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 It seems to have been replaced by the immediate desire to apportion blame for imagined insults.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.)

@BigChocFrenzy

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

Actually I have some sympathy with him. He would probably have been told by his agent "you have to state your view before you are asked, ie, immediately, or your career will permanently suffer".

I like to think that if I'd been in the same position as him I would have said something like: I recognise that both women (whether trans or otherwise) are discriminated against: as I am neither female nor trans I do not consider it appropriate to say anything other that I support them both.

But, frankly, that wouldn't nearly have been enough for the baying mob on social media. Nor would it have been enough for the big businesses that employ people like Radcliffe - and the reality is that the baying mob does get its teeth into the profit margin and big business is afraid of them. So I would have done exactly the same as him.

To the original poster - I could not agree more! Very well said as absolutely spot on!

There is indeed no truly free speech/thought/expression anymore (within legal adherence).

I am still conscious that even expressing this support and appreciation may be considered objectionable (to that 0.1% looking for offence even when non intended) given how so many keyboard evangelicals believe everything has to be polar opposites these days with no one willing to find acceptable middle ground or simply agree to disagree!

As naturally required I have already marginally self censored the above to ensure no offence is inferred.

Whilst I agree with you, I don't think there's ever been another time in history, where there has been a platform for Jo Bloggs, expert in nothing, to offer his opinion on everything just because, guess what? He thought it. In the past when people have had free speech it has meant you can talk to your mates in the pub, who probably have roughly the same opinion as you, without fear that they're going to report you to the police.
Celebrities are the worst for doing it. Get rid of social media and I swear there will be peace and harmony again.

People dont have the maturity to speak about the tough things that need spoken about. Not on here anyway, I wouldnt dare.

Yeah, it's pretty bad OP, it's the same in all the English speaking countries.

I can think of lots of examples.

Trying to stop women meeting to talk about laws that affect them. Bodily, or by complaining to the venues.

Not funding academic important academic research because it is in an area that is politically sensitive.

Firing an academic for liking things on Twitter or Facebook. Academics having to be accompanied by security, or having lectures cancelled.

Having police call people to check their thinking.

Claiming anything outside a very narrow range of opinions is racist, sexist, etc - even accusing people who are long time activists.

Even with this letter - claiming that someone feels "unsafe" and implying they could get someone fired for signing a letter about the importance of free speech.

Anti-Israel not anti-Jewish.

People criticise BLM about it's views on Israel but have nothing at all to say about ongoing racist brutality against Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Yes, the police harass and shoot them too. & They march. But you either pretend you don't know this, or don't care as you'd rather promote BLM as anti-Semitic.

I guess you also believe hating UK right-wing policies = hate of all white British people.

These posts however are really about being incensed at not being able to make racist comments without being challenged on it. So much concern about free speech since black lives issues and racism have come to the fore. As is ever the case though, that isn't directly said. It's just a case of going around the houses whilst knowing that anti-BLM thread comments will do the job of saying the reality sooner rather than later.

& Yes racists should lose their jobs. Even quicker if they work with black people and are on social media being racist. Any organisation that cares about employees bringing it into disrepute will act accordingly and that is entirely right.

@DeeCeeCherry

Anti-Israel not anti-Jewish.

People criticise BLM about it's views on Israel but have nothing at all to say about ongoing racist brutality against Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Yes, the police harass and shoot them too. & They march. But you either pretend you don't know this, or don't care as you'd rather promote BLM as anti-Semitic.

I guess you also believe hating UK right-wing policies = hate of all white British people.

These posts however are really about being incensed at not being able to make racist comments without being challenged on it. So much concern about free speech since black lives issues and racism have come to the fore. As is ever the case though, that isn't directly said. It's just a case of going around the houses whilst knowing that anti-BLM thread comments will do the job of saying the reality sooner rather than later.

& Yes racists should lose their jobs. Even quicker if they work with black people and are on social media being racist. Any organisation that cares about employees bringing it into disrepute will act accordingly and that is entirely right.

its not racist to critisise Black Lives Matter

its not racist to critisise Black Lives Matter

Alisonjabub You copied my whole post and STILL managed to make reference to something that was not mentioned at all.

But I know it's because there are people who don't actually sight-read and retain information. They just read with a whole narrative in their head and that's what comes out, hence seeing and stating stuff that isn't even there...

This is part of the problem, isn't it?

What some people here think of as racist or sexist views is extraordinarily narrow. You have people like TRevor Phillips in the US, or Adolph Reed - both academics, black, activists, on the left or even arguably marxist in Reeds case - and because it does not fall within the very narrow confines of what the gatekeepers think is right - guess what, you are a bigot.

They may restrain themselves from calling Phillips or Reed racists directly.

You can be a gay man like Douglas Murray who says, actually, we don't really know whether being gay is innate or not, or a lesbian who doesn't support same-sex marriage, and you might get away with it, but say the same thing with a measured and reasoned argument, and you will be seen as a bigot.

The whole idea that there is such a thing as free speech when you can get fired for having an opinion about a political topic is incredibly naive, but what's terribly evident is that many people simply have no real understanding about the scope and depth of arguments around many contentious topics.

I do wonder though - how do people who say this think laws were ever changed, if people who had supported changes in laws around homosexuality, or civil rights, could have been socially ostracised and lost their jobs? Because those were not mainstream opinions at one time. There was a time when employers did fire people regularly for saying things or voting against the employers interests - not what I'd call period of effective political reform.

You copied my whole post and STILL managed to make reference to something that was not mentioned at all.

Sounded pretty much like it to me. Maybe you'll have to be clearer in what you're saying it was a bit jumbled

So the people hurling abuse are technically doing it under their "free speech" so it's a bit of a grey area. And the people who use their real names are naive and should accept the consequences.*

You seem to be assuming I think the threats are OK. No I think they are completly wrong and the people making them should face consequences. I'm just pointing out the truth as to why they aren't. Yes, if person a posts their opinion under their really name they are going to be subject to scrutiny but if person B posts horrible things anonymously then of course they won't be because nobody knows who they are. That's common sense and yes it's not fair but it's the truth. It's not my fault that the way it is and I'm not agreeing to it, I'm just explaining reality.

Lots of people nowadays seem to exist in echo chambers and so seem to feel genuinely distressed if someone disagrees with them.

I'm pretty left-wing and open minded but enjoy relationships with people who are the opposite. We can discuss/debate/ignore our differences without getting upset. I don't understand it at all

Hate speech laws here mean we are restricted in what we say, I don’t disagree with those laws, we also have Civil libel laws, defamation law etc. But speech is not free if There are consequences to the words you use.
We have a greater range of legally Free speech here than many parts of the world.
SM is our version of the telescreen from 1984 - we have to be seen to be behaving correctly, expressing the right opinions as defined by the politics of the day.

I'm not agreeing to it, I'm just explaining reality

Apologies, I misinterpreted what you were saying.

@DeeCeeCherry

These posts however are really about being incensed at not being able to make racist comments without being challenged on it.

No, they're really not. I'm not a racist, I would never want to offend anyone in this manner. You are a case in point for this particular argument. Why have you jumped to the worst possible conclusion from a post that outlines concerns about the lack of current-day freedom to voice an opinion on social media without being accused of being racist (as you've just done) or sexist or anti-whatever.

I think the only conclusion is that people have their individual crosses to bear, and they can only interpret what others say and do through this particular lens, thus the responses are not well-considered in relation to the argument. It then becomes about apportioning blame, for an imagined insult.

To have a balanced and objective argument, individuals need to come at the topic from an unbiased viewpoint; a space of critical thinking, not emotionally-loaded pre-conception or prejudice.

@Warsawa31

Hate speech laws here mean we are restricted in what we say, I don’t disagree with those laws, we also have Civil libel laws, defamation law etc. But speech is not free if There are consequences to the words you use. We have a greater range of legally Free speech here than many parts of the world. SM is our version of the telescreen from 1984 - we have to be seen to be behaving correctly, expressing the right opinions as defined by the politics of the day.

Free speech doesn't mean you get to say anything you want free of consequence, thats a common misconception.

It means that you have the autonomy as an individual to form your own language and state your own opinion.

I also don't agree with hate speech laws. I despise people speaking hate but think that they should have a right to say what they want because the alternative is that you are left with the question of who decides what hate speech actually is? Usually the last person youd want to.

Well we don't have Free Speech in the UK anyway... we have freedom of expression subject to limitations (ie hate speech, incitement to violence etc)

Ori37 I read your post and
immediately knew it would spark comments about race - As did you, because it is impossible to be that unaware.

A cross to bear - Yes it could be said that is racism. & I do not need to be balanced and objective about something so fundamentally unbalanced and abhorrent.

Look at responses to your post and how many of them are about race, and offensive - It didn't take long to turn to talk of black lives, taking the knee, people should have the right to say as they please etc. Again, as you knew it would particularly in the current climate.

It's a good thing hate speech and incitement to hate has consequences and long may that last. People who claim to want free speech and to be able to freely and openly say what they want are never coming at this from any good angle. They want to be offensive without consequences. That is the core of it - no matter how it's dressed up.

Just curious as to why this thread has already (in parts) turned into an online aggressive polarised argument about hate in relation to diversity of gender, relationship orientation, race and creed, religious and political ideologies?

As many previous fellow mums have posted above this is simply (as far as my interpretation allows me to understand) a thread to discuss views about the concept of free speech ending. We do as noted and mentioned repeatedly, have laws that govern hate and discrimination. Therefore as according to English law there is no carte blanche for truly free speech if that includes an element of hate or discrimination etc. The laws on and acceptance of diversity is forever evolving as testament to the relatively recent legal acknowledgement of lifestyles other than the traditional (technically more prevalent) ones.

And just to add, in the light of recent high profile police injustices worldwide, why can it be inferred that staying silent can also mean complicit or tolerance of a particular super sensitive trending viral issue? Why can not saying anything actually just mean nothing to say as no comment because neutral and no view etc?! Mind boggles as this is perverse free speech whereby not saying anything can be weaponised to mean agreement or tolerance of any politicised issue as is “saying” so?

Just as the case with not wishing to put one self in a forced involuntary body position (out side of a health and fitness workout) which has different meanings to different people. In this super sensitive minefield It is no longer not just about free speech but also human rights and general freedoms including freedom of expression - be it what you wear or don't wear eg Covid PPE face coverings etc as what you do with your body or don't do that can be offensive too to some bizarrely.

@DeeCeeCherry

Not everyone wants to be offensive by exercising the right to "free speech, so I disagree with you there. I want to have the right to say what I want but I'm not a racist and I don't want to offend anybody with my opinions. I don' mind being countered in a debate but I don't like it when others attribute false meaning to what I've said because they have personal Umbridge over a particular issue - and this is exactly the point I am making.

Similarly, not every debate or right to exercise free speech is about race - although, clearly for you it is and that's ok - it just proves the point that people will interpret any discourse through their own personal filter. For example, I didn't mention race in my OP but you have introduced it as the leading focus of your counter-argument - obviously because you feel strongly about that particular issue, but I was actually referring to the broader problem of modern-day inability to comment on more mundane issues without someone, somewhere, taking offence and again - attributing false meaning to what was said.

Someone might have, for example, an opinion on parenting issues, preferences for role models, problems with their neighbours, societal structures and politics. I think the point I was trying to make is that even if someone voices an opinion about something mundane someone, somewhere will criticise it and take personal offence. It seems to be too dangerous for people to comment on anything - small, colloquial matters are even held up for personal attack on internet forums like these.

Of course it's good to call out racism/sexism etc wherever it manifests. But again, that's missing the point - why can people not have an opinion or make a comment these days without it being misinterpreted (often purposefully so.) I think that was what concerned the signatories of the open letter on the News - it's impossible to create art, or write books, or teach insightful lessons or argue eloquently these days without being attacked by people who interpret it wrongly for their own reasons.

People who claim to want free speech and to be able to freely and openly say what they want are never coming at this from any good angle. They want to be offensive without consequences. That is the core of it - no matter how it's dressed up.

Only someone who is absolutely certain that they will never end up on the ‘wrong’ side of accepted discourse would possibly make this statement. Given how quickly and dramatically the political landscape of a country can change in a small amount of time, it is a pretty bold assertion to make.

So what is it people want to say that they can't already? Is it all the 'isms?'

Racism, sexism, ageism, disablism? What about fat shaming, or mocking mental health? Just a few that come to mind. So which one, or is it all? As there are a lot of around the houses words without actually pinpointing anything.

If it's personal comments you'd never say to a black persons' face, or a disabled or overweight or elderly or disabled or health compromised person's face - but you would say it behind their back or where no-one will know it's you, referring to them on a group basis - then it's absolutely right that sort of thing is monitored (even more so nowadays thankfully) as it will be highly offensive towards groups of people.

& It's naive to think more so mainstream forums will keep on entertaining it.

But since there are a plethora of places on the internet where one can be as nasty as they like, 'free speech' hasn't been removed. Offensiveness is just slowly shifting along to where it should be - amongst all the other nasties on relevant forums that decent-minded people wouldn't frequent, but those who like that sort of thing would feel fine.

@DeeCeeCherry Recent examples, including those referenced in the Harper’s letter, include a man being sacked for tweeting a study on how violent protest leads to an increase in Republican votes and women being abused, sacked and threatened for saying they need single-sex spaces. Silencing is happening now.

I agree with you and it worries me. I hate that I couldn’t make a statement on social media in my own name and share it publicly such as “a trans woman is biologically a man” without losing my job. And probably getting arrested for a hate crime.
All for stating a fact.