top of a soap box. Specifically my concern is that by force third parties are trying to shutdown the private platforms of others. Protests, letter campaigns and the like are wholly justifiable presuming no laws are broken in the process. And it is a sad truth that people have been getting the professional axe for beliefs and statements made which wound up being severely unpopular. Even though sometimes this has resulted in the clearly unfair firing of individuals (see nobel prize winner Tim Hunt who was fired because of what he thought were funny jokes), we would be remiss to oppose it in principle. Slander, libel, and privacy laws I think are suitable for determining what kinds of letters you should be able to send to your political enemies' bosses or publish about them.

If there is evidence of the 'antifa' movement systematically advocating violence against fascists, it needs to be brought out and discussed. I am not aware of such evidence. Rather, it is the fascists that advocate violence, as we saw in the Trump rallies where he encouraged attendees to beat up their detractors. — andrewk

Advocating for violence is technically criminal. You can get away with it by being vague or veiled but any pundit worth their salt won't be caught directly doing so.

What really caught my eye about Bray's interview was the part where he is describing the antifa movement, specifically about what gets headlines he says: "And so, as I’m sure you and, and the number of listeners are well aware, there been high-profile instances recently, such as in Berkeley, of trying to physically shut down events that has raised the profile of anti-fascism.". And then goes on to tacitly condone it:

Interviewer: "Physically confronting people, that's part of the strategy, right? "

Bray: "Yes, it is. It’s an illiberal politics – [laughter] - of social revolutionist applied to fighting the far right". "

I would like to resist appealing to video evidence I would probably source from youtube, (perhaps it will be inevitable), but there are more than a few recent examples of protest groups, some labeling themselves as antifa, using violence, force, and assault to disrupt and shut down the speaking events of some controversial speakers and groups.

What I will say about trump is that while he did condone violence (I mean, comon, he's an idiot: BIGLY), the extreme behavior Mark referenced is more consistently, and surprisingly, emerging from the left. Specifically young ideologically driven ultra-progressive minded students, some claiming to represent BLM, others claiming to represent ANTIFA, and many other ultra-progressive groups are carrying out such actions at large and sometimes seemingly at random. There is separation though, an inconsistency, from the academic sources of their political ideology and calls to violence or violence itself. The former serves to somewhat stir emotion while advocating for peaceful resistance, while the latter occurs in the fog of protest when emotions are in the moment further inflated and people make regrettable decisions like hurling a rock, macing a reporter, blocking entrances/exits to the event being protested, and sometimes worse.

This is in all likelihood the "instance" of "illiberal politics of social revolution applied to fighting the far right" that he was referring to. I would say this behavior in response to a mere speaking event is sufficiently similar to the original blackshirts to warrant my framing of them.

my concern is that by force third parties are trying to shutdown the private platforms of others — VagabondSpectre

I would judge that on a case by case basis, according to how private the platform was, and the means of attempting the shutdown. If it is a private house, and the shutdown was effected by forming a barrier to entering the house and wrestling with, or striking, those that attempted to do so, I would consider that to be unacceptable. On the other hand if it were a lecture theatre and the protesters were massing around it shouting abuse or alternatively, forming a non-violent barrier in the Gandhi fashion, I would consider that acceptable.

there are more than a few recent examples of protest groups, some labeling themselves as antifa, using violence, force, and assault to disrupt and shut down the speaking events of some controversial speakers and groups. — VagabondSpectre

I would consider those examples unacceptable behaviour. They are also very bad tactics, because they whittle away public sympathy for the cause.

We should bear in mind though, that almost every social movement, however worthy, has suffered from people doing bad things in its name. That's the inevitable result of the facts that (1) there is an enormous range of variation in human behaviour and (2) most social movements are not centrally controlled.

Just remember the terrible trouble Gandhi had in trying to prevent his followers from becoming violent. In the end, he failed in that endeavour, because he was up against human nature. But that didn't make his cause - the liberation of India from colonial rule - any less worthy, nor does it detract from his many achievements (including the liberation of India).

It is a matter of great regret that some hotheads get violent when protesting against fascism, and that some rabble-rousers may even seek to orchestrate a violent confrontation, but the only implication that has for the fight against fascism in general is that it makes it more difficult by leaching away public support. I cringe and mourn every time I hear of violence at a rally in support of a cause I favour.

So it sounds ridiculous? Yet, it is not ridiculous to say that everyone else should adapt to the rhetoric of the far right? Why and what exactly is your reasoning here? Do you sympathize with white supremacy? — TimeLine

You were appealing to the notion that since people have subconscious biases towards names that sound foreign to them we need to somehow ban or enforce speech and language laws which will reduce this bias to give a fair playing field to people with foreign names. Right?

So what you're proposing is to revoke the right to exist in society of whichever swaths of the political spectrum and their associated speech habits which you think winds up making employers behave favorably towards people with familiar sounding names? Riiiiight?

I was joking that this would entail sending people to re-education camps, which is a clever way of saying "incarcerate them for thought crime and wash their brains of their filthy ideas". It's just that this seems like something a very authoritarian government would do...

I don't sympathize with white supremacists, but I sympathize with any non physically violent group being crushed by another group through violent force in a depiction of might makes right because if we allow it to happen to them we're in principle allowing it to happen ourselves. One day, the mass offended might begin to find you or your ideas offensive and they could use your own precedents to silence you...

the amendments themselves are unnecessary and could have once perhaps been used as a guide but now redundant amid changes to our understanding of human rights and freedoms, particularly following the Nuremberg trials — TimeLine

So are you saying that free speech is now obsolete because we know what should and should not be said? (for instance, the need to outlaw national socialism/racism?).

In Australia, we have legislation - namely the Racial Discrimination Act that legally enables perpetrators of racial hate speech to legal account without flagrantly opposing freedom of speech. There needs to be a clear disproportionate harm caused by the hate speech to ever risk the human right to speak freely. The freedom to communicate - particularly on political subjects - on topics of public interest is fundamental and plays a very important part in Australian culture and democracy. One important element is that it needs to be a case-by-case - procedurally thus within the common law jurisdiction - that assesses this proportion. — TimeLine

I simply don't condone a law that makes it illegal to say something in public that causes offense just because it's on the basis of race. Why not make it illegal to offend people on the basis of hair color? Body-weight? Height? Etc? Keep in mind if someone is actually engaged in harassment (which goes beyond merely uttering a single statement on a sidewalk) then harassment law can legally sanction them without the need for special cases of race based offense.

Being politically correct is emotionally considerate and sensitivity to the feelings of others is laudable, but to force us all to adhere to the linguistic rigidity that is required to spare all possible feelings sacrifices too much to preserve too little (the gaps in existing harassment law).

So what you're proposing is to revoke the right to exist in society of whichever swaths of the political spectrum and their associated speech habits which you think winds up making employers behave favorably towards people with familiar sounding names? Riiiiight? — VagabondSpectre

May I kindly suggest that you discontinue using the internet following the oral consumption of rolled hashish? :-|

I don't sympathize with white supremacists, but I sympathize with any non physically violent group being crushed by another group through violent force in a depiction of might makes right because if we allow it to happen to them we're in principle allowing it to happen ourselves. One day, the mass offended might begin to find you or your ideas offensive and they could use your own precedents to silence you... — VagabondSpectre

Are you talking about the riots? Because, again, perhaps since I was talking to another member you may have missed it, I do not condone it and I hardly think that discussing hate speech laws somehow means that I do. I assume from the above-mentioned that you disagree with the mob mentality? If this is what you are talking about, as in, what the rioters have done, I agree. I still think the riots were nevertheless a product of many cultural and legal failures within the United States.

So are you saying that free speech is now obsolete because we know what should and should not be said? (for instance, the need to outlaw national socialism/racism?). — VagabondSpectre

Nope.

I simply don't condone a law that makes it illegal to say something in public that causes offense just because it's on the basis of race. Why not make it illegal to offend people on the basis of hair color? Body-weight? Height? Etc? Keep in mind if someone is actually engaged in harassment (which goes beyond merely uttering a single statement on a sidewalk) then harassment law can legally sanction them without the need for special cases of race based offense. — VagabondSpectre

Hence the Nuremberg trials; while I can see the logic in your argument, hate crimes based on race, ethnicity, skin colour, religion, gender and national origin have a higher probability than crimes against someone with cellulite on their elbows.

Being politically correct is emotionally considerate and sensitivity to the feelings of others is laudable, but to force us all to adhere to the linguistic rigidity that is required to spare all possible feelings sacrifices too much to preserve too little (the gaps in existing harassment law) — VagabondSpectre

People don't like a lot of things about the law and there are certainly risks. What I fail to understand here is that you are saying 'force us all to adhere to the linguistic rigidity' but is that not what the first amendment is doing?

I agree, though, and let us hope our conversation will continue under this assumption, that the mob mentality is a failure and works in contravention to 'individuality', something highly prized in the USA even though people tend to blindly move in masses, whether leftist or right-wing.

May I kindly suggest that you discontinue using the internet following the oral consumption of rolled hashish? :-| — TimeLine

Just to get this out of the way, I will try to be straight forward: You presented an example of sexual harassment in the workplace to establish that we do regulate some speech, but you also implied that hate-speech "keeps people from employment". I pointed out that all forms of sexual harassment, and more, can be covered under existing harassment and human rights laws. You went on to point out that "Research has shown that people who have "foreign" names have a unlikely chance of getting a job interview; it is that invisible discrimination that I made reference to vis-a-vis the ramifications of hate speech in the broader context. ". Please explain what you meant by this. Was it meant as a partial justification for having broad hate-speech laws? (above and beyond the current laws of America, for example). If this is what you meant, can you explain how the mechanism of forbidding certain speech will actually change what you refer to as "invisible discrimination" for the better?

Are you talking about the riots? Because, again, perhaps since I was talking to another member you may have missed it, I do not condone it and I hardly think that discussing hate speech laws somehow means that I do. I assume from the above-mentioned that you disagree with the mob mentality? If this is what you are talking about, as in, what the rioters have done, I agree. I still think the riots were nevertheless a product of many cultural and legal failures within the United States. — TimeLine

I'm not accusing you of anything except subscription to a few bad ideas. Since you asked if my motivation for defending free speech was sympathy to white supremacy (context: I framed you as wanting to send white supremacists to re-education camp), I was simply making it clear that my reasoning is if we do violence to otherwise peaceful racists, we're actually committing a worse crime than racist speech. Whether it's by mob or by legally sanctioned incarceration, using force to revoke the right of individuals to hold opinions and to communicate them peacefully, regardless of how offensive they might be, is inherently a bigger potential threat to democracy than the potential threat of hurt feelings.

Hate crimes based on race, ethnicity, skin colour, religion, gender and national origin have a higher probability than crimes against someone with cellulite on their elbows. — TimeLine

The definition of a hate crime is that it is based on the aforementioned collection of demographic categories, they're just instances of sufficiently offensive speech as they apply to those specific groups. But why should we have a more severe penalty for something that in your view is a much more common crime? Because ridicule for obesity is more rare than ridicule for race or gender, it somehow doesn't count or is less of a crime? Is there really that big a difference between offending someone based on race or gender and offending someone based on obesity?

People don't like a lot of things about the law and there are certainly risks. What I fail to understand here is that you are saying 'force us all to adhere to the linguistic rigidity' but is that not what the first amendment is doing? — TimeLine

The first amendment advocates for the very opposite of linguistic rigidity being forced upon us. It enshrines freedom of expression, for the press and the people, and goes on to establish the right to protest and petition the government for a redress of grievances. These values are the upshot of free-speech, but the downside is that sometimes hateful people say needlessly hateful things for no good reason and try to claim it protected political speech. We have many civil land criminal laws which do a pretty good job of separating legitimately harmful speech and behavior from actual political speech, and the upshot with these is that we get protection from many forms of physical and emotional abuse. But if we over-do these laws, we run the risk of doing damage to the utility of freedom of expression by over-censoring too broadly (see: obscenity in humor and vaudeville vs burlesque), or accidentally censoring something that really ought not to be censored (see: liberals in Moussilini's Italy and Hitler's Germany).

I understand you do not advocate for the kind of mob violence seen in the earlier video, but there is a kind of equivalence between someone like Milo being legally arrested for the things he says (under a hate speech law) and being a target at large for a group of ideologues who (illegally) shut down some of his speaking events; both deprive him and others of their freedom of expression and freedom to peacefully gather. I suspect that if there were laws explicitly protecting certain groups, (lesbians to name an example, due to the outrageous things Milo has said regarding them) that Milo could conceivably be arrested for speech and actions which are more than reasonable sources of offense on that basis. We both scarcely agree with Milo, if ever, but do you think provocateurs like Milo ought to be legally sanctioned for their speech in the form of fines or incarceration?

I want to further discuss hate speech and censorship in general, but I feel that this would be a different topic of the thread, which was to acknowledge the authoritarian left. Do you all think I should make a separate thread or should I just post about hate speech here?

I'd say make a different thread.

I want to further discuss hate speech and censorship in general, but I feel that this would be a different topic of the thread, which was to acknowledge the authoritarian left. Do you all think I should make a separate thread or should I just post about hate speech here? — Chany

Please feel free to post that here. Censorship is central to the issue of this thread, and while the point I wished to make was slightly different, it is still more than related to the existing discussion.

Cheers!