Extremism versus free speech

jorndoe

In Vox, Cameron Peters reported:

Why conservatives’ favorite Twitter alternative has disappeared from the internet (Jan 11, 2021)

Parler hasn't disappeared exactly, just received less exposure, being referenced/broadcast less. They advertise themselves as "Where Free Speech Thrives", "The premier global free speech platform". And others have found them (continually) hosting extremist speech (of the sort that can incite action).

According to someone out there (AA), "the system is rigged" (by "Great Resetting Fascists"). Their slant leans heavily towards the extremist political right being heard, being broadcast, including hordes of anonymous zealots. Might be worth noting that many semi-radicals (or conservatives or religious groups for that matter) suppress non-conforming expression.

Free expression itself doesn't differentiate. Yet, free speech doesn't mean that others must listen. With the amount of expression/speech these days, individuals will have to filter some out in any case.

Free speech allows that I may hear something that I otherwise couldn't, something that I might want to hear. On the other hand, free speech doesn't itself mean free of consequences, one might be called out and deplatformed for continually lying for example.

There are no simple answers it seems, and, meanwhile, AA will continue to see (or claim) "Fascists" oppressing them.

NOS4A2

↪jorndoe

free speech doesn't itself mean free of consequences

I’ve always despised this statement. It’s untrue and is often used to justify censorship.

Free speech does mean speech is free from consequences, and it ought to be treated that way. Censorship, for instance, is the consequence of people who do not like some kinds of speech. It is not the consequence of the speech itself, nor could it be. Being “called out” or “de-platformed” is the consequence of the censor, not the speaker. The censorship of Socrates was not the consequence of his speech, but of the fear of lesser men.

Parler was denied access to the app stores, to Amazon web servers, and the concerted effort to suppress its rise worked quite well.

Agent Smith

Here's the thing...

We can think whatever we want.

We can't do whatever we want.

Speech, looks like, is intermediate between thinking and acting and so the riddle of free speech takes shape! For instance, I can think "I'll pinch Anderson's wallet" and no one will care (because no one can know that); I can actually steal Anderson's wallet and be brought to book; when I say "I'll pinch Anderson's wallet", I'm immediately a prime suspect in the event Anderson's wallet is stolen.

javi2541997

↪Agent Smith

We can think whatever we want because, fortunately, nobody can get into our mind. This is one of the purest civil rights of humankind which still remains. If one day an intellectual develops a program which allows us to read other's minds everything would be over...
We shoul defend the ability of having inner thoughts and keep safe our secrets.
Free speech is just spreading lies for good politicians. I have given up modern free speech or democracy itself

javi2541997

↪jorndoe

Free speech no longer exists in our modern era. Fascism is an over used word on Twitter vocabulary. Press, social media and Google algorithm controls and processes what we should think. A real free speech only exists in the ordinary conversation you may have with your neighbour about oil or taxes. Since the moment one person opt for being a public figure he would never have free speech because he would depend on the mass, thus, the unknown Twitter accounts which created him.
It is sad but... You have to be careful if you want to share a free speech in nowadays.

jorndoe

My emphasis:

Free speech does mean speech is free from consequences, and it ought to be treated that way. — NOS4A2

Too simplistic, there's more to the story, but it's not that free speech/expression ought to be ditched of course. (Once upon a time I'd have said that the only way to respond to speech is more speech.)

There are no simple answers it seems, and, meanwhile, AA will continue to see (or claim) "Fascists" oppressing them. — jorndoe

There can already be consequences. You might have to assume bona fides speakers, and soundly judging listeners, for example.

↪Agent Smith

, right, it's not quite a trivial matter.

Free speech no longer exists in our modern era. — javi2541997

Sure it does; otherwise Chomsky would have been gagged. ;) Those things you mention haven't stopped/prevented Trump from speaking, they just took away his use of their platforms to do so (mentioned in the article).

Fascism is an over used word — javi2541997

:up:

Anyway, Peters use verbiage like "a nexus of extremism", "has a problem with far-right violence", to describe Parler. Couldn't they have told their posters to chill out and discuss things (maturely)?

Agent Smith

↪javi2541997

@jorndoe

free speech doesn't itself mean free of consequences — jorndoe

filter — jorndoe

There doesn't seem to be an appropriate concept in psychology for my views, so I'll describe it: When it comes to thoughts, it all boils down to one simple truth which is that they're, for the most part, spontaneous and involuntary. The best word to describe it is found in the art world viz. automatism.

That being so, we can't be/shouldn't be held accountable for our thoughts.

The next thing I wanna talk about is what are known as filters. These serve as checkpoints, they exist between thinking and speaking & thinking and doing. Not everything we think is spoken and not everything we think is done. Free will, if it exists, is a checkpost where only those thoughts that have a valid permit (good, useful, etc.) are allowed to pass through into speech & action territory.

Agent Smith

:zip:

Tzeentch

Free speech allows that I may hear something that I otherwise couldn't, something that I might want to hear. On the other hand, free speech doesn't itself mean free of consequences, one might be called out and deplatformed for continually lying for example. — jorndoe

The beauty of free speech is that when people are allowed to freely criticize faulty ideas, these processes will happen naturally and no arbitration is required.

If ideas can hold up to the scrutiny of the entirety of free discourse, they likely hold some merit.

In addition, free speech allows you to hear things you may want to hear, but perhaps more importantly hear the things you do NOT want to hear, but NEED to hear.

T Clark

Free speech does mean speech is free from consequences, and it ought to be treated that way. — NOS4A2

So a woman comes to a dinner party at my house and starts saying derogatory things about gay people, I can't ask her to leave? So I run a business and one of my employees spouts Nazi slogans in the lunch room, I can't fire him? So a member of the YMCA curses, swears, and uses inappropriate language, they can't revoke his membership? Of course speech has consequences.

Tom Storm

↪T Clark

:clap:

Tzeentch

So a guy comes to a dinner party at my house and starts saying derogatory things about gay people, I can't ask her to leave? So I run a business and one of my employees spouts Nazi slogans in the lunch room, I can't fire him? So a member of the YMCA curses, swears, and uses in appropriate language, they can't revoke his membership? Of course speech has consequences. — T Clark

This conflates two matters: expressing one's opinions and being generally disruptive. A nice bit of framing.

Michael

This conflates two matters: expressing one's opinions and being generally disruptive. A nice bit of framing. — Tzeentch

So if I'm at work and I express the opinion that Jewish and black people are inferior to white Christians and ought not be allowed to marry then it would be wrong of my boss to fire me for my remarks?

Streetlight

Free speech is a fake problem. It is literally not a problem. A total distraction. "Free speech" what plutocrats would like plebs to continually bicker about to distract from the fact that the only relevant question in this day and age is that of who controls the expression of speech. Spoiler: it's capital.

The richest guy on the 2021 Forbes 400 owns the Washington Post. Number 2 now owns Twitter. Number 3 owns Facebook. Numbers 5 and 6 started Google. Numbers 4 and 9 started Microsoft. Number 10 owns Bloomberg. Free speech? You decide. Combine this w/the Citizens United formula that money equals speech & so those w/the most money are entitled to the most speech, lack of campaign finance regulation & pols who depend on $ to hold power & you've got a country sinking ever deeper into the quicksand of corruption.

So, if you're just an average American who thinks somehow Musk or some other billionaire is going to enhance the voice of the little guy on the Internet, you are a hopeless sucker who's not paying attention. And if you think that the trend toward control of public forums by billionaires is not linked to growing inequality and will not produce more of it, more division, more reshaping the narrative to suit those holding the purse strings, you deserve what's coming.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1518670485202128898.html

Anyone who tries to speak about 'free speech' but has nothing to say about capitalism has nothing worth saying about free speech and can be ignored forever.

Tzeentch

So if I'm at work and I express the opinion that Jewish and black people are inferior to white Christians and ought not be allowed to marry then it would be wrong of my boss to fire me for my remarks? — Michael

Assuming those are one's genuinely held beliefs and one expresses them in a manner that isn't disruptive, I believe one should not face legal consequences (which is what being fired from one's job is), unless it constitutes a breach of the terms of employment as agreed upon in the employment contract.

Social consequences is a different matter. Of course people may treat someone differently for their radical ideas. That's their right.

Michael

I believe one should not face legal consequences (which is what being fired from one's job is), unless it constitutes a breach of the terms of employment as agreed upon in the employment contract. — Tzeentch

So it's OK for some social media company to remove your account should you violate whatever terms and services or community guidelines you implicitly agree to in signing up?

Tzeentch

So it's OK for some social media company to remove your account should you violate whatever terms and services or community guidelines you implicitly agree to in signing up? — Michael

That is a complicated issue that must not only take freedom of contract and freedom of speech into account, but also social media's role as a public forum, and the almost monopolistic position it has gained in public discourse.

Michael

That is a complicated issue that must not only take freedom of contract and freedom of speech into account, but also social media's role as a public forum, and the almost monopolistic position it has gained in public discourse. — Tzeentch

And also what is being said. Should a government official be allowed to publish state secrets? Should I be allowed to knowingly and falsely accuse someone of having committed some heinous act and incite vigilante justice? Should you be allowed to post pornography on some popular website that children frequently visit?

Unrestricted freedom of speech wouldn't be a good thing and shouldn't be allowed.

Tzeentch

And also what is being said. — Michael

I don't think that is primarily important, and I'll explain why:

Should a government official be allowed to publish state secrets? — Michael

Of primary importance here is the agreement of the official not to reveal confidential information - not what is being said.

If an outside individual stumbles upon sensitive information pertaining the government, should they be arrested for sharing it? I think not.

Should I be allowed to knowingly and falsely accuse someone of having committed some heinous act and incite vigilante justice? — Michael

The demonstrable damage one is inflicting upon another is of primary importance - not what is being said.

People gossip all the time with malign intent. A sadly human trait.

Should you be allowed to post pornography on some popular website that children frequently visit? — Michael

Presumably the terms of service would disallow such a thing, and my previous reservations about public forums and monopolies on free discourse do not seem to apply in this situation.

Again, of primary importance here seems to be the disruptive nature and potential damage inflicted upon children. "What is being said", i.e. sharing porn, is not in itself problematic.

Unrestricted freedom of speech wouldn't be a good thing and shouldn't be allowed. — Michael

I don't think any of these examples constitute a restriction on free speech. Rather, in the first example it simply means to act according to the terms one has agreed to.

In the second and third, it is not about speech but about being willfully disruptive and/or harmful.

T Clark

This conflates two matters: expressing one's opinions and being generally disruptive. A nice bit of framing. — Tzeentch

I don't get that. The only thing they've done that's disruptive is expressing their opinion. Redefining free speech to support your argument is not a valid argument.

NOS4A2

↪T Clark

So a woman comes to a dinner party at my house and starts saying derogatory things about gay people, I can't ask her to leave? So I run a business and one of my employees spouts Nazi slogans in the lunch room, I can't fire him? So a member of the YMCA curses, swears, and uses inappropriate language, they can't revoke his membership? Of course speech has consequences.

It’s up to you. That’s the point. You determine your actions, and therefor any penalties you dish out are the consequence of your principles and decisions, not of the words. Sorry, but speech does not have the consequences you claim it does.

T Clark

It’s up to you. That’s the point. You determine your actions, and therefor any penalties you dish out are the consequence of your principles and decisions, not of the words. Sorry, but speech does not have the consequences you claim it does. — NOS4A2

[irony]Yes, yes, I agree. You've won the argument. By redefining the meaning of "free speech," "consequences," "words," and "sorry." Clever rhetorical tactics. [/irony]

NOS4A2

↪T Clark

You didn’t even make an argument, and resort to sarcasm when challenged. Not even clever.

T Clark

sarcasm — NOS4A2

Irony.

Not even clever. — NOS4A2

It was definitely clever.

NOS4A2

↪T Clark

My words are so consequential that you can only write in questions and sarcasm.

NOS4A2

↪jorndoe

Too simplistic, there's more to the story, but it's not that free speech/expression ought to be ditched of course. (Once upon a time I'd have said that the only way to respond to speech is more speech.)

Not really. It’s an important point because censors ban speech, as if it was the speech that cause this or that problem. But speech has no such causal factors. The speech ought to be left alone.

T Clark

My words are so consequential that you can only write in questions and sarcasm. — NOS4A2

You said free speech has no consequences. I responded that I disagreed expressed as rhetorical questions. You responded by saying my kicking someone out of my house because of what they say is not a consequence of that speech. I responded, ironically and cleverly, pointing out that you had redefined the meaning of the word "consequence." Then you responded saying that I had not made a serious argument. Then I responded with this post.

NOS4A2

↪T Clark

I said speech is free from consequences. The consequence of that sentence, apparently, was for you to quote it out of context, to which you responded with a flurry of questions and an assertion of the opposite. My speech then caused you to resort to sarcasm.

Agent Smith

My words are so consequential that you can only write in questions and sarcasm. — NOS4A2

:lol:

T Clark

sarcasm — NOS4A2

Irony.

Agent Smith

Of course speech has consequences. — T Clark

True that, but "I'll kill you" is quite a different kettle of fish from me actually killing you, oui? Then there's libel/slander; in Japan, dishonor meant seppuku/harakiri.

Extremism versus free speech

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions