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?

Regarding the Robert Winston situation, I am not expressing a view on that either way, however we have to accept that biology (like all other sciences) evolves as we increase our understanding (through new discoveries and developments)

So you think humans can change sex then and a world renowned expert on human biology and reproduction is wrong? Human biology hasn't 'evolved' so that people can change sex.
That's faith not fact.
The fools that booed him should be ashamed. Imagine thinking his view was in any way 'controversial'.
However, freedom of speech can be curtailed if it infringes on the rights of others, such as hate speechThe issue to me is when 'hate speech' is used to silence and abuse women who refuse to go along with the religion of gender ideology.Being punished, arrested, sacked for not going along with the absurdity that a man is a woman if he says so. Knowing that men are not any type of woman is the view shared by all but a tiny % of people on the planet. It isn't wrong or bigoted to say so or want female rights and protections upheld. This is nothing like stopping racism or homophobia. It's the equivalent of being forced to believe in god, pray publicly and offer yourself in sacrifice to keep a few men happy. The same men are apparently free to threaten to punch, rape and murder women who say no to them though. They are free to call themselves whatever they like, they should not, however, be able to force anyone else to go along with their self perception.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' categoryIn America or Canada they are those attempting to get it protected under the guise of it being a 'sexual orientation'

Exactly.

The alternative is only giving platforms to some people because they are popular / pre-approved / don't cause any ripples.

That's hardly a robust society (see China).

Sorry, my paragraphs appear to have been stolen by mumsnet.

Some of us do OP but very sadly there are an awful lot of people who are quite convinced that there is a ‘right’ way to think. 😔

Are you in the UK? If so, you never were. Freedom of expression in the UK is a negative right, legally-speaking, so there have always been restrictions on it (at least, in the modern era). Thought crime is also a component of that, and has been for well over a century (re: planning the death of a monarch, even in your head).

I have already stated that I am not expressing a view on what RW said, simply point out that all science, including biology, can evolve as we increase our understanding, through new discoveries and developments. Many theories which were once widely accepted in the scientific community go on to be adapted or even rejected.

No further action was taken against that child, and the mother is taking legal action against the police (ie the police admitted they over-reacted and no crime had actually been committed). So I’m not really sure what your point it? No, what she said clearly didn’t meet the threshold for hate speech, or they’d have charged her.

I’m not here to defend over-aggressive policing. The police themselves are a racist, homophobic and misogynist organisation.

Yes, there is. As long as you are free to demonstrate that their view is incorrect ( which wasn’t very difficult). I would argue that it is the Holocaust deniers, to continue to use your example , who came off badly, as allowing them to express their misguided belief showed up their lack of intellect, inability to examine evidence or argue coherently. Not a good stance for recruiting others to their ‘opinion’.

To take it further, anyone saying the Holocaust was a ‘good thing’ would be best treated by ostracism. Saying that there should be another Holocaust is an incitement to violence and punishable in the Courts.

So are you saying that if opinions lead to a lot of hurt feelings, we should shut-down de-platform people from sharing said opinions? How do you suggest we grade the level of hurt feelings?

I think that holocaust denial is absolutely idiotic and I acknowledge that there will be people offended by hearing that. But they are free to criticise it, ignore it, laugh at it frankly, as it's an utterly ridiculous opinion.

I tend to agree, but I think it slices both ways really.

I implore you again to consider how you would feel about holocaust denial if you, or anyone close to you had even been remotely involved with the holocaust. It is not OK to deny something we know factually happened, through anecdotal and factual evidence, and in which millions of people suffered and died. The level of 'hurt' caused by this is so extreme that it cannot even be measured. Please, please consider how continuing on this idea of allowing holocaust denial is not furthering the cause for your actual argument, which may have some limited merit.

Free speech works both ways. If you have a desperate need to express racist, or misogynistic views, go ahead. But be prepared to have those views challenged.

Obviously there is issue in policing but there are other examples of critical thinking being investigated as hate speech. It’s not even being charged in the end, it’s the huge stress of simply accused of being ‘hateful’ when holding opposing views, the damage it can cause personally and professionally. Look how many families were torn apart by Brexit as an example - I was against it but so many people cut ties or vilified friends and family for being pro Brexit because apparently they didn’t see them as anything but racist beyond that point.

We do live in a culture of ‘you’re either with us or against us’ - everyone wants to be listen to and have to opportunity to talk but have little patience to listen to others even if what they say completely goes against their personal beliefs and values. There is no conversation, people shout their slogans and cultish lines at you and you fall behind the line that closest align with your beliefs (Trump really caught on to that one).

I have already stated that I am not expressing a view on what RW said, simply point out that all science, including biology, can evolve as we increase our understanding, through new discoveries and developments. Many theories which were once widely accepted in the scientific community go on to be adapted or even rejected

Yes, but there's a massive difference in thinking the earth is flat and thinking a man can somehow be a woman if he takes drugs or has surgery or has some imaginary woman soul like essence.
You can mess about with bodies. There are no discoveries or developments that can change a person's sex.

Women need legal protections based on our sex.

Denying the reality of the sexes to prop up the fantasy of a tiny number of people is absurd. The fact that so many people are going along with it it even more absurd.
Transexual people knew damn well they weren't the opposite sex. Transgenderism and queer theory now demand we pretend they are.

For the third time, I am not here to discuss the 'gender' debate, or whatever you want to call it, simply to point out that in any argument which cites 'biology' it has to be relevant and up to date biology.

But your point about biology can only be about gender politics. Biology isn’t being rediscovered in any other mammals, only (supposedly) humans. That that supposed ‘changed’ in biological progression (of which absolutely nothing has yet to be proven beyond doubt) is based on human sociological factors and personal beliefs. Unless your posts mentioning biology and what we had known is wrong is about some other scientific factor in which case I apologise in advance.

Actually I think MN is a pretty good example of where allowing things to stand and be challenged just doesn’t work. I suspect how you feel about it depends on which side of the discriminatory speech you stand on.

Are you just focusing solely on the trans issue? I mean there are plenty of scenarios where people with outrageous opinions come on MN and express them, only to be rightly slapped down again with wit and the condescension that they fully deserve.

Just for one example, look at the current thread about the man who apparently was insistent that he won't ever have sex, but strangely was 'tricked' by his partner into getting her pregnant on one of the occasions when they did have sex and used the withdrawal 'method'. Who are the ones using 'discriminatory speech' - everybody calling out his behaviour and beliefs or the OP who is defending him to the hilt?

I don’t recognize what you say about there being trend for people to say abhorrent things. I do see a trend where people are subject to appalling repercussions for saying quite reasonable or normal things, or who are raising issues a democratic society should discuss.

I also think it is preferable to live in a culture where there is a firm belief that is it right and good that different views should be debated, so that venues hold firm to this rather than capitulate to a bullying ( because that’s what it is) minority who think they have a right to dictate what ideas other people are exposed to.

It’s now really difficult to get speakers with differing views to share a platform to discuss their views. And that’s a very worrying trend. People should not be afraid to hear views they disagree with, or afraid to defend and debate their ideas. Nor should they be afraid to modify or change their ideas as a result of speaking with someone they disagree with. The fact that this is becoming normal, even amongst certain academic disciplines, but also in wider society, is deeply troubling.

For the third time, I am not here to discuss the 'gender' debate, or whatever you want to call it, simply to point out that in any argument which cites 'biology' it has to be relevant and up to date biology.

But, even supposing something did happen in the future that disproved the known facts that RW is saying now, he is indeed speaking about 'relevant and up to date' biology.

For all any of us know, in the future, everybody's human blood platelets could spontaneously mutate into coco pops in adolescence; but with the complete current absence of anything to suggest that that could or will ever happen, we go by the proven knowledge that we have now, investigate the developments that we can see maybe happening - and we leave whatever random amazing scientific developments that may emerge in the very far future in the hands of the scientists who will be alive then.

I am not even speaking about 'gender politics' and have no plans to do so on this thread, as already stated. My point is simply that we must accept that one of the purposes of science is to further our understanding of a whole host of processes and events in the world around us, and so something being scientific fact at one point does not mean we should be confident that it always will be the case - theories are adapted and even abandoned.
(As an aside, if you are interested in the whole debate around how many sexes there are, then take a look at this paper - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ I am not trying to convince anyone of anything in this, just really to highlight how there is ongoing research in this area. If you are not interested please just ignore).

I'd prefer not to be hijack OP's thread into a gender debate one, if you want to start a thread on that please do (because there is some opinion which suggests he is choosing to ignore developments in that area).

Freedom of speech is a very polarising issue, especially generationally.

I think that any opinion should be expressable, regardless of its offensiveness or stupidity, I am thus, as a Jew, against any law preventing holocaust denial. I feel that is far better dealt with by proving its stupidity in public discourse.

However, freedom of speech is freedom from prosecution, not condemnation. If you were to go to a Shabbat dinner and loudly espouse your holocaust denial views, you should expect to be thrown out and not invited back.

In the more vexed area of the trans right debate, again scientists should teach the objective truth as currently understood. On the other hand, loudly telling a trans woman that she is a man, or insisting on calling the person ‘he’ is unnecessarily offensive and should expect a robust response.

Also, academic institutions should have no right to circumscribe speech, however ‘hateful’, as long as it is just the giving of an opinion (and not libel, incitement to violence etc). It should be remembered that yesterday’s accepted reality often becomes ‘hate speech’ and maybe today’s hate speech will become tomorrow’s accepted truth. If today’s accepted ethics cannot be challenged, we can never progress.

But of course there is 'no objective truth' that can be identified on the trans matter; within the scientific community and within respected bodies there are diverging views and new understandings that are developing all the time.

I haven't seen any respected mainstream biologist diverge from chromosomes denoting biological sex. There maybe evolving phycological, sociological opinion, but other than very rare defects your sex is binary, and no hormone treatments or surgeries change you cellular make up. That is not to say we shouldn't be respectful to trans people and respect how they wish to be addressed, and maybe not bring up biological realities at every opportunity etc etc.

@suggestionsplease1 ,

Not really. The vast majority of the time the Y chromosome will cause the body to develop male genitalia, produce spermatozoa and have high testosterone after puberty.

There may be very rare exceptions to the above, but we teach and learn rules ahead of rare exceptions.

Would you turn the current school Physics curriculum into a debate because it is possible that some high energy muons may violate standard theory?