Do we care about free speech anymore?

[Calmthedrama]

Not exactly an AIBU, but traffic and opinion here is high, so it seems a suitable place to ask big questions.

Personally, I believe people should be able to freely share and voice unpopular and unusual opinions in the public realm (both online, in the media and at public / state institutions like universities etc). This would include allowing so called ‘hate speech’ proponents onto various platforms in society to share their views, even if the many consider these views to be something-ist or something-phobic.

I believe that by shining a light on all views and opinions, we are able to learn from each other and (hopefully) better understand the motivations behind such thinking. This naturally leads to wider debate and promotes deeper thinking as well as a general respect for healthy debate.

It also forces all opinion / activist proponents to make better and more informed arguments and obviously publicly showcases any charlatans / psychopaths for what they are. E.g. if someone can’t provide evidence / make sense when making a case for some extreme opinion, then everyone learns.

I believe that the society wide increase in de-platforming and public ‘cancelling’ of individuals feels a bit like a race to the bottom intelligence wise. It leads us back on a well trodden path to fascism and a place where the ‘thought police’ become a reality.

Do people really understand what free speech means and why it’s so important anymore? Or do we just want to silence people we don’t like / understand / fear etc?

You are seriously saying that it has been ok/is currently OK for holocaust deniers to express their views openly and it be considered free speech, even though we all know it absolutely did happen, that there are/were many survivors who tell/told their stories, as well as family members still suffering the trauma of knowing what happened to their loved ones?

I think a lot of people conflate respecting someone’s right to an opinion, and respecting the opinion itself. As if free speech doesn’t also cover telling someone that their opinion is gross and that they’re a twat. Similarly, I’ve also encountered the notion that the right to free speech means the right to go unchallenged.

The right to free speech provides protection from government persecution. It doesn’t mean that private suppliers of a platform have to provide said platform to everyone, or that individuals can’t choose to dislike someone for their opinion.

Good question.

I’ve been subjected to a lot of misogyny and sexual harassment both in my personal and professional life. I believe that institutions shouldn’t discriminate (and can’t legally at least).

However, the more light we can shine on misogyny and its proponents in society, the more these people make themselves known. The sooner we can debate this stuff and change laws the better. Look at the family courts for an example of this.
Thousands of women have been too scared to speak out freely for fear of losing their children.

Where do you draw the line between ‘hate speech’ (which you say you think you should be allowed) and incitement? What’s the difference between:

“Hitler was right to exterminate the Jews”
and
”We should exterminate the Jews”

Semantically the two sentences are different of course, but is there a difference in the effect they might have when uttered by a charismatic leader to his followers?

Freedom of speech doesn’t give freedom to hate or spread misinformation.

However it’s not hateful to simply hurt feelings by your opinion and it’s not misinformation to state facts that do hurt feelings or cause anger.

Unfortunately people do not seem to get either side of this.

There are ways to tackle misogyny which don't encourage more of it though.

You may well be correct - perhaps freedom of expression is more suitable in this case.

Happy to be ironic, although I’m not sure you’re using ‘oh the irony’ correctly here😜

Thanks, I think you’ve articulated precisely what I think with your 3rd paragraph:

However, freedom of speech can be curtailed if it infringes on the rights of others, such as hate speech.

I am 100% in favour of constructive and respectful debate of this.

The 24hr news media whips everyone up continually with emotive click bait commentary and I think it makes it very tricky to have these sorts of conversations anymore.

Your middle sentence there is slightly concerning.
'Slightly hurt feelings' and 'state facts' are both open to wide interpretation and therefore not that meaningful.
How are we do address how 'slightly' someone's 'feelings' have been hurt by our potentially thoughtless words - of course some people can take offence to every little thing, but the equally others will have had life experiences which mean they are very hurt by things we think are just throwaway/light-hearted comments?
How are we to determine what is seen as 'state facts' - for example many people of faith will say things like 'God created us, fact' (when that definitely isn't a fact), or 'Biology, fact' (which in itself is meaningless, because it isn't specific enough to make sense)?

Along the lines of calling / shaming everyone who didn’t want a covid vaccine an ‘anti-vaxxer’ before understanding why. Or calling everyone who voted for Brexit a racist

But calling people anti-vaxxers or racists is also freedom of speech?

Stating facts is simply that, whether of faith or of biological ones (though this is treading in becoming ‘that’ issue and this thread is obviously a broader one). It is strange that you think one person’s belief in faith is ‘definitely not fact’ (I do agree personally as it takes human observation for it to exist) when biology (something that would exist whether humans were here to observe it or not) is open to interpretation. Putting that aside, if one believes it’s open to interpretation then discussion and opinions should be open without one side being considered ‘hate speech’ as opposed to ‘freedom of speech’. The latter could well cause hurt feelings, the former is a direct attack with no value of progression or nuance.

I am actually not sure how to respond to what you have just written, other than it backs up my need to address your first statement. Let's just leave our interaction there, and wish each other well.

Depressing but predictable responses here.

You are right OP. Free speech or freedom of expression or whatever you call it is absolutely fundamental to a democratic society. We need to be able to discuss and debate ideas to be able to distinguish good ideas from bad ideas and to be able to make decisions as a society.

We have laws against incitement to violence and rightly so. But it is clear that much wider views are being cancelled and censored which go way beyond the law. And much as posters here may fondly believe this is ok as it is only bad people with bad ideas who are subject to this, this isn’t true. Ordinary people holding ordinary views are also subject to this. There are deliberate attempts to destroy, both in terms of destroying livelihoods and social ostracism, people who have ideas others disagree with. This is wholly unacceptable in a democratic society.

The most obvious example of this are ( predominantly) women wanting to discuss the impact of gender ideology on women/ girls/ same sex attracted people and other groups. This is exactly the sort of thing that a democratic society should discuss. A significant social change should be discussed. Yet women have been harassed and abused by those exposing the line of ‘ no free speech without consequences’ , which is an arrogant threat if ever there were one. People should be able to discuss ideas and suggested social policy and legal changes without consequences. That is exactly how democracy works.

@Calmthedrama what exactly do you feel you can’t say?

is it that you think you should be liked whatever you say?
as far as I’m aware you can’t force your audience’s behaviour or attitudes but you can say whatever you like.

Very simplistically:

Freedom of speech should not be stifled because it may cause hurt feelings or anger.

Freedom of speech should not be conflicted with hate speech which comes from a place of prejudice and seeing others as ‘lesser’.

But you don’t need to address my first post or subsequent ones, have a good day 🙂

I get you, OP.

Whilst there are opinions and views that 99.9% of people would agree are completely disgusting and without any merit whatsoever, there are also a number of issues and beliefs that are held by many people - widespread beliefs that nobody would even have questioned at all two or three decades ago - which have now been added to the canon of 'disgusting, hateful opinions that nobody is allowed to hold or ever express', owing to the determination by some holding the contrary beliefs to emotively (often using DARVO) no-platform, shut down, shout down and cancel anybody who disagrees with them.

And some of these people have/will quite cheerfully cling on to the coat-tails of accepted 'hate speech' in order to 'justify' adding any opposition to their own beliefs as bearing the same severity. They will ascribe the meaningless word 'bigotry' to it, as if that proves and settles it once and for all. If it were possible to logically debate their view, they would do so; but they know that it defies all common-sense, so tantrumming and screaming "Hate speech!" is all they have.

I don't think there is a perfect answer, really; but I think we're on very dangerous, even totalitarian ground when we start to police people's beliefs (actions are different), just because somebody else finds it offensive.

I would also tend towards debate and exposing people who express nasty, ridiculous, ill thought-out beliefs to intelligent gainsaying and sunlight. MN has always been good for this: yes, some threads are deleted; but with others, a pathetic OP will be shown to be beyond stupid and well and truly have their arse handed to them by wise MNers.

In the family courts, the lack of free debate of any kind has very much encouraged 'more of it' and until very recently has gone on very much behind closed doors.

If these cases, judges et al were open to public scrutiny, then we wouldn't be in such a horrifying mess.

free speech is essential in a democracy. Otherwise how can it function if one or more opinions can’t be heard. Even stupid opinions should be allowed and other people can then counter them.
I think people should always defend it for everyone ( provided it is legal and not inciting violence)
imagine living in an authoritarian society where free speech is not allowed and you are literally not allowed to disagree with your leaders or politicians. That is what you give away when you do not value free speech.
some people might hear things they don’t like or hurt their feelings and that might include me too but that is the better than the opposite society where no one can have hurt feelings and saying anything that might offend someone is banned.
we used to be told as kids that sticks and stones may break our bones but words will never hurt us and I think we need to get back to that a bit.

There has never been free speech. You can't go around being hurtful to people "because you have the right" Well no you don't have the right and I can tell you've never been on the receiving end of hate speech

Freedom of speech means the freedom to call a Brexit voter racist, or a COVID vaccine refuser an anti-vaxxer.

So why are you complaining about that?

Or do you only want people to be able to say the things you agree with them saying?

It feels a bit like you're trying to conflate me with holocaust deniers here, which I have already explained I am emphatically not.

So, yes, I believe the deniers should be free to deny - that doesn't mean we have to silently agree and also means we can criticise them as openly and loudly as we choose (as almost everyone does / would). I would however like to better understand both what these deniers believe and potentially why they believe it - are they misguided, radicalised, uneducated - can their minds be changed?

Holocaust denial a highly emotive topic for obvious reasons.

I think there’s some merit in what OP is saying.
There were calls for Nick Griffin to be withdrawn from Question Time in 2009. It went ahead with him, he spouted his rubbish and was torn to shreds by the panel and audience alike. It highlighted just what an extremist he was and how outlandish and unreasonable his views and I think that was pretty much the end of him.

Ironic choice of username OP.

You are confusing freedom of speech with abuse of privacy protection rules.

The scandal of some family court cases is not a freedom of speech issue - its been talked about endlessly. Its a misuse and abuse of privacy rules which is very, very different. Unless you are proposing that freedom of speech should include naming and describing intimate details of minors and victims of abuse.

When you look at where we've come from and where we're headed, I could well see that so-called 'MAPs' will be seeking to include their opinions and desires in the 'protected belief' category.

Give it time, then before too long, anybody even expressing disagreement with them - much less calling out those beliefs as disgusting - will be officially considered in the same category as many of those with incendiary views are now. Even if, to begin with, those who are fervently against these beliefs represent 99.9% of the population.

I think there is a difference between hate speech and viewpoints people don't like.

You even see it on here - people try to get threads closed down because they don't agree people should be discussing things (see Lucy Letby) or say "read the room" when people aren't agreeing with the prevailing viewpoint. Or the thread where a barman told people to leave because they were having a discussion about racism even though they were having a discussion not just spouting racist nonsense.

Saying "punch a TERF" is very different to saying "I think a woman's place is looking after her kids" even if you don't agree with the latter (for the avoidance of doubt, I don't!)