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?

We don’t get “free actions” ie you can’t go around physically hurting people without there being consequences

and so I believe the same applies to “free speech” there needs to be parameters

*there needs to be parameters

Who sets those?

The law

just as the law restricts free action

The implication is that the parameters are set by people who think like them. If people are so sure of their convictions, they should be confident that offensive and downright wrong opinions will be outdebated, ridiculed and completely discredited. If not, to me you're almost conceding that the point of view has at least some merit and requires further interrogation to arrive at the truth. To silence debate is to try to win the debate via the backdoor like some tin pot dictator.

I’m confident that the law is correct in how the decision makers have constructed the law to restrict free action

and I feel the same way about the law and how free speech is restricted

The law

The law sets out a definition of hate speech and what that entails. What more are you thinking of?

If people are so sure of their convictions, they should be confident that offensive and downright wrong opinions will be outdebated, ridiculed and completely discredited

and what about those on the receiving end - who don’t have the ability to out debate or ridicule.

And my point is I agree with jt

Rather than my quote of the PP who is an absolutist

To support the value of free speech, I'd be interested in boosting education significantly.

We need much more emphasis on things like critical thinking, logic, the principles of debate, the scientific method. All of these seem to have been hugely eroded over the last decade or so.

They can’t have been all that firmly entrenched in the first place, given how easily they’ve been diluted by social media in a matter of a handful of years

Stifling whatever anyone wants to say is horrendous. Of course people should be allowed to say whatever they want- but must understand there could be consequences.

I think you are right. By people closing down any comment they don’t agree with, they encourage the people whose views they reject outright to bond with others who share their views. This happened a lot with Brexit and idiots like James OBrien labelling every pro Brexit speaker red gammon of something equally stupid. Using brexit as an example, i voted remain and hope we can develop much closer ties now we are out but everyone who supported Brexit, and I was surprised at how many friends and family did, I would talk to them rather than call them stupid or racist. Extreme speech stirring up hate to damage others, especially on a large platform, should be forbidden.

Please don’t ridicule the opinions of others you disagree with. Rational debate won’t alienate and the alienated are the people more likely to band together.

Tolerance of intolerance doesn't lead to a more tolerant society.

They can’t have been all that firmly entrenched in the first place, given how easily they’ve been diluted by social media in a matter of a handful of years

The scope of those contributing to public debate has widened considerably and that's something to consider.

I expect these principles were once reasonably well established amongst the most educated, with ups and downs of course, because it's not a perfect process. However, in an age of social media, we need to be instilling these skills in the whole population, starting young.

the alienated are the people more likely to band together

This is a critical point

That’s a totally irrelevant comparison. If I punch anyone it will cause physical damage. This will be true regardless of any philosophy or morals. It is objective.

if I say something, this might totally reflect how I see the world - I would view this as correct. The person hearing it might have a different world view and view it as incorrect. This is fine. People can view subjective phenomena in different ways. Their views will be shaped by the interaction of lots of different things. This is how human thought (and this communication works).

So who is to decide which view is correct? Which view should be censored?

Exactly, the answer to people lacking the skills and ability to effectively debate matters is not shutting down debate but to educate people how to do this.

The thing is, people who push their view on groups of people by limiting freedom of speech don’t want educated debaters, they want foot soldiers.

You regard physical damage as more of an issue than emotional damage

I do not

The government is doing things to immigrants that Nick Grifffin could only fantasise about.

You do realise that, if it comes to deciding what can be said and what is forbidden, it won't be you or I who get to make that decision? Of course, it will be the government.

So, on that basis, your criticising of this government (which I personally agree with) would be right in the firing line of what is clamped down on.

You regard physical damage as more of an issue than emotional damage

Regardless of whether you do or not, there's an issue with objectivity. Physical damage is material and demonstrable. Emotional damage is much harder to quantify and very subjective. How would the law determine what is emotional damage and what isn't?

Rubbish. You have all the speech freedom of the ECHR. It's just that no one has to listen to, or respect an opinion.

Well, I’m not sure you understood what I said given your response. It’s not a matter of severity it’s a matter of subjectivity.

if you’re making a law then it needs to apply to all. It’s possible to make a law applying to physical violence that will be (v v almost) without moral implication.

If you limit free speech regarding say trans ideology, what are you going to limit, what are your rules? Who decides these rules, what checks and balances are you going to put in? What consequences for those affected? Can you make a law around that with No Subjectivity?

The law does that all the time. In victim compensation

oh i haven’t been clear

my point is that I respect and agree with the restrictions around free speech currently in place.

I sure as heck don’t agree with any extension