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?

Indeed. How far do we tolerate the intolerant? What if one oppressed minority member uses hate speech towards another? Is that wrong? But its their culture? Their religion, even? To what extent to we accept intolerance due to cultural sensitivities? Do we apply the same standards to certain communities as we would to a Caucasian male?

Is it hate speech to condemn homosexuality as a crime against god, punishable by eternal damnation acceptable at a university debate when said by an American Republican Christian, a privileged position, most would agree? What if it were an Imam or Islamic campaigner? Is it a crime or a hate incident depending on who says it? How much of a pass does the Imam get for being a member of another oppressed minority that has undoubtably suffered discrimination and abuse throughout his life? Do we tolerate intolerance due to religion? To what extent? How far can they go?

This argument appears to be stating that there is an elite who know best, and must forcefully impose their views on the majority who disagree with them.

And who decides what is racist or sexist? And how do we decide other than having free speech to discuss and debate this?

Well that's different. Compelled speech is awful. I say thank you to the person that served my coffee because it oils the cogs of social interaction, not because I must. If someone told me I must use the exact words "thank you" to my barista I'd be tempted to use cheers, ta etc. to rebel, That instinct is even greater when it is something you feel particularly passionate about.

If you, like many others don't feel able to call a trans woman she/her etc. then you could avoid gender all together and maybe ultimately accept that some people may see you as rude, but to you its a price worth paying to maintain your principles and beliefs.

@Whatsnewpussyhat ,

But it’s not compelled in my example. You are free to say it, but don’t expect to be loved for it.

No different from saying ‘the fat woman said it’. I am not compelled to call her thin, I am just sensitive to avoid causing unnecessary offence, despite the truth that the individual is ,factually, clinically obese.

There are many ways to avoid pronouns and not to gratuitously offend.

There are times when it’s vital to acknowledge a TW is a man. Such as in prisons, or in women’s survivors of male violence services.

Its much more then impolite to pretend otherwise, it’s actively dangerous to women.

I think the teenager in question was autistic and the way they can process information and communicate is very different which needs to be taken into consideration in that case.

There are many ways to avoid pronouns and not to gratuitously offend.

But it’s not about ‘offending’ is it. When speaking to a person you don’t actually acknowledge their chosen pronouns because it’s a first person conversation. What it is about is validating to others that you are buying into the untruth they are telling themselves and others about what they are. Pronouns are being weaponised as a form of compelled language and to say it’s not happening is ignorant at best.

Completely agree. 100%. In my opinion people born male have no place in women's spaces. This is for safety, dignity and in sport, competitive integrity. That said I have great deal of sympathy for individuals that feel they were born in the wrong body and would like to see their concerns and dignity be respected, so long as that is done in a manner sympathetic to women's rights.

That opinion would destroy a career in music, acting, literature and set off a twitter hate storm including death threats. But there you go. Which minority do you protect???

I have presented the case that there is no consensus in the scientific community, and understanding is evolving, as it always has.

I have offered no fixed position, in contrast to others on this thread.

If you, like many others don't feel able to call a trans woman she/her etc. then you could avoid gender all together and maybe ultimately accept that some people may see you as rude, but to you its a price worth paying to maintain your principles and beliefs

Not as simple as that though is it?
Avoiding using pronouns is the tip of the iceberg.
People who believe in god don't expect me to say there is one because it might upset them or be rude not to go along with it.

The issue is that the male genderists think that their self perception, personal presentation or 'gender identity' somehow overrides the reality of sex and sex based protections for females. That they are suddenly and without question exempt from any legal or social conventions that every other man has to comply with.

Our freedom of speech is being suppressed by accusing women of 'hate speech' for stating the bloody obvious.

"I am not eating faces" says the Leopard as its burps after a particularly cartilaginous nose.

Only in the same way there is no consensus in the scientific community about climate change. Except the difference there was that scientists did not risk losing their jobs for holding firm on the evidence of climate change.

There actually is consensus that human sex is binary. As we can see by the fact that no-one can tell us what the resulting humans look like from a coupling where one or both of the parties are not of the male or female sex, or what the evolutionary reproductive purpose or advantage is of these third or more sexes.

I find it horrifying that people are so willing to allow awful views to be silenced. If we don’t stand for everyone to speak, then free speech is meaningless.

it also drives those people to the shadows. It doesn’t stop them spreading their views, it just makes them harder to find and their arguments harder to counter.

that doesn’t mean if someone says something awful they should not have to deal with the consequences of their actions. There is a large difference between people recognizing that a person holds repugnant views and a person being prevented from speaking or even arrested for having those views.

Im not just speaking theoretically. I used to work at a place that was specifically targeted by a notorious hate group. We got vile faxes from them regularly. This was especially awful because our budget was small and fax paper was expensive. I still wouldn’t ask for that group to be shut down. I know for a fact they are still operating today and counter-protesters make sure to be at physical events to dilute their message of hate.

I’m sorry but I just don’t agree that we have the right to shut down opinions, including those of holocaust deniers. We should though, be able to freely and publicly criticise and debunk their opinions and ‘theories’ for the nonsense they are.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I’m not aware of any major group in society that is promoting holocaust denial - I could be wrong though, but I assumed deniers are pretty much fringe / extremists.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s twisted behaviour in the extreme.

I agree that it's not the same thing, but extremists of all sorts try and pretend it is.

The right to free speech does not include the right to whip up hatred against particular groups, and it never should. The right not to be abused or have hatred incited against you because of faith, race, sex or sexuality is every bit as important.

It's possibly even more important, because incitement can lead to all sorts of awful things, including murder and terrorism.

I’m confused though, because when you talk about biology and the “ever growing group of cancelled women” who disagree with trans ideology - what element of free speech do you think is being curtailed? These women are free to say their beliefs, as are the other side, and then everyone (including the general public, media outlets, family, their employers) are allowed to use their freedom of speech and thought to respond.

Someone at my company was fired for out of work behaviour that was considered misogynistic, and was brought to the attention of our SLT. He had freedom of speech to make the comments he did in a public forum. Nothing he did or said broke the law. But his freedom of speech had consequences, and those included losing his job (and by all accounts some friends). Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequence, as others have said and you seem to want.

Or maybe I’ve misunderstood you, in which case please explain.

Describing people being sacked is not an example of free speech. It’s an example of there being s lack of free speech.

Or do you think the following is a sensible argument. ‘ there is freedom to murder. My friend murdered someone and was sent to jail. So he was free to murder but not without consequence’

Punishing people for beliefs, or murder, is intended to send a clear signal to others not to do likewise. It is intended to curtail people’s choices ( and speech).

I am not commenting on the individual case and could not as you give no detail. But saying ‘ he had freedom of speech but he lost his job’. Is clearly nonsense. Freedom of speech does mean you don’t lose your job.

OP, this is what Karl Popper was referring to in his "paradox of tolerance" - in a nutshell, if society tolerates the intolerant (racism, sexism, etc), then the intolerant will eventually overpowerthe tolerant. So no, there should absolutely be limits on "free speech"

This makes no sense at all in the real world, though. Just because you tolerate that some people hold views that the vast majority find abhorrent, that's absolutely not the same as either condoning that view or suggesting that it should randomly overtake the majority view.

I believe that people should have free speech to express very controversial opinions, but then the vast majority who strongly disagree also have the free speech to protest at and demolish their argument.

In the absence of an ultimate authority on truth, how would you decide who gets to say what is acceptable to talk about and what must be forbidden? It could only be one person who decides, because two or more would doubtless disagree on one thing or another. King Charles?

We just come full circle back to the childishly arrogant "you're a bigot, because you disagree with me - and I am right and you are wrong".

There are many ways to avoid pronouns and not to gratuitously offend.

Whoever actually decided that pronouns - a simple grammatical rule - could actually be offensive anyway? The words 'he' and 'she' are ordinary, mundane words - not offensive at all.

It would be like me taking gross offence at somebody thinking that I was French, rather than just saying "Actually, I'm British" in response - as though being French is somehow a vile, offensive thing to be or to be accused of. Madness.

@Letmeoutnow Unless there’s a government mandate that saying something causes dismissal, I don’t think losing your job is restricting free speech. My company is a private company and the decision was made freely. That’s not the same as someone breaking a law and facing a mandated legal consequence. Or am I missing something?

Whats the line for you on a consequence of freedom of speech? If my husband started saying he was a holocaust denier, I would leave him. Would that be restricting his freedom of speech? Or is that just a consequence? Why is losing your private sector job any different? Genuinely curious on your opinion 😊

@FatherJackHackettsUnderpantsHamper you’ve obviously never called an Irish person British before - taking “gross offence” would be an understatement then! 😂

This. They are almost always the nastiest bigots imaginable.

You are right, plenty of bigots demand "freedom of speech" but who gets to decide what a bigot looks like? A trans activist may say that anyone who believes genetics is relevant to your gender/sex is a bigot. What about someone who is concerned about the changing nature of their community? Or welcomes refugees but worries about small boats and people trafficking? Brexiteers? You might not agree with these people, but I wouldn't deem them bigots, many would and therefore they'd be silenced?

That's what frightens me more than some crazed bigot (what i deem one to be, anyway), mouthing off with little respect from anyone with their arguments easily picked apart and their ignorance exposed.

The problem IMO is deciding what even constitutes sexism etc. There are plenty on here that start claiming misogyny if somebody argues the privilege of white feminists or states that lots of women are actually privileged to leave full time work at 30yo whilst their husband works another 35 years.