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?

All my posts have been in response to the poster saying she had an absolutist position and all and any restrictions should be lifted

Offensive opinions are not always outdebated, ridiculed and completely discredited though are they?

When Hiltler spoke powerfully on 'The Jewish Question ' and his freedom of speech on this was uncurtailed, this occurred at a time when society had an appetite for his horrific views and these gained traction.

Look where that ended up.

But the police are recording non-crime ‘hate’ incidents. A woman was recently reported to police for taking a photograph of a poster. The police actually came to speak to her about this. Taking a photo of a publicly displayed poster is not a crime and not a hate incident. The police are being used as a private bovver boy army by activists to harass people whose legal views they dislike. So no, I have no faith in the police in any of this.

And as well as intimidation by the police, designed to silence people, there are the sackings of people from jobs, cancellation of people from trade fayre and contracts and opportunities to sell their products, and so on. All designed to punish people and scare others into silence.

It’s a deeply disturbing culture of intimidation and harassment to silence people whose views some people disagree with. How anyone can support democracy and think behaviour like this is compatible with a decent and demographic society is beyond me. It’s intolerant and anti-democratic.

Indeed, respect goes hand in hand really. Although obviously someone will be along to point out that not everyone agrees with what respect means etc..

The point is though, most people know what it means and that’s enough really.

You have an interesting point / slant here. In as much as the gender debate that many have raised in this thread does appear to have parallels in terms of there being a societal appetite to put (biological) women ‘in their place’.

No approach is foolproof though and I still believe shutting down free speech (or having it restricted, by certain groups) isn’t the answer.

This is such a messed up argument. So you are arguing against free speech because in societies without free speech violent anti-semitism will never take hold, even though the person who had the political power to control free speech was a violent anti-Semite?

You could not have more clearly illustrated the naivety of those anti-free speechers who seem to think there is some natural law in the universe which means only bad views will be stopped by restricting free speech, but never good ideas ( and of course good ideas are defined as their own views and bad ideas are ones they don’t agree with).

BTW German society was extremely violent at the time the third reach was coming to power with street battles between different political opponents and massive voter intimidation. The leader of the outgoing party gave his last speech in parliament with a cyanide capsule in his mouth as Nazis stormtroopers crowded around him. It was not a case of a free democratic process that led to Hitler coming to power, such as we are used to. Maybe more akin to Robert mugabe being ‘democratically’ elected. Read Richard E Evans’ book the Rise of the Third Reich.

Thanks for the book recommendation - I feel woefully uneducated when it comes to WW2 et al. I do seem to remember the rise came after the Wall St crash too - why my brain remembers that though I don’t know!

Punishing people with euphemistically named ‘ consequences’ does stifle what people will say. Surely that is obvious?

If one suffers emotional damage because someone has a different opinion, that’s an issue for oneself to deal with, not for society to change to suit you.

Yes, even the government have taken note on this https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-orders-review-into-political-activism-in-police

Opinion and free speech aren’t the same thing

The reason free speech matters is so that we can discuss different views and opinions and ideas in society. This is how democratic societies function. This is how tolerant societies function.

Much as opponents to free speech desperately try to pretend it’s about bad people wanting to call voiceless, defenseless people terrible names, it’s not. It’s about debating ideas so that society can distinguish the good ideas from the bad.

The reason free speech matters is so that we can discuss different views and opinions and ideas in society. This is how democratic societies function. This is how tolerant societies function.

Exactly. It's also the reason why the UK is not a democratic country, as laid bare during the coronation - where people peacefully protesting against the automatic inauguration of a non-democratically appointed head were arrested and hidden away. Even one poor woman who was not protesting, and had come a long way to join in with the celebrations, was arrested for, presumably, an assumed thought-crime.

What do you feel that the law currently stops you discussing freely that you think should be allowed to?

The law is really made up of two parts what the legislature decide and how it’s interpreted )and enforced). Legislation is often open to interpretation in its application. It therefore is important to look at what is actually happening in practice.

so for example, as has been noted on this thread, if I talk about trans ideology in a gender critical manner, I run the risk of the police turning up at my house. This threat therefore affects my freedom of speech.

it is not just the law of the land that can affect freedom of speech. It is in the rules and policies of educational establishments, employers, private groups, social media. All of these things shape society as much as the law, these institutions have been infiltrated so that there is only one acceptable way to think and speak.

Its more scary than changing the law, it maintains the illusion of freedom where it doesn’t exist in reality.

It depends what people want to say.
I don't support any speech that is racist, homophobic, or sexist, anything that incites violence or anything that is obviously untrue
There are more important values than free speech. I don't want to live in a society where people can say whatever they want whatever the consequences.

I don't support any speech that is racist, homophobic, or sexist, anything that incites violence or anything that is obviously untrue

Even the 'obviously untrue' factor is open to question, though. Facts seem to be considered a very subjective thing by many in our modern society - with the 'truth' established by those who shout/lobby/cry/manipulate the best.

What a strange mis-reading of my post, too many errors of logic to go into but I'll start..

Violent anti-Semitism, hatred, prejudice and discrimination of all forms, can of course occur in any society, irrespective of the freedom of speech protocols the power structure of the moment happens to have in place.

This being true does not make curbs on hate-speech any less important for trying to protect vulnerable minorities from those who wish them harm, and who wish to cultivate a culture that is supportive of prejudice and hatred of them.

The problem is some people dont't laugh at those views and often quite vulnerable people get caught up in those heinous views.
That's without considering the pain that holocaust deniers cause to those who suffered during the Holocaust and their their families

Moreover, even something frivolous could be problematic, depending on how we interpret whatever law we have.

What about when people insist to children that Santa IS real. Obviously, it's not done with any kind of malice - it's intended as a kindness; but nevertheless, it is still just a widespread belief amongst certain (mainly young) sectors of society.

What happens, then, with other beliefs that other demographics insist ARE fact - and which it is considered hateful to disabuse them of? This could be quite a slippery slope.

Yes, but this is exactly it, he spouted hatred but anyone who vocalised their opposition was imprisoned or killed. Hitler isn't an argument against free speech, he is an argument for all ideas to be freely challenged. His shutting down of the opposition is what allowed his ideas to grow. And that is what I fear in this country.

And how does society distinguish? Speech that is designed to cause anger could incite.violence who is going to decide whether the person intended to incute violence
And what about racist language is that acceptable? Someone could use racist language but say they are not suggesting anyone is lesser than someone else just different.
It sounds as though some people would.be happy to go back to the 1970s when racist, sexist and homophobic language was seem as normal , just a bit of fun, just telling it as it is etc, people are too sensitive.

I lived through the 70s and that attitude and language did affect how people saw certain groups in society. What it didn't do is prompt a discussion.

You seem to have failed to grasp the types of freedom of speech curtailment that Hitler (and other dictatorial or authoritarian regimes) wished to implement - this centred on curtailment of criticism of his regime, I have a feeling he was very supportive of freedom of speech used against the non -aryan population, or people with disabilities or homosexual people .

Do you consider that both types of freedom of speech are equal ..that curtailing someone's ability to speak out against the power structure that rules over them is the equivalent of curtailing someone's ability to spout hate speech against vulnerable minorities?

At what point does something become racist, homophobic or sexist? Who gets to decide? Is it homophobic for a conservative (small c) religious person to oppose gay marriage? What about someone who wants to stop small boats? Brexit? Where the line is depends on your views and that is why censorship and curtailment of speech is dangerous. Because it suggests that there is a right and a wrong way to think.

if I talk about trans ideology in a gender critical manner, I run the risk of the police turning up at my house.

not if you didn’t use abusive language.

What could you say that would result in Police turning up at your house? Seriously