Is free speech really under threat? Observer article

[Gone2far]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/23/free-speech-is-not-under-threat-it-suits-bigots-and-boors-to-suggest-so?CMP=share_btn_tw
I particularly enjoyed this sentence But some debates should be shut down. For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognise when a particular debate has been won and leave it there.
I wonder who gets to choose (obviously the Guardian/Observer)
It's as though 2 signatories of a letter to The Times, expressing concerns over academic freedom to explore trans issues, hadn't been threatened with losing their jobs.

Try again
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/23/free-speech-is-not-under-threat-it-suits-bigots-and-boors-to-suggest-so?CMP=share_btn_tw

Exactly! Just because one person thinks they've won a debate doesn't mean that the topic is now no longer allowed to be debated anywhere ever.

Despite the weight of evidence indicating human involvement in climate change, that still hasn't been universally agreed...

For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognise when a particular debate has been won and leave it there.

t’s funny, but I thought the argument in favour of free speech had been won.

How come that debate hasn’t been shut down?

Free speech isn’t something that needs debating; it is the precondition for debate. Without free speech nothing can be debated.

Also, fuck the Guardian.

If someone writes an article opposing free speech the editor should reply You’ve made a convincing argument, and that’s why I’m refusing to print it. Don’t let the dogs bite you on the way out

Lefties don’t understand what freedom or a lack thereof entails. That’s why the are lefties. No surprises here.

Is that what passes for publishable these days?

Pretty wild for a newspaper to be in favor of censorship.

For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognise when a particular debate has been won and leave it there.

It generally is true that when a public debate has been won, people stop talking about it.

Clue might be that if people are talking about it, it hasn't been won.

It makes me think, perhaps part of the reason we have so many people thinking this way now is due to some loss of understanding that you do actually have to have some level of public consensus, that just ramming through ideas by getting them in a constitution or law or a bare majority will not work well. It will not "win" the debate for you, on the contrary it will intensify it.

Over the last five years or so, talking about a few different issues with people and the desirability of some consensus, a lot of them, particularly Americans, have said, but this is how we changed things with the civil rights movement, we had sit-ins, we changed laws, we bussed kids to schools. Many progressives seem to look at that kind of activity as the model to follow.

Free speech doesn't exist anymore and hasn't done since offending someone became illegal.

The mental disconnect here is that the author thinks that 'winning a debate' means 'I think I am right, and so do all my friends.'

Whereas actually, a debate is won when you have convinced the majority of your listening audience that you have the most compelling, backed up argument, so that everyone agrees, not just your pals.

The most balanced individuals, and therefore societies, base their beliefs, principles and policies on evidence, reason and an open enough mind that will always reassess if a good enough argument for change is made.

I am still shaking my head in disbelief that a writer in a major newspaper doesn't understand this...

As always, Floral summarises it perfectly.

Also, this is the second guardian article I've read now defending the shutting down of debate. It's pathetic. I was watching a debate between Meghan Murphy and a TRA last night and the topic of free speech came up about her Twitter ban and the TRA was all "technically free speech just means you can't be arrested by the government, it doesn't extend to private companies so it's not a free speech issue" and Meghan rightly called him on it saying that Twitter absolutely shapes policy nowadays by letting people directly lobby or interact with politicians, so censorship on Twitter should be seen as a free speech issue. And it's true, Edward Lord was able to ram his bullshit CoL nonsultation through by blocking everyone on Twitter who disagreed with him and then only releasing it by tweeting it to his followers!

Not sure about the article, but nothing new, free speech went a long time ago.
We have moved on to being told what we think now

This about sums it up

spectator.us/free-speech-threat/

The whole idea of free speech being just about government intervention is very interesting. It really represents a turning over of power to the private sector, an abstract right to speech means nothing if you can't actually talk about your thoughts in the public sphere, because it's silenced or you'll lose your job.

There is a reason the media has always had significant regulation in democracies but I suspect a lot of young people don't know that.

Huh? So any discussion would boil down to:

You are wrong

I win

Shut up!

Exactly that, Curious. This article is the lip service totalitarian regimes pay towards 'free speech' as an abstract. They like to call this model 'free speech' because fewer people notice that what they are promoting is the idea that whoever has the most power can dictate what can be acceptably said, which obviously isn't free speech, or even freedom, at all.

I went to bed early last night, hence this post at an early hour.

Floral nails it re what a debate should be. This link is a worthwhile read, the subject matter being a debate between Mary Beard and Boris Johnson. 'Greece (BJ) V Rome (MB). It is written by Mary Beard. To summarise Mary 'won' the debate with a 9% swing.

www.the-tls.co.uk/seeing-boris-johnson/

it is important to recognise when a particular debate has been won and leave it there.

Jesus Christ on a fucking scooter. So if you ‘win’ then that’s it. Forever. The loud voices and those in power get to set the tone and everyone else gets to STFU.

It’s like history never happened.

The debate hasn't even happened! Let alone been won by either side. It's only recently that #nodebate has started to be challenged by the media. And as far as I'm aware this issue has not been discussed at any length in parliament...the consultation results haven't even been announced!

Jeez, the cheek of some people.

Personally I’ll decide when I want to stop debating something. And I’m not very responsive to being told to ‘leave it there’ as it sounds to me like being shushed.