As far as I know, the rights to free speech end when that speech is being used to defraud the United States of America.

Depends on what you mean by acceptable.

As I said, I believe free speech is about the expression of genuinely-held ideas. It would be exceedingly difficult to prove someone espouses ideas that they do not genuinely hold and that's a rabbit hole I would not enter.

So if you're asking if I believe it should be legally punishable, then no. Besides, I don't think there's anything in the track record of states that suggests they're remotely capable of wielding such power responsibly, especially not the current political elite. Quite the opposite in fact.


The only cure for propaganda is free and open discourse.

The telltale sign of unhealthy public discourse is an aversion to criticism, exactly like the one we see today.

Aversions to criticism are only held by people who know their ideas are flawed. At the same time it reveals a deep personal (ego) investment into those faulty ideas - this is the element of ideological possession also seen in totalitarian societies. Debate is feared and is by definition personal, so it is avoided and dissonant voices are silenced.

I wonder if this deep investment into political ideas could also be witnessed in the '30s and '40s.

So, if corporations are people re free speech, again it seems to give them a right to say "no" to free speech absolutism through censorship and create an odd paradox for American free speech advocates. — The Baden

Yeah. Private companies can implement whatever policies they like to control speech by the very same freedom the absolutists want. But an absolutist (and I wouldn't count myself as one) could still make the argument that institutions ought not to use their freedom to constrain speech - that is, they can still make the moral argument about what moral actors ought to do without contradicting themselves about what they would like to see moral actors allowed to do.

And in this I'd agree with them. Twitter ought have the freedom to censor whatever it sees fit, but it ought not abuse that freedom. Where I'd disagree with absolutists is that I think the distinction between things like hate speech, incitement and abuse on the one hand and 'disinformation' on the other is as clear as day and attempts to blur the boundary are disingenuous. Censoring genuinely held beliefs is dangerous. Censoring hateful language is just normal civility. There's no reason at all to confuse the two.

The freedom to say anything, like the freedom to pass gas or salivate, is a condition of life, something that we do by virtue of being a human. — NOS4A2

Tape worms are a condition of life; one to be avoided. Lies are likewise parasitic on truthful communication and likewise weaken it, by destroying trust. Trust is the very fabric of society, the foundation of the economy, of investment, and of trade. The thesis of Gibbon's Decline and Fall is that the collapse of the Roman Empire was first and foremost a moral collapse. I think we are heading for a second dark age, and for the same reason.

But the magic doesn't work because no matter how many times you repeat the word, the U.S. (for example) is still not N. Korea, Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia. — The Baden

That's a rather low bar you're setting, and one that fabulous wealth does much to lift a country over, even if the trickle down doesn't lift all boats.

Aversions to criticism are only held by people who know their ideas are flawed. — Tzeentch

That's just false speculative psychoanalysis. Aversion to racist rhetoric is fear of eventual oppression. That people speak of the evil they intend to impose is a reality, and stopping it makes sense. It's for that reason Musk censored Kanye.

If we are to learn that Twitter openly assisted the Biden campaign, and this outrages us, what do we about this: https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/29/politics/hannity-text-messages-meadows-trump-white-house/index.html?

I say criticism, and you immediately think of racism?

I say criticism, and you immediately think of racism? — Tzeentch

I offered a counter-example to your specious claim that it is only those fearful of the validity of their claims who wish to suppress their opponents. As if the reason I don't want racist speech on Twitter is because I'm secretly fearful that the racists are correct.

The ability to persuade someone does not hinge upon the veracity of the statements, as if we live in world where justice always prevails. History is replete with examples of bad people convincing people to do bad things.

To the extent we can reduce the impact of those who wish to spread their hate to avoid future acts of hate, I see as a good thing. It's not as if one suddenly commits a racist act without preceding that with racist speech and thoughts.

History is replete with examples of bad people convincing people to do bad things.

To the extent we can reduce the impact of those who wish to spread their hate to avoid future acts of hate, I see as a good thing. — Hanover

I assume the 'we' in your second sentence is somehow rendered immune from the 'people' in your first?

If it is the case that 'people' are prone to being convinced to do bad things by speech acts, even when those speech acts are well countered by contrary voices, then I'm struggling to see how these same people can be convinced to use censorship in a socially responsible way.

...Oh, hang on... I get it. The people doing the censorship are just better people because they're probably middle class and have a university degree... Yep, all makes sense now. As you were...

If it is the case that 'people' are prone to being convinced to do bad things by speech acts, even when those speech acts are well countered by contrary voices, then I'm struggling to see how these same people can be convinced to use censorship in a socially responsible way.

...Oh, hang on... I get it. The people doing the censorship are just better people because they're probably middle class and have a university degree... Yep, all makes sense now. As you were... — Isaac

The comments I'm making aren't controversial. The reason marketing and advertising work is because it's possible to convince people to do things they otherwise wouldn't. A course in advertising would not entail just telling the students to tell the truth because it is truth that convinces.

The US prohibits governmental censorship, so the role of the censor falls upon the free market, and it censors extensively. Right now the right is up in arms because it is learning Twitter did as the DNC asked it. Previously the left was up in arms when it learned that Hannity had a direct line to Trump's campaign staff. The news we get is the news they decide to tell us for whatever ulterior motive might exist.

The question is who you trust with the responsibility of correctly informing the citizens. Is it the government, the middle class with degrees, or whoever has the most power to control the private press, whether that be the gizzilionaire who can purchase the outlet outright, the former president, the current president's campaign leaders, or whoever else might be able to win the political battle to control it?

If you suggest average Joe has any ability to be meaningfully heard without concern of some sort of censorship from some authority regardless of what he says, that's never been the case. There are things I cannot say here, on Twitter, on Facebook, or pretty much anywhere that will not result in a rebuke from the market. And when I say "rebuke," I don't mean they'll just embarrass me with the truth of what they said and leave my position in shambles, but they will cancel me. My job, my reputation, and whatever else they can damage, they will. It is not just about winning the war of ideas. It is about winning a political battle and who controls what.

It's not as Mill suggests, nor which you seem to want to adopt, which is that society sits at an academic table and debates ideas, with all concurring when the truth is said, and through this point/counter-point, the truth emerges and from that truth another truth then emerges. If it were, I'd agree that only those fearful of the truth of their position would try to gag other members at this hypothetical table.

The force of one's position and what causes its acceptance is not truth. If it were, we'd not be having this debate.

It's funny you should use the example of racism.

The types of overt racist opinions you're referring to can't be found anywhere in the public sphere. I have no doubt that such opinions wouldn't survive the crucible of free ideas for very long either, should they be ever be reintroduced.

Yet the modern "anti-racist" crowd is one that exemplifies exactly what I am talking about - an allergy to criticism. They're bullshit peddlers and they know it, so they are hostile to criticism.

As if the reason I don't want racist speech on Twitter is because I'm secretly fearful that the racists are correct. — Hanover

Well, apparently you're fearful about something.

Like I said, I've no doubt that such ideas wouldn't survive the crucible of free ideas, so if ignorant people feel like burning their fingers then they can have at it. I don't know what you're scared of.

Maybe is right.

It does sound like you don't trust the average person with the freedom to be introduced to ideas, which testifies of a very dark image of man indeed.

The next question should be, given such an image of man, why trust people with power at all? Those in power are almost by definition the worst of the lot.

The market isn’t so free when governments pressure companies to adopt policies of censorship. French and German law, for example, demands social media companies censor hate speech and misinformation within a certain time frame or face massive fines. The UK and EU are introducing regulations to protect users from “harmful content”, or in order to “establish a level playing field” economically. The Senate/Big Tech hearings on “misinformation” testifies that American politicians are consistently threatening tech executives to interfere in the speech on their platforms, lest their business models are ruined. Far from a free market, all of this is government pressure and intervention.

https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/government-trying-influence-speech-social-media-how

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/25/981203566/5-takeaways-from-big-techs-misinformation-hearing

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/563470-administration-puts-new-pressure-on-social-media-to-curb-covid-19/amp/

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act-package

https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/21/elon-musk-twitter-netzdg-test/amp/

The question is who you trust with the responsibility of correctly informing the citizens. — Hanover

This is what's changed, why your "'twas ever thus!" approach is wrongheaded. You (along with the general trend around censorship) want to try and tack on 'information' to civility. It's not an accidental move, it's a power play and it's a new one (basically since Russiagate/Covid era).

There's always been constraints on speech based on civility It would be wrong for me to call all the blacks in my neighbourhood criminals even if it were actually true. It would be wrong because it's impolite to negatively group people by inherited characteristics.

Likewise if I were to say "all my followers ought to kill the nearest Jew", that too would be wrong because it might cause untrammelled harm. It too would be wrong even if the Jews around me were actually conspiring to do some awful thing. That still ought to be dealt with more carefully than incitement to racial violence.

It has nothing to do with 'information' or @unenlightened's tiresome invocation of truth. It's to do with restraining one's speech to get along with others. And, yes, some people do seem to need a little nudge in that direction sometimes.

What's new is the attempt to control the dissemination of actual information by hooking it on these already existing social rules and then pretending (as you do here) that they're one and the same thing and things have always been that way. They haven't. I'm not suggesting it's never been this way, I'm not knowledgeable enough about history to make such a claim, but in my lifetime, in the UK, I've never experienced the level of information censorship we seem to be experiencing today. I've been in academia for nearly 30 years, I've seen more papers turned down, media posts flagged, expert opinion work mysteriously dry up... these last few years than in all the years before, and it's alternative professional views on Covid, transgender issues, Russia, etc which are targeted, not racism, homophobia or misogyny. Views counter to a specific political agenda, not views counter to basic politeness.


So what I'm objecting to is the politicisation of censorship, not censorship in general. It's the use of it to persuade, rather than merely gatekeep - this modern trend toward labelling every idea one doesn't personally agree with a 'lie' or 'disinformation' (getting unpleasantly common here too), and expecting to have it expunged from conversation. It's cancerous to intellectual progress. Science is conducted by interrogation, not by popular vote.

Why is it that in a country of over 300 million people the same deep-state players keep appearing in seemingly disparate places? As reported by Matt Taibbi regarding the so-called “Twitter files”:

James Baker is the former general counsel of the FBI under James Comey. Baker was effectively forced out of the FBI due to his role in the Trump/Russia saga and has reportedly found himself under criminal investigation regarding leaks. For whatever reason he was hired by Twitter, and it was he who vetted the first batch of “Twitter Files” without the knowledge of new management. Given the incestuous relationship between social media companies and the "intelligence community", and the growing litany of examples of their disinfo campaigns, it's no wonder the statist fears over Musk's free speech absolutism ring the loudest. They are losing their grip on public opinion.

It has nothing to do with 'information' or unenlightened's tiresome invocation of truth. It's to do with restraining one's speech to get along with others. And, yes, some people do seem to need a little nudge in that direction sometimes.

What's new is the attempt to control the dissemination of actual information by hooking it on these already existing social rules and then pretending (as you do here) that they're one and the same thing and things have always been that way. — Isaac

When you say "actual information", it starts to sound like you mean things that are true, rather than things that are false. How tiresome of you!

When you say "actual information", it starts to sound like you mean things that are true — unenlightened

No. I merely mean views about what is the case (information), as opposed to views about what ought to be the case (instructions, ideology), or sentiments about what is the case (emoting).

When I tell you what time the train is due, I'm providing you with 'information'. I'm not claiming it's unquestionably true in claiming that it's information. I might be mistaken, or the train might be delayed. Someone else might disagree. None of which means the type of data we're dealing with no longer classifies as 'information'.

Unless you're of the bizarre opinion that scientific investigation is somehow 'finished', then matters of fact are always in the process of being interrogated. Or at least they were, until your ilk decided that some things were just 'true' in perpetuity and questioning them constituted the new sin of 'disinformation', policed by it's attendant priesthood of 'fact checkers'.

views about what is the case (information), as opposed to views about what ought to be the case (instructions, ideology), or sentiments about what is the case (emoting). — Isaac

You are of course entitled to your views about what is the case, and in particular about what ought to be the case and how you feel about these things. Is that not what we are doing here? Exchanging ideas about what is the case and what ought to be the case and how we feel about it? Please don't pretend that I am the ideologue here and you are the disinterested scientist. We are interrogating matters of fact and matters of morality together in this thread, and we assume - or at least I do - that our views are honestly held {held to be true, that is}, and open to interrogation and that we both hope that the truth will eventually prevail. And this despite your suggestion that speaking of truth is tiresome.

How ought we, as a society, deal with talk; should we regulate it at all, and if so, how? That is the topic isn't it? And I am not speaking on behalf of any kind of "ilk". I am speaking my best understanding of the problems we have in society, and how we might improve society. Don't misrepresent me as some totalitarian propagandist, please. I am an old fart long retired conversing with other thinkers on an obscure website, not an agent of the devil. I don't claim a monopoly on the truth, nor do I think that anyone else has one; I claim that we ought to care about it, and if we don't care about it and try to conserve and preserve it, it will not flourish. And that would be of great cost to society.

So I am wondering what it is that you disagree with, exactly? I does not help very much to retreat from truth to views, it does not exempt you from supporting your views in debate or make them more real or honest, let alone believable. These are my views, and they are what I think is true. If it doesn't matter to you whether your views are true or not, then... but I don't believe that is the case at all.

Is that not what we are doing here? Exchanging ideas about what is the case and what ought to be the case and how we feel about it? — unenlightened

Yes, that is what we're doing here because this site is generally well moderated (censorship is limited to matters of civility). That is not what is happening on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc, which is the subject of this thread as I understand it. What's happening on those platforms is that ideas about what is the case are being censored for no other reason that that they do not agree with what a particular group of people think is the case.

Discussion of the potential lab origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was banned. There's nothing uncivil about discussing the origins of a pandemic virus. There's nothing impolite about it. It simply wasn't the narrative that powerful actors wanted presenting so it was banned. It was banned using exactly the approach you're advocating where some things are deemed 'true' and others 'false' and that some body of people know the difference.

Likewise with election fraud, Russian hacking, the progress of the current war in Ukraine, the efficacy of vaccines in certain circumstances, the efficacy of cloth masks, the public health utility of lock downs, the properties of a 'woman', the origin of Hunter Biden's emails, the beneficiaries of BLM donations... all issues which have been banned in one way or another from discussion or dissemination on these platforms. None of which are anything to do with politeness or civility, racism, sexism or any other 'ism. They are to do with powerful people constraining the public discourse to promote their interests.

If you disagree with all those examples of censorship, then we indeed have no matter of disagreement between us, but you opened with...

I'm surprised that folks are so undiscriminating about speaking truth and speaking falsely. — unenlightened

...which, since people had only been speaking of Twitter, Facebook and the like, would seem an odd response if you were referring only to actual lies (matters which the speaker knows to be false but utters anyway). I can't think of a single example where Twitter have censored lies (maybe some Russian state posts might come into that category).

So we're not talking about lies here at all. We're talking about different opinions about what the truth is, and the fact that some of those opinions are being censored.

I am speaking my best understanding of the problems we have in society, and how we might improve society. — unenlightened

If you want to be treated like a decent person, then try acting like one.

you are totally full of shit in everything you say — unenlightened

...does not engender a charitable interpretation.

It only even works on this forum because you guys shut off the inflow of shit-posters and trolls - some of which still get through. — ToothyMaw

s that not what we are doing here? Exchanging ideas about what is the case and what ought to be the case and how we feel about it? — unenlightened

Yes, that is what we're doing here because this site is generally well moderated (censorship is limited to matters of civility). — Isaac

Let's be honest. This is the basically what we are talking about. Not about the limits of the Overton Window. The instances of someone being a victim of some activist cancel culture is very, very rare. Without any moderation and no supervision, I simply wouldn't go to that kind of sites. Why interact on a site where the vast majority are questionable bot pushing viagra or so-called Nigerian bankers making lucrative business proposals?

If it doesn't matter to you whether your views are true or not, then... but I don't believe that is the case at all. — unenlightened

I've changed my mind.

Further to...

this site is generally well moderated (censorship is limited to matters of civility). — Isaac

... It's testament to this that absolute brazen lies like...

The instances of someone being a victim of some activist cancel culture is very, very rare. — ssu

...are allowed to stand for everyone to marvel at. Well done.

Yes, of course, over the course of the Covid pandemic, the Russiagate saga, the war in Ukraine and the transgender debate social media have hardly banned or restricted anything...

... I mean there was that minor occasion where they banned even linking to an article critical of the presidential candidate during an election.

... there was that trivial moment when discussion of the origin of the most deadly pandemic for decades was banned.

... there was the very minor ongoing situation where an entire campaign group were accused of hate speech because of their views about feminism.

... the absolutely miniscule banning of an entire country's state output whilst that country is conducting a war.

... the barely noticeable banning of the sitting president of the most powerful nation on earth.

... the almost negligible ban on disputing the CDC policy on pandemic management.

... and it's, of course, barely affected anyone. Only a handful of Harvard professors, the most cited academic ever, the president of the US, investigators for the UN, a couple of award winning investigative journalists responsible for some of the biggest exposures of government corruption ever, editors of the world's leading medical journal... practically no-one really.

Yes Isaac. Something like that I meant.

It's not you or I, our friends, our work colleagues, relatives, people who we know that are banned. That's what I meant with very, very rare.

But if some student of Philosophy in Mainland China would participate in this Forum, lets say about the current protests, alarm bells would go off in China. Computer algorithms at work.

And of the examples you gave, well, at least investigative journalist have through history stepped on the "wrong toes". Of course there has been an Overton window even before. It's now just the ease that you can use social media.

all issues which have been banned in one way or another from discussion or dissemination on these platforms. None of which are anything to do with politeness or civility, racism, sexism or any other 'ism. They are to do with powerful people constraining the public discourse to promote their interests. — Isaac

Let's assume that you are right, and we are indeed in a situation where the space of allowed
public discourse on social platforms was intentionally constrained so that 'powerful people could promote their interests'. Nevertheless, do people who debate with you here, in this OP, want to help 'the powerful people'? As well as many others, they do not like what Mask is doing now for entirely different reasons. It is difficult to say why, but they likely reject your arguments without considering them seriously or view them as negligible and insignificant.
Further, it would be reasonable to assume that even 'powerful people' and those fired recently by Mask have not simply acted 'to promote their interests'. We do not deal here with pure cynical or ideological schemes or calculations. Is there an effect of the desire to remove obstacles and act without hindrances?

What's happening on those platforms is that ideas about what is the case are being censored for no other reason that that they do not agree with what a particular group of people think is the case. — Isaac

Here, you offer the different explanation. It is better than the previous one. Yet, what is going on is not completely understandable.

The position I'm taking, and your thoughts and objections to this is what I am seeking, is that free speech absolutism (a title Elon Musk has given himself) is not an ideal, but places the considerable power of the press in undeserving hands,
whose objective isn't to seek higher truths and dispense with ignorance, but is for their own personal gain and self-promotion. — Hanover

The press companies are private companies. They have the right to act for their own personal gain and self-promotion.

So what is the solution I'm suggesting? We only need to look at the journalistic ethics previously demanded when mass media existed on a smaller scale. An example of them are here: https://www.medialook.al/en/the-5-principles-of-ethical-journalism/

"1. Truth and Accuracy
Journalists cannot always guarantee ‘truth’, but getting the facts right is the cardinal principle of journalism. We should always strive for accuracy, give all the relevant facts we have and ensure that they have been checked. When we cannot corroborate information we should say so.

2. Independence
Journalists must be independent voices; we should not act, formally or informally, on behalf of special interests whether political, corporate or cultural. We should declare to our editors – or the audience – any of our political affiliations, financial arrangements or other personal information that might constitute a conflict of interest.

3. Fairness and Impartiality
Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece, stories should be balanced and add context. Objectivity is not always possible, and may not always be desirable (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds trust and confidence.

4. Humanity
Journalists should do no harm. What we publish or broadcast may be hurtful, but we should be aware of the impact of our words and images on the lives of others.

5. Accountability
A sure sign of professionalism and responsible journalism is the ability to hold ourselves accountable. When we commit errors we must correct them and our expressions of regret must be sincere not cynical. We listen to the concerns of our audience. We may not change what readers write or say but we will always provide remedies when we are unfair."

Anyone can claim to abide by these principles, and anything can be characterized as being in line with those principles.

Nothing is gained by knowingly promoting false, harmful, unapologetic, unexamined claims.

Of course there are things gained: power, money, leverage.
The problem at hand is that people love to pretend that things like power, money, leverage don't really matter.

It's a strange idea that information and truth aren't products with market value.

It's not you or I, our friends, our work colleagues, relatives, people who we know that are banned. That's what I meant with very, very rare. — ssu

Self-censorship makes the phenomenon seem rarer than it is.
Some people self-censor their opinions on so many things because they know stating them would get them banned, ostracized.

The force of one's position and what causes its acceptance is not truth. If it were, we'd not be having this debate. — Hanover

Like I always say: Might makes right.

It's not you or I, our friends, our work colleagues, relatives, people who we know that are banned. That's what I meant with very, very rare. — ssu

Speak for yourself. I've had colleagues who've experienced several situations like the ones I described.

Besides which, I don't much care if you or I are banned. I care that experts are prevented from discussing important matters.

I came upon this in a very different context, but it struck me as applicable:

The real struggle is not between East and West, or capitalism and communism, but between education and propaganda.
Martin Buber

His using education as the antonym to propoganda is clarifying. The absolutist free speech we demand appears in academic settings where there is a bona fide effort at extending our education, but maybe less so elsewhere.

A timely example...

https://jacobin.com/2022/12/canadian-military-train-ukrainian-fascists-azov-centuria/

Don't like the data? No problem. Just call it 'Russian disinformation' and watch as it disappears in the righteous book-burning.

Almost forgot. 140 odd character summary for the Twitter generation who can't make it through a whole article without breaking into a sweat.

while some have managed to still acknowledge the existence of fascist groups in Ukraine that exert outsize influence relative to their size, others have simply downplayed or denied facts about them altogether. This comes amid a disturbing politicization of the concept of “disinformation,” which some dominant media, academic studies, and state institutions have used to conflate empirical falsehoods with dissenting opinions and inconvenient facts.

This brings this issue back up: https://www.npr.org/2022/12/15/1142828852/tiktok-senate-federal-ban-state-agency-governors

The US government getting involved in the suppression of free speech from TikTok on the grounds it is being used maliciously by the Chinese.

Is this not logically equivalent to the North Koreas banning Western media, with the only distinction that we trust our governments to ban but not other ones?

Is the rule that US citizens have a right to hear only from those designated safe?