Free Speech Discussion

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Let's talk about opposing someone's speech while still respecting their rights and dignity. Basically, opposing what someone says while still respecting their right to say it. I'm interested in thoughts regarding how you'd go about this and also examples. Do you feel this is something you do well or at all? Do you aim for it in your interactions with others and in your politics? I'm also interested in discussion centered around the differences between thought, speech, and action.

I think I'm pretty good at it, but I don't really show it much because this can put me at the center of a conflict for which I doubt my ability to successfully navigate. Essentially, this usually results in getting hit from both sides, which I don't know how to deal with. (Perhaps I should be bolder in this regard.) If I do have issues with someone who has different views, often I find that that it's more due to personality type (mbti and enneagram) than the actual views. I've noticed that even people who agree with me who have that enneagram and mbti type often grate on me, though not always.

I think some of my tendency to respect people with opposing views has to do with a few factors.

1. I find it difficult to find an objective angle on many political topics. I'm uncomfortable expressing something with a lot of conviction that I recognize is so subjective. I find it hard to flat out tell people they are wrong when I'm not 100% convinced of the certainty of what I'm saying.
2. I tend to have a skeptical and doubting nature which is that I'm not entirely convinced that I have a handle on the "correct" way to approach something.
3. I prefer humor about political topics to a more dramatic approach. I'd rather watch something like the Colbert report than MSNBC. I think this is an Alpha Quadra thing.
4. I would often rather find out the actual truth of a situation rather than reinforce the feeling that I'm "right." I'm wary of reinforcing confirmation bias.
5. I think ideas which cannot withstand criticism are ideas not worth having. To quote Tyrion Lannister, cutting off a man's tongue only shows that you fear what they have to say.
6. I recognize that there are instances and cases where I fail to live up to my ideas and values. Given this, I find it distasteful to adopt a tone of self-righteousness, because I have an awareness that I am not entirely innocent.
7. I think I'm more offended by logical inconsistency and irrationality than I am by different views. It bothers me more if someone states something when the same post that goes against the premises stated earlier in the post. If a particular statement follows from a particular axiom, it might not bother me even if I have some doubts about the original axiom. I do recognize, however, that people's views are subject to change and can fluctuate.
8. I enjoy when other people get into heated arguments about these things and I think it spices things up, provided it's not a distraction from what I'm currently trying to accomplish.

 

[ceecee]

Back to your own pov, eh? I see you can't view things any way else, or understand why other people would value or want something out of a discussion differently than you would.

You're talking about a worldview that is in it for themselves because they feel they have been ignored too long. You aren't going to hear a hardcore Trump supporter with ideas and thoughts about anyone/anything outside of that framework. You have entirely opposite framework. The best you can hope to do is negotiate everything under the sun from here on out. Even things that you feel are self-evident and don't require negotiation. I think that's the hardest thing to grasp for a lot of people. It's not even a case of disagreeing. It's a "I no longer trust you to do the right thing any longer" situation on both sides.

 

[magpie]

You're talking about a worldview that is in it for themselves because they feel they have been ignored too long. You aren't going to hear a hardcore Trump supporter with ideas and thoughts about anyone/anything outside of that framework. You have entirely opposite framework. The best you can hope to do is negotiate everything under the sun from here on out. Even things that you feel are self-evident and don't require negotiation. I think that's the hardest thing to grasp for a lot of people. It's not even a case of disagreeing. It's a "I no longer trust you to do the right thing any longer" situation on both sides.

I don't think this is really a useful point of view to hold. I think everyone should assume communication is possible. Otherwise, it sets up conflict before it even begins, or at least makes conflict more difficult to resolve.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

So then would you consider yelling over someone or interrupting them in an everday conversation to be violating that person's freedom of speech? That seems unlikely from a legal perspective. What you wrote seems more like an attempt to be polite and considerate.



Your definiton of violence seems to include things other than direct physical harm. Do you inherently have an issue with any "political violence" in any context, or just political violence that's used to silence others?

First, actual violence (hitting, burning, etc.)

Second, using force or intimidation short of political violence.) to silence opposition.

Third, trying to destroy someone's life because they disagree (trying to get them fired, disclosing home address to help others attack them, etc.)

Again, if someone cannot engage in reasoned discourse, they, by definition, reject Enlightenment values and Western civil liberties.

If someone can't debate someone else and instead tries to silence them, they are demonstrating the weakness of their own positions and beliefs.

Anarchists and communists have been using political violence to silence opponents long before there was a single fascist. And both Italian fascism and German Nazism explicitly arose from these same groups.

But, again, this is not new. Ancient Rome and Greece had problems with this at time, causing the end in their attempts at representative government. The KKK is a classic example as well.

Before that political violence was almost common in the pre Civil War era (Kansas Missouri War and Mormon expulsion from first Missouri then Illinois are good examples).

As soon as someone engages in violent acts to further their agenda and silence their opponents, they demonstrate that they are authoritarians who reject democratic ideals.

Antifas are as "fascist" as the Brown Shirts and might as well buy steel toed jack boots...... They are far worse than anyone they oppose.

 

[magpie]

First, actual violence (hitting, burning, etc.)

Second, using force or intimidation short of political violence.) to silence opposition.

Third, trying to destroy someone's life because they disagree (trying to get them fired, disclosing home address to help others attack them, etc.)

Again, if someone cannot engage in reasoned discourse, they, by definition, reject Enlightenment values and Western civil liberties.

If someone can't debate someone else and instead tries to silence them, they are demonstrating the weakness of their own positions and beliefs.

Anarchists and communists have been using political violence to silence opponents long before there was a single fascist. And both Italian fascism and German Nazism explicitly arose from these same groups.

But, again, this is not new. Ancient Rome and Greece had problems with this at time, causing the end in their attempts at representative government. The KKK is a classic example as well.

Before that political violence was almost common in the pre Civil War era (Kansas Missouri War and Mormon expulsion from first Missouri then Illinois are good examples).

As soon as someone engages in violent acts to further their agenda and silence their opponents, they demonstrate that they are authoritarians who reject democratic ideals.

Antifas are as "fascist" as the Brown Shirts and might as well buy steel toed jack boots...... They are far worse than anyone they oppose.

Do you think the KKK should be allowed to march given that they fit some of your definitions of violence? What about the neo-nazis in your previous post?

 

[Mole]

Liberal democracy depends on free speech. So who is against free speech? The Islamists and the Marxist Left are against free speech. And the Islamists and the Marxist Left made an alliance some decades ago and we can see the result today.

 

[Carpe Vinum]

What are examples of things you'd consider to be inciting violence?

Seditious speech would be one example, provided it is inciting "imminent lawless action" (Brandenberg v. Ohio) or presents a "clear and present danger" (Schenck v. United States).

But really, inciting violence was just one thing the First Amendment was never conceived to protect. It is widely agreed that it also did not protect violating copyright laws, child pornography, or perjury (obviously). Commercial speech is considered to have "diminished protection" in the interest of protecting consumers from false information.

In other words, speech that clearly violates the rights of others is generally not upheld as protected. Offensive speech is protected, however, because nothing gives you the right to "not be offended" (something the political left often forgets).

 

[Yuurei]

I'm actually pretty good at this. I'm obviously not the most empathetic person. I tend to be dismissive of feelings but beliefs, I can often see the rational behind them. It's actually a pretty useful skill in changing poorly-reasoned beliefs.
I often befriend people with different beliefs than myself due to a mutual respect as human beings...often. Not always. Like people who wear those huge aviator sunglasses that make them look like flies. No, there are lines I just do not cross.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Do you think the KKK should be allowed to march given that they fit some of your definitions of violence? What about the neo-nazis in your previous post?

Yes, let them march. Hold a counter protest. Have a day of speeches about how they are wrong. Invite them to a debate and ridicule their ridiculous beliefs and show them to be the small minded fools they are.

No matter someone's beliefs, freedom of speech is a right that should be protected.

Shaming, harassing, using violence, etc. will never change another person's thinking. It will only strengthen in their resolve.

Ex. since BLM has been out protesting and rioting, support for the police has gone up, not down.

All the violent behavior only pushes people against the beliefs of those who espouse violence.

Therefore, it is counterproductive.

But that is the point. Those who engage in political violence are not trying to persuade. They are trying to intimidate. They are trying to prevent compromise. The are othering their opponents, projecting their fears on to them. They want to destroy civil society and trust.

But the end result of that road is very ugly.

 

[anticlimatic]

There is a point when 'speech' turns into barking. At that point it ceases to be communication with speech and instead becomes communication with intimidation. Most protests fall under the barking category, communicating more with a show of numbers and force than with dialogue or even well formed arguments. I think protesting should be protected, but it feels like a different kind of communication than speech, even though I suppose it does use a lot of the same ingredients on the surface.

 

[meowington]

“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.” ~ Oscar Wilde

 

[Cellmold]

Sadly, any majority opinion (contextually) tends to put authoritative control over speech without even needing to touch the law.

The issue stems from mindset. Free speech can do little to help that. You must inculcate a sense of the listening ear before you can develop a dialogue.

Freedom of speech is important, but it falls down in the face of the unprincipled.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Your Right to Protest | ACLU of Oregon

Here are a few quotes from the ACLU on this topic:

....


The government cannot impose permit restrictions or deny a permit simply because it does not like the message of a certain speaker or group.

.....

The First Amendment does not protect speech that is combined with the violation of established laws such as trespassing, disobeying or interfering with a lawful order by a police officer. Also unprotected are malicious statements about public officials and obscene speech.

Although an inflammatory speaker cannot be punished for merely arousing an audience, a speaker can be arrested for incitement if he/she advocates imminent violence or specifically provokes people to commit unlawful actions.

.....

Demonstrators who engage in civil disobedience – defined as non-violent unlawful action as a form of protest – are not protected under the First Amendment. People who engage in civil disobedience should be prepared to be arrested or fined as part of their protest activity.

If you endanger others while protesting, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit.

You do not have the right to block a building entrance or physically harass people. The general rule is that free speech activity cannot take place on private property, including shopping malls, without consent of the property owner. You do not have the right to remain on private property after being told to leave by the owner.

 

[Mole]

The problem with banning free speech or making it impossible to speak, is that the cure is worse than the disease.

And it is true that liberal democracy is the worst possible system, except for all the others.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Everyone has an opinion and when these conflict it's the law that adjudicates, therefore having the legal standard as your 'opinion' is BESTEST opinion, in my opinion

The Exceptional First Amendment​

As is increasingly apparent, the United States is a free speech and free press outlier. With respect to a large range of issues - defamation, hate speech, publication of information about ongoing legal proceedings, incitement to violence or illegal conduct, and many others - the United States stands alone, not only as compared to totalitarian states, but also in comparison with other open liberal constitutional democracies. The reasons for this divergence are common, but among the explanations are the complexities of the trans-national migration of legal and constitutional ideas, differential commitments to libertarian visions as a matter of basic political theory, differences in the constitutional text, differences in political and legal history, differences in the role of various interest groups, and differences in views about constitutionalism and the role of the courts. This paper attempts to explore in an explanatory but non-evaluative way the causes of American free speech exceptionalism.

The Exceptional First Amendment by Frederick Schauer :: SSRN

 

[Carpe Vinum]

Yes, let them march. Hold a counter protest. Have a day of speeches about how they are wrong. Invite them to a debate and ridicule their ridiculous beliefs and show them to be the small minded fools they are.

No matter someone's beliefs, freedom of speech is a right that should be protected.

Exactly. Limiting free speech doesn't prevent biggotry. If anything, it spreads it. If you don't agree with what someone is saying, the answer isn't taking away their right to say it. Just think, what happens when that goes the other way and they're taking your rights away? No, the answer is exercising your freedom of speech and countering their views.

 

[Coriolis]

So then would you consider yelling over someone or interrupting them in an everday conversation to be violating that person's freedom of speech? That seems unlikely from a legal perspective. What you wrote seems more like an attempt to be polite and considerate.

You did post this in Philosophy rather than Politics, which suggests you are interested in more than just legal standards - perhaps philosophical, moral, or ethical standards.

I'm good at respecting people who say things that I disagree with, provided their comments aren't hateful. In practical terms, I have to moderate classroom discussions because I'm a teacher. I try my best to give everyone a voice and the freedom to express their views in a respectful manner. As a matter of fairness, I absolutely cut off students who are saying hateful things or acting disrespectfully, attempting to dominate conversations, etc.

When we are participating in a group, accepted group rules will often place limits on freedom of speech in order to ensure everyone gets their say, and some threshold of respect is maintained. This includes everything from the sort of classroom moderation described here, to Roberts Rules of Order. We accept these limitations to facilitate the greater good of participating in the group. If the limitations are no longer serving the purpose, or are becoming too limiting, a group can always revise its rules or customs.

In other words, speech that clearly violates the rights of others is generally not upheld as protected. Offensive speech is protected, however, because nothing gives you the right to "not be offended" (something the political left often forgets).

Similarly, the right to free speech does not come with the right to be listened to. No one has the right to call someone repeatedly, or follow them around as they try to shop, in order to "make" them listen to their PoV. That quickly becomes harassment. Similarly, I don't have to invite or allow someone in my home if I find what they have to say objectionable. I think some of the recent cases of free speech violations fall into that category, namely a private organization (college, club, etc.) not inviting or even dis-inviting a speaker whose PoV is antithetical to theirs. Yes, that speaker has the right to express him/herself, but not in that location, to that group. Ideally the private group would be open-minded enough to entertain a variety of perspectives, but might want to exclude certain speakers who, for instance, have a track record of namecalling and vitriol rather than reasoned explanation of their perspective. It would be different in public spaces, except I could see some of those (e.g. public universities) falling under the category of speech limits accepted to ensure respect and give everyone their say. Meaning: OK to espouse any PoV, but you must stay within certain bounds of civility (much like the forum).

There is a point when 'speech' turns into barking. At that point it ceases to be communication with speech and instead becomes communication with intimidation. Most protests fall under the barking category, communicating more with a show of numbers and force than with dialogue or even well formed arguments. I think protesting should be protected, but it feels like a different kind of communication than speech, even though I suppose it does use a lot of the same ingredients on the surface.

This, too.

 

[Typh0n]

“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.” ~ Oscar Wilde

I think the original is " I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Voltaire).

It sums up my view on the subject as well.

 

[meowington]

I think the original is " I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Voltaire).

Apparently :
No, Voltaire Didn’t Say That. No, Not That, Either. |

But oh well

 

[Typh0n]

Apparently :
No, Voltaire Didn’t Say That. No, Not That, Either. |

But oh well

Damn...it sounded so good.

Can I be the one the quote is attributed to then, so long as Oscar Wilde has the original (or is that not from him either).