The end of free speech?

[Ori37]

We seem to be moving towards a culture of criticism which is so prevalent it's threatening to end freedom of speech and honest opinion. You can't post anything on Social Media without your comments being immediately perceived as purposefully hostile, and individuals are torn to shreds for the most innocuous things.

Jokes or light-hearted attempts at humour are taken literally. You only have to read a few threads on MN for examples. People are so busy troll-hunting they forget why they signed up in the first place.

Are people really so easily offended and quick to anger? If not, what is this new and emerging trend to attack and publicly denounce people who have no obvious malintent whatsoever? Where is the critical objectiveness, the desire for good, honest debate? It seems to have been replaced by the immediate desire to apportion blame for imagined insults.

What concerns me is the root cause for this hostile culture. People seem angry, and dissatisfied on a deep and collective level. There's an article in the news today about public figures who have signed an open letter denouncing the restriction of debate. It makes interesting reading.

Individuals can easily lose their jobs for saying something on Social Media that is taken the wrong way and wasn't meant to cause offence, academics and professionals are called into disciplinaries for quoting the wrong thing, places like MN which should be a safe space for a lot of parents to sound out their concerns and give advice are increasingly under threat by this hostile culture.

Whatever you say, however you say it, whoever you are, there will be someone who takes your comments personally, or reads bad intent where none was meant - despite the fact that in the majority of instances, it's blatantly clear that comments are innocent.

I'm all for a healthy, robust debate, and don't mind being disagreed with. But nowadays people forget the "debate" part and replace it with personal attacks, and things very quickly escalate into petty insults being flung. Original requests for help are ignored, the focus slips onto a perceived insult, hostile exchanges are undertaken, more individuals jump on the bandwagon and there it is, the demise of free speech.

AIBU to wonder where this will end up? What do you think? (No insults please! I'm not insulting anybody.)

This debate has been boring on for 20+ years now and it's getting boring. Go to Iran or China and tell the activists there how your right to free speech is being eroded by a bunch of people on social media saying you're wrong and offensive. Oh no, you can't, because they are in prison without charge and without trial, indefinitely. FFS.

You can say what you like. Other people can then say what the like about what you said.

Making threats is illegal as well it should be. JKR being 'piled on' on Twitter (i.e. having lots of people disagree with her in strong terms) is a completely separate issue to her receiving death threats etc. The latter is illegal; the former is a completely natural consequence of an individual who is extraordinarily famous and influential publishing and publicising their incredibly controversial opinions. She could continue to say these things to her friends at dinner parties until the cows came home with no consequence; instead she submitted her views to the whole world for assessment. The world responded. Perhaps not in the way that she had expected or would have wished. But people disagreeing with you is the risk of saying what you think, and I can't think of a way one could mitigate that that still constitutes 'free speech' in any meaningful way or allows for the debate you seem to prize. Unfortunately, the nation at large are not chin-stroking dons engaging in a bit of after-dinner banter over port. Social media means you are submitting your opinion to the judgement of those both qualified and unqualified to understand it, and to the temperate and the intemperate. All of whom have a right to speak back (within the bounds of legality).

And employers are and always have been entitled to disassociate themselves with anyone whose public behaviour brings their brand into disrepute (provided this is not an act of prejudice against a protected characteristic e.g. sacking someone for being gay and out). How could, for example, a university continue to employ David Starkey after his 'bloody blacks' remarks and still expect to be able to market themselves to black students and staff? How could a midwife be allowed to go on treating mothers and babies if she had publicly expressed a belief that (for example) bastards are the devil's spawn and better off never being born?

We have free speech in this country and the right is undiminished. What we do not have is a population of sufficient intelligence to use this enormous privilege wisely or constructively. If you want to resolve that you need to start at the bottom with education and the environments in which children are raised up. You can't try and prune the thorny bush free speech has become from the top down, removing the strands you think are unnecessary, obstructive or unpleasant. That makes a total mockery of the principle you claim to espouse.

Free speech and 'conditions conducive to constructive debate' are two completely different things.

"BigChocFrenzy, are you suggesting that older posters should jog off and leave the site to “the majority” ? "

IrmaFayLear I'm a 64-year-old gc feminist and have some v unpopular views here on several issues

e.g. reporting benefit fraud, state help for longterm SAHMs, IVF on the NHS, special SEN schools as in Germanic countries .....

If I were too offended to have my pearls of wisdom criticised, then I'd go elsewhere

But
I'm not a delicate blossom and I enjoy vigorous debate, so I won't flounce
and I don't constantly whinge about it being unfair either

Daniel whatshisname is a mediocre actor brought to fame entirely by the good luck to play the main character in JKR's books

So I think he's an ungrateful and disloyal little shit not to keep out of it, even if he disagreed with her,
but he's as entitled to express his views - although far less eloquently - as she is

What is totally wrong is the violent threats by TRAs , which are criminal and should be prosecuted

• threats & violence also seem par for the course for the far right, attacking prominant women politicians

@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz

Death and rape threats are a grey area? Ok.

You clearly didn't read the rest of my post.

The reality of biological sex and the importance of that for women isn't "incredibly controversial". It's what the vast majority of the world believe, despite what the TRA fetishist anime types and the blue haired brigade would postulate. Sadly the issue comes when policy makers bow to these vicious bullies.

@araiwa please do explain to me why is wrong for people to be offended by racism or homophobia? You seem to moaning that people get upset by very clearly offensive things.

Artist Nina Edge losing her job because she offered some thoughts during the GRA consultation.

Lawyer Maria Forstater (?) not having her contract renewed.

Numerous academics , lecturers, losing their jobs because they offer GC views.

Opinions are now not up for discussion or consideration, the whole dynamic has changed: offer a divergent opinion and you will be 'cancelled'.

I think this article is very interesting on the way our style of debate has become un-useful (she looks at the dynamic of discussion, doesn't argue about the issues involved)

www.telegraph.co.uk/books/news/jk-rowlings-treatment-grim-sign-twitter-mobs-have-poisoned-cultural/?fbclid=IwAR3rxPADd9PUifBAr8rLFvRdKde0PbR9k7f3hwlHkmbVLSz7vGVe5ln0yqU

@Alconleigh Whatever the rights and wrongs it is currently a hot-button issue in the cultural discourse. She knows this. And she made a conscious decision to roll up her sleeves and wade into it.

@comeby I can't read your article (paywall) but I definitely think the discussion worth having is along these lines, the 'dynamic of discussion', rather than the free speech angle. I also think the employment issue is a red herring because employers always have and always will reserve the right to terminate the employment of someone who publicly brings their brand into disrepute (however they choose to define that within the law). The only thing that's changed is that now speech and action are so much more public than they ever used to be; dinner party gaffes and a weekend membership of your friendly local neo-nazi group are still under the radar, as are anonymous letters to the newspapers (and indeed posts on Mumsnet!).

But build yourself a big online megaphone in your own name and shout through it and what you say will be widely noted, in ways that may be beneficial to your interests or otherwise. This is not an inhibition of free speech, it's just a new and larger playing field.

I completely agree OP. It's naive to say oh people have always disagreed, doesn't mean you're not free to say it. That's simply not true. People are fired for views that, whilst maybe controversial, are not in any way illegal. It won't be long before they are illegal, as the distinction in law between intention and action seems to have been increasingly eroded. If the intention is no longer the test (i.e. I said something I believed, not to cause offence but because I thought it was in the public interest), and it is purely about how the action is perceived (I.e. I felt offended/"unsafe"/victimised), then there is no free speech any more. As Clare Foges pointed out in The Times nearly two years ago the hate speech laws are poorly drafted and divert police time from actual violence.

Oh agree on that @VeniceQueen2004 Just wary of the constant framing of it (widely, not by you) as "controversial anti trans" sentiment when in fact it's actually truthful pro women sentiment....of course it's terrifying that being pro women is controversial.

Did anyone see the person on Twitter decrying the signatories of the letter and saying that none of them had faced any consequences for their views. The signatories including Salman Rushdie........That's a special kind of ignorant.

Totally agree, OP. Vitriolic self righteousness on both left and right of the political spectrum - and it's threatening to tear society apart. A functioning society relies on the ability of its members to find common ground and cohere around a core set of shared beliefs. Right now there doesn't seem to be any consensus about anything.

@WanderingMilly

I have lived in Scandinavian cultures where this isn't the case, and now back in the UK the difference is painful. Scandinavians prefer debate and in places like Norway, this is particularly so. For instance, in the workplace, whenever a decision has to be made, EVERYONE from the CEO to the cleaner is asked for their input, even if some staff have very little understanding of the issue under consideration. When everyone has had their say, all points of view are taken into account and finally the decision made. No-one is shouted down for an opposing view, all viewpoints are valid. It makes decisions take longer but everyone is "heard" and all are valid.

I have worked in a place that did this: everyone had their voice but in thruth, as soon as the support and cleaning staff were out of the room, the decisions were made by very different criteria. I felt they just paid lip service to teh whole idea in a very patronising way. i know the support staff felt that, too That it was not taking onboard their suggestions.

However, The support staff were not having to think about how to deal with wider considerations so some of their suggestions were redundant and otehr staff could see this.

I don't know Nordic countries to work in so I am not criticising them, just wondering whether it is something that comes from a desire to do teh right thing but actually is ineffectual and can cause more problems. People are equal but are roles?

JKR being 'piled on' on Twitter (i.e. having lots of people disagree with her in strong terms) is a completely separate issue to her receiving death threats etc. The latter is illegal; the former is a completely natural consequence of an individual who is extraordinarily famous and influential publishing and publicising their incredibly controversial opinions.

The controversial opinion btw is that women are adult human females. Which everyone agrees with, but because of the intense bullying of a few people we are all terrified to say it in public. The reason why we don't need to jail people in this country is because we use shame and public mobbing. Many normal, non rich women are loosing their jobs. Its not just on Twitter. Meanwhile the "criticism" you mentions often involves violent, sexualised and sexist language. I don't see the PC police stepping up to call out the rank misogony of many of her detractors.

Lifeisgenerallyfun I agree wholeheartedly with you.

@RedOasis

I kind of feel the same. PC gone too far. We don’t do, say, think much anymore for fear of getting in bothers!

That didn't take too long.

What do you want to say that 'PC' prevents you from expressing?

I think Starkey was trying to point out the purpose of the transatlantic slave trade was as a whole to subjugate.

What do you want to say that 'PC' prevents you from expressing?

As a same sex attracted woman I would like to state my preference to only date females on lesbian dating sites. I recently recieved a lifetime ban from Her because in one of my pictures I was wearing a T-Shirt which said adult human female.

Which everyone agrees with,

No, the don't. Hence the critism JK Rowling has faced. More people have disagreed with her than agreed.

@DJLippy

What do you want to say that 'PC' prevents you from expressing?

As a same sex attracted woman I would like to state my preference to only date females on lesbian dating sites. I recently recieved a lifetime ban from Her because in one of my pictures I was wearing a T-Shirt which said adult human female.

I suspect that's not the full reason why you got banned. The problem is a lot of people moan about not being able to use racial or homophobic slurs because of "PC". Do you think people shouldn't be critise for being racist or homophobic? I've asked this quote a few times on here and nobody has answered me.

Are you comparing lesbianism to racism? Same sex attracted women have a right to female only spaces. Explicitly stating your sexual boundaries should not get you banned from a dating site. Same sex attraction has been re-framed as transphobia.

If you don't believe me maybe you will believe Lucy Masoud - the Grenfell firefighter who was banned from Tinder for the same crime. Is this the consequences you were speaking about? OK sure yeah dating sites are private sites so they have a right to set their own rules, but effectively banning homosexuals? Like, you can stay in our spaces but just 'don't ask, don't tell.' Something is not right!

I suspect that's not the full reason why you got banned.

I can fully believe that's why they were banned after the shit I've witnessed online in the last few days.

People are being banned from platforms for stating that women do not have a penis.

Gay men and lesbian women are being subject to abuse and being banned from platforms for stating they don't wish to be in a relationship with someone who has the opposite genitalia to them. Makes them bigots apparently.

*I suspect that's not the full reason why you got banned.

I can fully believe that's why they were banned after the shit I've witnessed online in the last few days.

People are being banned from platforms for stating that women do not have a penis.

Gay men and lesbian women are being subject to abuse and being banned from platforms for stating they don't wish to be in a relationship with someone who has the opposite genitalia to them. Makes them bigots apparently.

What jobs are suitable for those who you have defined as racist or sexist? Should they be entitled to any employment or would it be preferable for them to be on benefits?