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?

I actually agree. People don’t seem to be able to cope anymore with different perspectives. There’s no debate, no attempt to understand you’re just shut down.

I think there would actually be much less hate speech if people were challenged more to explain themselves.

I think the removal of free speech has actually led to more extreme speech and views.

I've defo seen some questionable opinions being defended with 'free speech' arguments, but tbh I've seen far far more left wing lunacy. All the 'no debate' trans stuff and how you're a bigot if you don't agree women can have dicks/men can give birth etc.

@vibecheck

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

OK, maybe not the best example! But surely the offence there would be in somebody mistakenly believing you to be British; not in the fact that there are British people?!

Everanewbie

Perfectly put.

Well I suppose the first thing to do is to understand the difference between a personal relationship and paid employment. Anyone can leave any relationship at any time and you don’t even need a reason to do so. They are entered into freely and left at will. That is very different from a job. You are expected to be able to fulfill your job to maintain your job. And for the employer to need your role and be able to pay you. That is why employers are not allowed to discriminate. Unlike dating which is inherently discriminatory. You can reject anyone for any reason, unlike employers.

People also rely on their job to support themselves and their families. Being dismissed makes it very hard to get another job. People can be ruined. That is why the bullies go so hard to destroy people by getting them sacked. It’s to punish them and silence anyone else who disagrees with them by destroying them financially. If your partner dumps you they do not expect this to affect your desirability to anyone else.

It is massive over reach for employers to sack people for personal beliefs. The Maya Forstater case showed it was illegal to do so in relation to GC beliefs. There are upcoming court cases seeking to establish employers should not be able to sack anyone for legal beliefs expressed outside of work. I hope those cases succeed.

I find your argument that free speech should have consequences absurd. The whole point of free speech is that you aren’t punished. That’s essential for democracy and for a decent society. Employers absolutely should not be controlling their employees personal views and I don’t see how you can claim sacking people for views is compatible with a free speech stance. IThats a nonsensical position

People seemed quite able to understand this in relation to the Gary linear case. I doubt any of the ‘free speech has consequences’ people supported the bbc there. Basically the ‘free speech has consequences’ people actually just think, ‘I don’t like your views and I’m a vengeful intolerant person who is glad you are being destroyed’. They just don’t have the courage to admit to themselves that that is who they are.

The pp uses the expression “tend to”

which suggests she doesn’t think ask and that it’s a black and white issue

What do “we know now” that would mean you wouldn’t get it if you could rewind time?

Absolutely agree with you op. Censoring only works if you're in agreement with the censors which at another point in time you may not be. And your examples are 'give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves' so, to the posters saying do we give holocaust deniers a platform, of course because it shines a light on how silly their arguments are.
Sunlight on everything. Things that are sensible and reasonable stand up to the test.

And as a thought experiment, I take it that at the time of the civil rights fight in America, you would have defended any companies who sacked people, white or black, for supporting civil rights? As private companies can freely make such choices? You would be happy for your company to sack you for believing the views you espouse here? You would be happy for companies to sack man and women for believing in votes for women, when that fight was on? You think that is legitimate?

Also rather amazed and disappointed by the number of posters saying 'but you cant be allowed to say mean things!' Well, yes, of course you can! The recipient has the right to counter or ignore or complain.
Inciting or threatening violence is, of course, different because (potential) actions are different to words.

@Carouselfish Also rather amazed and disappointed by the number of posters saying 'but you cant be allowed to say mean things!*

you have out that in quotation marks. But did anyone actually say that on this thread?

People tend to always exaggerate and focus on things like incitement to violence which is much rarer IME and (contrary to the narrative) tends not to actually be right wing fascists inciting racial violence so much as left wing 'anti fascist' mobs rioting over things.

What is far more common is group think and people trying to get individuals fired for saying things they don't like such as feminism is toxic nowadays etc.

Not sure anyone here has said free speech = no repercussions.

However, the repercussions of not having freedom of speech/expression leads to totalitarian and undemocratic societies. Which would likely have much worse outcomes for minority groups.

Also, you seem to be conflating freedom of speech with hate speech against specific groups - which is quite tedious of you.

Are you against learning then?

For reference, IQ tests tend to be inherently biased towards certain groups in society.

So to extrapolate - you're saying no to free speech in case 'bad' opinions are then believed by some people?

I couldn't agree more.

Begsthequestion

It was not the end of his ideas though, was it? The government is doing things to immigrants that Nick Grifffin could only fantasise about. And we have two "news" channels dedicated to his way of thinking”

No, but any right thinking person could make up their own mind after watching his excruciatingly embarrassing performance on live tv.

The trouble with limiting free speech is who decides what limits are placed on it? As soon as limits are put on it you are enforcing one set of ideologies on everyone.

take paedophiles for example. Do we say it’s ok that these people make you sick, that they’re the lowest of the low, that we should castrate them all? Or should we classify that as hate speech against a minority group of minor attracted persons and censor that speech so that anyone who says those things are banned off social media and lose jobs?

Limiting freedom of speech is social engineering it is limiting freedom, it is limiting development.

ironically the greatest proponents of this method of social engineering in the UK are the self proclaimed liberals and universities who should be excoriating exploration at the limits rather than a self confirming narrow path of “right” speech.

It’s totally bogus to compare the ideas of the BNP to those of the current government. The BNP is a white supremacist movement that believed people of different races should live apart from each other. Whatever you think of Richi Sunak and Suella Braverman, or the voters who voted them in as MPs and Richi for PM, they clearly aren’t, given their own ethnicity or the ethnicity of the people they voted for, white supremacists who believe in racial segregation.

The people who spout ‘freedom of speech has consequences’ are basically arrogant hypocrites who think other people should face consequences but not them. Their free speech is not limited. Just other people’s. Their side throws about all manner of dehumanizing attacks and hyperbole and outright lies. Apparently that’s ok. It’s just those they have ‘othered’ who deserve to be curtailed.

This is exactly the problem. The very people who try and limit free speech the most are actually the people who would benefit from it the most.

I do wonder why these people think that no one will ever come after them and their views. There’s just overwhelming arrogance in some quarters that their views are the universally right ones. Shutting down freedom of speech is shutting down debate, without debate we live in perpetual inertia in which ultimately humanity will die.

Inciting violence is inexcusable unless you are a King and have a great scriptwriter.

King Henry V: What’s he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
.........
O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian:’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.’
...........
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day"

From Henry V, Act IV, Scene III

Men and their hobbies. If they're not off cycling, they're off fighting in France and then spending the rest of their lives getting drunk and boasting about it. God, I'm glad I'm allowed to get that off my chest. A mite sexist, but oh, how true.

You (well I do) have to love the 'be he ne'er so vile' - if that isn't hate speech, I don't know what is.
And as for the good man not teaching his daughter - sexist sod. What was this, the 15th century?
Hate speech. You've got to ban it.

Exactly. It is extraordinary arrogance to think the mob will never come for them. Women never thought the mob would come for them for saying men should not be in women’s prisons or survivor services or sports, but here we are. Given the craziness of that, absolutely no-one should ever feel sure the mob won’t come for them. The only way to keep the mob at bay is to have a truly pluralistic and tolerant liberal society that prizes free speech, debate and genuine plurality of views.

Basically we need a society based on respect for each other and you need to value free speech to have that. The concept underpinning free speech is respect for difference.

I'm almost a free speech absolutist, even for the most offensive opinions.

I disagree. Because often the “most offensive opinions” are directed towards those that are least able to articulately respond

The trouble with limiting free speech is who decides what limits are placed on it? As soon as limits are put on it you are enforcing one set of ideologies on everyone.

Exactly. The people who advocate this seem to believe that they'll never end up on the opposite side of the 'approvers', but that's a very dangerous assumption to make.