Freeze Peach 🍑 (USA)

[Wanderfound]

Here’s some history…

https://twitter.com/nyt_1917/status/879454405229203456

The New York Times, doxxing Jewish pacifists in WWI.

[Wanderfound]

https://twitter.com/ur_ninja/status/924327155999354880

https://twitter.com/northalabamadsa/status/924305528083316738

[Wanderfound]

For context, Reb is one of the best-respected street journalists in the country.

https://twitter.com/rebelutionary_z/status/924382561262100480

https://twitter.com/jaykelly26/status/924410178329546752

https://twitter.com/Rebelutionary_Z/status/924413627721043968

[Israel_B]

@anon50609448

And yes, other people with racist beliefs manage to speak without that level of security.

Some animals are more equal than others…

@anon50609448

Other people with progressive beliefs end up cancelling speeches because they aren’t given that level of security.

Or because canceling gives them a chance to get more publicity? Not all but it does happen.

@anon50609448

Canadian law is more about a balance between individual rights and societal good …

Thanks for that explanation.

@anon50609448

A bunch of laws have been struck down on free speech grounds. I can look at those and say, “These are laws that might still be in place if it were not for freedom of speech law.” That would give me something to work with.

I should do some research on just that.

[Israel_B]

@M_Dub

These “concerns” have been addressed and discussed ad nauseum upthread

You got nitpicked but yeah, all what the person you replied to was going on about was in fact already addressed. I simply chose not to reply to them.

[Israel_B]

@anon50609448

And how about copyright. If you want to see people free expression being suppressed, check out all the DMCA takedowns on youtube. People make creative works and then get told, “First Amendment? Sorry, someone else’s right to profit off this is more important.”

And yet oddly enough there is so much creative work out there that does not rely on using someone else’s work. As someone who at times tried to make a living off my own creative works, I always found the “information wants to be free” and its related “I should be able to use anyone else’s work how I want” to be very weak indeed.

@anon50609448

So in a way, “all speech is protected” is true, but it requires some Orwellian doublethink.

@M_Dub may have over reached with “all” but in fact no double think is required.

[Wanderfound]

https://twitter.com/ur_ninja/status/924346448623427585

[anon95548275]

Behold the master race;

I’m so proud to be a part of it I could cry.

[anon76197405]

Phew, good thing you posted that, what with all the defense of nazis you got going on.

@Israel_B

Or because canceling gives them a chance to get more publicity? Not all but it does happen.

I’m gonna go ahead and pull this little tidbit out and let people think about it. Here we have a person claiming that the left is guilty of trying to get “publicity” by trying to hold meetings, then cancelling them when outcry is reached. In reality, this is the actual actions of nazis in practice.

@M_Dub

These “concerns” have been addressed and discussed ad nauseum upthread: the First Amendment protects all speech, including the speech you dislike.

No, multiple goalposts have been shuffled around, but no one has addressed the fact that society allowing hate speech is society condoning hate speech. Legality has been offered as if the decisions of courts have any weight when the same courts have upheld bigotry and hatred in case law. Emotional appeals have been offered (“If I’m jewish, and I’m okay with nazis, why shouldn’t you be?”).

But no, you haven’t actually addressed any of the concerns about the problems of absolute free speech, you’ve only declared that it’s a settled matter because you think if people stop responding to you, or if arguments satisfying your own personal opinion of the issue are made, the debate is settled.

[Israel_B]

@jeezers

because you think if people stop responding to you, or if arguments satisfying your own personal opinion of the issue are made, the debate is settled.

I stopped responding because of your poor manners. It isn’t about winning or losing the Internet.

[anon76197405]

@Israel_B

I stopped responding because of your poor manners. It isn’t about winning or losing the Internet.

Lmfao, literally “tone argument” in it’s purest form.

[Snowlark]

Just a reminder to everyone in this thread: a lot of people are reading this conversation in hopes that it might clarify or resolve their own undecided/muddled thoughts on issues of free speech. Bickering only drives such readers away.

Even if you don’t feel you’re reaching a particular participant in this thread, rest assured you still have an opportunity–many, in fact–to reach someone who is simply listening. Take that opportunity.

[anon76197405]

It’s difficult to do that when people dismiss responses out of hand because the person they’re replying to didn’t follow Robert’s Rules of Classy Debate or whatever dumbshit reason they use when they can’t back up their argument.

[navarro]

@Israel_B

I stopped responding because of your poor manners.

really? are you cutting off debate with this person because of tone? . . . because your feelings are hurt? . . . because their etiquette is inadequate to your ability to tolerate? it would be one thing if they had excoriated you on an existential basis implying you had no right to existence but it’s another thing when an interlocutor describes what they see as the potential outcomes of your stated positions, even if the description is worded harshly.

@Israel_B

I stopped responding because of your poor manners.

so does that mean if everyone started responding to you with what you regard as poor manners you would eventually stop commenting?

[Israel_B]

This gets into the issue of if a comment is worth flagging or not and that is far off topic for this thread. Personally I’d rather not respond to comments which are borderline provocation but not flag worthy for the reason @Snowlark pointed out above.

If some choose to try a hecklers veto that is their prerogative.

[anon34697667]

@jeezers

no one has addressed the fact that society allowing hate speech is society condoning hate speech.

Well, no one’s addressed it until you expressed your confusion on the matter because most people understand the very simple concept of allowing speech does not mean condoning said speech. Hope that helps!

[anon50609448]

@Israel_B

And yet oddly enough there is so much creative work out there that does not rely on using someone else’s work. As someone who at times tried to make a living off my own creative works, I always found the “information wants to be free” and its related “I should be able to use anyone else’s work how I want” to be very weak indeed.

We can have differing opinions of the value of copyright in society, but that’s an aside to the free speech discussion. My point is that it doesn’t take risking life and limb to restrict someone’s free speech. Free expression can be shut down by the government to protect private profit; that is one example of a strong enough reason to protect free speech.

@Israel_B

@M_Dub may have over reached with “all” but in fact no double think is required.

When you are arguing that X (nazi speech) is S (speech), and that X is F (free) it makes a very big difference if the middle statement is “all S is F” or “some S is F”. One means you have a simple logical argument, the other means actually engaging on the idea of why some speech ought to be restricted and other speech should not.

[Israel_B]

@anon50609448

Free expression can be shut down by the government to protect private profit; that is one example of a strong enough reason to protect free speech.

Here I agree in that the arts are so often historically subject to censorship but disagree on the conflation of for profit since copyright law protects the expression of the original creator.

@anon50609448

When you are arguing that X (nazi speech) is S (speech), and that X is F (free) it makes a very big difference if the middle statement is “all S is F” or “some S is F”. One means you have a simple logical argument, the other means actually engaging on the idea of why some speech ought to be restricted and other speech should not.

But all along I’ve argued here that even the offensive expression is worth protecting so the difference you describe seems tautological unless I’ve misunderstood.

[anon50609448]

@Israel_B

But all along I’ve argued here that even the offensive expression is worth protecting so the difference you describe seems tautological unless I’ve misunderstood.

I understand that you are defending offensive expression as worth defending. Elsewhere in the thread I’ve seen what I regard as compartmentalized thinking where absolutism comes out to defend Nazis but recognition of reality is there fro copyright, threats, hiring assassins, etc.

And you have a fair point that copyright isn’t entirely about profit. It is about ownership. And I think someone can reasonably say why copyright protections aren’t a danger to the ideal that free speech is trying to protect. I also think that copyright is a place where someone could point out there has been a slippery slope from what seemed like a reasonable law to worse and worse laws.

[Israel_B]

Elsewhere @pesco linked to http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/sex-pistols-talk-never-mind-the-bollocks-song-by-song-w509836 where it is pointed out that the Sex Pistols were subject to various forms of censorship. How absurd that seems today but it reminded me that unpopular expression is worth protecting.

Also in the November/December edition of Foreign Affairs author Susan Hennessy pointed out that US officials had not anticipated or understood the DPRK hacking of Sony Pictures as an attack on the core values of freedom of speech and expression.