A large part of the current problem is not extremism versus free speech but rather free speech extremists. Reasonable limits on speech is not a denial of free speech. (I see @Michael) posted on limits before I posted this).

If there is to be free speech then it should not be allowed to be thwarted by being shouted out. The contemporary version of this includes one or a small number of individuals flooding a topic.

As to Socrates: the issue was not free speech. He recognized a responsibility for what one said and he took that responsibility seriously, all the way to his death. His responsibilities were divided and in tension - both to the city and to the search for truth. Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and others came up with ways to deal with this tension, but it has never been eliminated.

threat to free speech is not so much extremism as it is censorship and propaganda.
It's difficult to define the scope of extremism when censorship and propaganda play major role.

threat to free speech is not so much extremism as it is censorship and propaganda.
It's difficult to define the scope of extremism when censorship and propaganda play major role. — SpaceDweller

Can you give an example of censorship?

Can you give an example of censorship? — Jackson

There is no need for an example, censorship is well known method with a well known outcome.

There is no need for an example, censorship is well known method with a well known outcome. — SpaceDweller

Weird.

You've bestowed nothing on me, nor has anyone else. The U.S. Constitution merely provides that Congress shall not adopt a law abridging the freedom of speech. That's been extended to state and local government through the 14th amendment. Even the legal right of freedom of speech is, in fact, only a prohibition of state action. It bestows nothing; it isn't a grant.

It's interesting that Mill himself advocated the restriction of speech, to the extent that voting may be construed as speech. So, he proposed that the votes of the better educated and professional citizens count for more than those of the uneducated, and supported the notion of a "clerisy" as suggested by his friend Coleridge--a nationally endowed elite which would guide the opinions of the public.

There's no right to be an idiot, a fraud, a bigot, a liar or to act or speak like one. It's merely the case that one doesn't often run afoul of the law by being one, and does so only in certain circumstances.

JS Mill, John Milton, Meiklejohn, Bertrand Russell, Einstein, Voltaire, Emma Goldman, Orwell, Huxley, Karl Jaspers, Arendt, Paine, Spinoza, Thomas Jefferson, Frederick Douglass, Chomsky…there are plenty of arguments for free speech from a vast array of important thinkers. One ought to at least consider them, place them next to the opposition, and see which prevails.

Of course there are limits on speech. If there wasn’t there wouldn’t be censorship, and therefor no need to argue in favor of free speech. But I’m making prescriptive statements, not descriptive ones. The fact of slavery, for instance, is no argument against its abolition, just as the fact of limits on speech is no argument against the absence of such limits. So I repudiate the article and Fish’s book.

I have bestowed it; I’ve conferred it; I’ve granted it; and I bestow it on everyone. I give you the right to be a fraud, a bigot, a liar. Reject it all you wish, but I will uphold my end of the bargain nonetheless.

Mill’s arguments for free speech are far better than his arguments for voting and other statist schemes—a Benthamite through and through. We are talking about one and not the other, after all.

I don't get that. The only thing they've done that's disruptive is expressing their opinion. — T Clark

So a woman comes to a dinner party at my house and starts saying derogatory things about gay people, ... — T Clark

The framing isn't obvious?

Why didn't you write "... and expresses an opinion about gay people I disagree with"?

Now suddenly it is a lot less obvious that this person did something that shouldn't be protected under the right to free speech. (Though one is always entitled to ask people to leave their house, of course)

So I run a business and one of my employees spouts Nazi slogans in the lunch room, I can't fire him — T Clark

Why didn't you say "... and expresses an extreme political opinion"?

Should this person now be immediately fired? I think not.

So a member of the YMCA curses, swears, and uses inappropriate language, they can't revoke his membership? — T Clark

Why didn't you say "and curses, swears and used inappropriate language in a fit of anger"?


You may agree that your way of framing certainly nudges us into a certain direction, doesn't it?

You're either consciously doing this, or perhaps more worrying, this happens subconsciously and this is how you perceive people you strongly disagree with; as people that are inherently unreasonable and disruptive, and that cannot be talked with in a polite way, or simply asked to keep their views to themselves or not share them in an antagonistic way.

I'm getting the impression that you are not interested in free speech at all, but instead wish to see people punished that hold opinions you strongly disagree with. That's why you seem so eager to frame such individuals in a way that can justify your desire for their punishment.

The framing isn't obvious?

Why didn't you write "... and expresses an opinion about gay people I disagree with"?

Now suddenly it is a lot less obvious that this person did something that shouldn't be protected under the right to free speech. (Though one is always entitled to ask people to leave their house, of course) — Tzeentch

Why didn't you say "... and expresses an extreme political opinion"?

Should this person now be immediately fired? I think not. — Tzeentch

Why didn't you say "and curses, swears and used inappropriate language in a fit of anger"?

You may agree that your way of framing certainly nudges us into a certain direction, doesn't it? — Tzeentch

So @T Clark asks something like "if my employee tells me to fuck off and die then should I be allowed to fire him?" and you respond by suggesting something like he rephrase his question as "if my employee talks to me then should I be allowed to fire him?"

It seems to me that it's you that is trying to frame things in a way that nudges us into a certain direction.

The specific situations that @T Clark mentions are relevant. It might not be OK to fire someone for expressing certain kinds of extreme political opinions, like the abolition of government, but OK to fire someone for expressing other kinds of extreme political opinions, like Nazism. It might not be OK to suspend someone for shouting and swearing when in a moment of understandable duress, but OK to suspend someone for frequently shouting and swearing because that's just their natural personality.

Mill’s arguments for free speech are far better than his arguments for voting and other statist schemes—a Benthamite through and through. We are talking about one and not the other, after all. — NOS4A2

Even Mill allowed for limits on speech.

In opposition to this it may be contended, that although the public, or the State, are not warranted in authoritatively deciding, for purposes of repression or punishment, that such or such conduct affecting only the interests of the individual is good or bad, they are fully justified in assuming, if they regard it as bad, that its being so or not is at least a disputable question: That, this being supposed, they cannot be acting wrongly in endeavouring to exclude the influence of solicitations which are not disinterested, of instigators who cannot possibly be impartial—who have a direct personal interest on one side, and that side the one which the State believes to be wrong, and who confessedly promote it for personal objects only. There can surely, it may be urged, be nothing lost, no sacrifice of good, by so ordering matters that persons shall make their election, either wisely or foolishly, on their own prompting, as free as possible from the arts of persons who stimulate their inclinations for interested purposes of their own.

...

The interest, however, of these dealers in promoting intemperance is a real evil, and justifies the State in imposing restrictions and requiring guarantees which, but for that justification, would be infringements of legitimate liberty. — On Liberty

His examples were gambling and alcohol, but a more topical example would be soliciting the interference of counting electoral votes.

And as previously mentioned from the SEP article, his harm principle can apply to restrict certain kinds of speech (which might be what he is applying in the above example).

"Fuck off and die" is not an opinion.

But you're right. I am trying to nudge you, towards being able to see things in perspective, so you too may one day formulate a worthwhile opinion on something as fundamental as free speech.

We're not quite there yet, it seems.

It might not be OK to fire someone for expressing certain kinds of extreme political opinions, like the abolition of government, but OK to fire someone for expressing other kinds of extreme political opinions, like Nazism. — Michael

I disagree.

Any opinion should be able to be expressed without legal consequences, assuming they're expressed in a non-disruptive manner, and not a direct threat of or call to violence.

Reason being, whatever lowest common denominator of humanity is represented by governments would have to arbitrate what we consider reasonable limitations on free speech.

Wielding power over speech in a responsible manner and being able to estimate what is "extreme" and what is "reasonable" are things that governments (and indeed most individuals) have time and again proven to be incapable of.

Furthermore, it testifies of a fundamental distrust in the individual's ability for reason if one believes that free speech can lead to dangerous ideas taking hold. Usually ideas that are labled as such are dangerous to those who would rather hang onto their power. It's that distrust of the individual in which we find the roots of authoritarianism and all the suffering it brings.

It is in the crucible of free discourse that extreme ideas get tested and discarded. That's the power of free speech. It is in a climate of censorship that extremism thrives, usually by pointing at other extremists as an excuse to censor criticism.

Any opinion should be able to be expressed without legal consequences, assuming they're expressed in a non-disruptive manner, and not a direct threat of or call to violence. — Tzeentch

You count being fired from private employment as a legal consequence?

You count being fired from private employment as a legal consequence? — Michael

Assuming there was a contract involved that would be breached, yes.

It is possible that expressing certain opinions constitutes a breach of contract, which would make losing one's job a legal consequence one has agreed to as a result of them signing the contract.

Though, it should be noted that freedom of expression is a human right and is thus unalienable, therefore cannot be suspended as part of a contract.

Assuming there was a contract involved that would be breached, yes. — Tzeentch

And you think that any opinion should be able to be expressed without legal consequences? So employers should not be able to require that their employees refrain from expressing certain opinions? I cannot make it a condition of employment at my synagogue that employees must not condone Nazism?

And you think that any opinion should be able to be expressed without legal consequences, i.e. without a breach of contract? So employers should not be able to require that their employees refrain from expressing certain opinions? I cannot make it a condition of employment at my synagogue that employees must not condone Nazism? — Michael

No, I don't think that.

I just thought I'd point out that freedom of expression is a human right, thus unalienable and not suspended as the result of a contract.

What two parties agree upon consensually to be the terms of their contract is none of my business.

Then I'm not sure who you're arguing against here because most (all?) of us are just saying that even if the government ought not have the power to prevent people from speaking or imprison/fine those who do, it is right that people are held accountable for the things they say and face reasonable social consequences such as being fired from private employment or having their social media account suspended.

That is a slippery slope. For instance if someone is perfectly good at their job yet holds some racist views/opinions then does the employer have the right to fire them based only on said views/opinions? I would say no.

In the real world people can just make up another excuse and ‘let them go’ so that is a ‘social consequence’ of not adhering to what most people regard as reasonable social behaviour.

The reason it is a ‘slippery slope’ (more so than my example) is that MANY people have differing views about what is and isn’t a proper manner to speak and behave. Some people can view merely raising a topic as a ‘micro aggression’.

Going back to day-to-day life if you talk to someone with ill intent and ridicule and belittle them THEN act uppity when they punch you in the face … well, you suffer the ‘social consequence’ of your behaviour. The legality of such things is irrelevant too. People act as they see fit to act NOT by some rulebook written by a group of others.

Free speech allows everyone to see where others stand (to a degree) and treat them accordingly. Being ‘fired’ directly for holding opposing views to someone that doesn’t relate to the workload is illegal surely? I am not saying they should not ‘fire’ them only that they should not be allowed to ‘fire’ someone for expressing an opinion about something that doesn’t effect their work. Preaching and politicking … I think that is an area where the employee should be warned to keep such things out of the workplace rather than just fired outright.

most (all?) of us are just saying that even if the government ought not have the power to prevent people from speaking or imprison/fine those who do, it is right that people are held accountable for the things they say and face reasonable social consequences such as being fired from private employment or having their social media account suspended. — Michael

What these arguments amount to is that expressing one's privately held beliefs can be sufficient reason for someone to end up unemployed or without a voice.

Of course we can think of examples where one's privately held beliefs can make one unable to hold certain jobs. In such cases a good argument needs to be made why that is so, but the grounds for firing someone would not be them expressing their beliefs, but them being unsuitable for a job.


The question is, why can't we contend with shrugging our shoulders and disagreeing?
Why is there a need to punish people who we strongly disagree with?

Fear or a desire for control, neither of which are good councillors for reasoned thought. (And both of which are the prime movers of human evil)

Of course we can think of examples where one's privately held beliefs can make one unable to hold certain jobs. In such cases a good argument needs to be made why that is so, but the grounds for firing someone would not be them expressing their beliefs, but them being unsuitable for a job. — Tzeentch

If I'm not obligated to hire someone then I'm not obligated to retain their employment.

Or would you say that if I have to choose between a Nazi and a non-Nazi when hiring then I ought not be allowed to choose the non-Nazi simply because I don't like Nazism?

You're obligated to whatever was agreed upon in the contract.

If that contract states one is able to fire an employee at any time, for whatever reason, then that's part of it.

But you're ignoring the fundamental question here:

The question is, why can't we contend with shrugging our shoulders and disagreeing?
Why is there a need to punish people who we strongly disagree with? — Tzeentch

A bit too confrontational for comfort, perhaps?

The question is, why can't we contend with shrugging our shoulders and disagreeing?
Why is there a need to punish people who we strongly disagree with? — Tzeentch

Why isn't the bigot content with just keeping his mouth shut?

It's an irrelevant question really. He wants to call a black person a nigger and I want to fire him in response. That's it. My argument is that I'm not obligated to keep him as an employee. Why I don't want to keep a bigot as an employee isn't the topic.

This is where the "freedom of speech but not freedom of consequences/accountability" comes from.

You have the inalienable right not to be imprisoned or fined without good reason and you have the inalienable right to express your opinion, therefore it is wrong for you to be imprisoned or fined for expressing your opinion.

However you don't have the inalienable right to use Twitter or be employed by me, therefore it isn't wrong for me to fire you or for Twitter to suspend your account for expressing your opinion.

My argument is that I'm not obligated to keep him as an employee. — Michael

Depending on the terms of contract, you may very well be.

But you're beating around the bush. Your example doesn't feature an expression of an opinion, but an insult.

Another attempt to justify your desire for punishment, which reaffirms the need for my question to be answered.

But you're beating around the bush. Your example doesn't feature an expression of an opinion, but an insult. — Tzeentch

Fine, then "black people are inferior to white people and do not deserve equal rights or respect."

Depending on the terms of contract, you may very well be. — Tzeentch

Obviously, but in this case we're assuming that the repercussions are legal. What we're debating is whether they're ethical.

An unfortunate opinion. How exactly should that affect me?

I don't understand the question.

My employee expresses that opinion. I don't want to employ someone with that opinion. I have the legal right to fire him as per the contract. He does not have the inalienable right to be employed by me. Therefore I have the right to fire him. That's it.

Sorry. If a gift isn't accepted, it's not a gift. Similarly, a bargain, like a contract, must be agreed to by the parties. And, since you're not in a position to keep me from speaking, you can't "allow" me to speak. It's as if you were to claim that you allow me to breathe, or eat.

I’m aware of Mill’s ideas. I don’t think the harm principle should apply to speech.

However you don't have the inalienable right to use Twitter or be employed by me, therefore it isn't wrong for me to fire you or for Twitter to suspend your account for expressing your opinion.

It’s true. Your business is yours and no one has a right to be employed by you, and you have every right to fire anyone. But the fact of having the right to fire someone for their opinions doesn’t mean that it is right to fire someone for their opinions. Though it’s up to you and no one else how you should operate your business, you should not fire someone because you don’t like his opinions.



It’s not a gift or a bargain or a contract. I was merely using the idiom “uphold my end of the bargain” to say that I will fulfill my obligation. Perhaps that idiom is too American. My apologies.

I will not seek sanction or punishment for your speech. I will also defend you from those who would seek your sanction or punishment. No casuistry will convince me to do otherwise.