Citation please
2 Likes
In the sense of carriage/content the net neutral Internet is the public sidewalk, or could be if crapweasels like Ajit Pai weren’t so busy trying to enclose the commons.
That doesn’t mean that a particular Web site is obliged to give a Nazi a soapbox, or that a particular Web hosting company is obliged to host an alt-right site. It just means that Verizon as a carrier isn’t allowed to block or otherwise impede all traffic to and from a given toxic right-wing site.
It’s funny how many conservatives who profess Libertarian values of free speech are silent on this issue or support Pai because they think that the big corporations will naturally be on their side.
8 Likes
Since no one is going to arrest you, your security in what you say is not endangered. It’s your ability to say them in a private place that is in danger since you have no right to behave how you choose in someone else’s house.
Really? The most important conversation I have are all done in private. Or perhaps you and I have a difference of opinion on what is and is not an important conversation. That difference of opinion is kind of a problem for your position isn’t it?
How so? Do I have way too much power in deciding who I let in the door to my home? Do you suppose people have the right to a large audience? If so, do you think we need to give national air time to white supremacists since their only outlets are small marginalized websites?
No, of course not. No one has any right to be heard over the din. No one has the right to a large forum. If your ideas have merit, they will be echoed by the people until that voice becomes strong and singular enough to impact society. If it has no merit, then it should die unheard. The idea that your voice deserves to be heard is ridiculous. You deserve to have a voice, you do not deserve to demand that someone else amplify it against their own better judgement.
1 Like
Every conservative: “Why aren’t my values and ideologies of hatred, classism, and ignorance being tolerated?! Censorship!”
6 Likes
Is it not? [Citation needed.] It is certainly by democracy that Austria decided to follow a social market economy model of society rather than a communist one. And true communism would at least imply giving the above-average-sized parts of your house (should you own one) to communists.
But as I said twice now, I am not saying that neo-nazis should be allowed to hold a rally in your home. Will you let that straw-man die already?
Now you’ve degenerated to name-calling.
I’m not a conservative. It’s just that American-style microagression theory is not universally accepted among Austria’s left. And what’s with that “scare”/“grow a pair”/“confidence-building bulk” rhetoric? That’s disgusting.
Well, over here where the actual problem is (ignoring all the far-right, neo-nazis Germany still has, of which Austria has the largest presence), we do have nazis demanding equal treatment under “free speech” so they can propagate arguments for genocide. So it’s less a strawman and more you refusing to admit the eventual progression of your absolute defense of free speech.
5 Likes
You weren’t talking about (and this thread isn’t about) Austria’s left. It’s about student attitudes about diversity and inclusion vs. free speech in the U.S.
Which is where the people donning the mantle of victimhood in that context are primarily those who espouse tough-guy bootstraperism while also arguing in other contexts for their right to purchase military grade killing machines, all while bleating about their own supposed victim status.
3 Likes
Let me suggest a somewhat different take on this problem. There are “soapboxes” (ie, websites and discussion groups, such as this one) for just about any viewpoint, no matter how extreme or repulsive. Racists, pedophiles, misogynists, and, yes, Methodists all have their own bubbles where they can carry on to their heart’s content. My issue with this Balkanization of “soapboxes” is that it leads to extreme epistemological closure, and whatever point of view exists at the onset tends to drift further and further to the extreme and middle ground disappears, and opposing views become demonized. No longer just different, or even wrong, but EVIL which must be eliminated. That is where the danger lies.
(apologies to “Blazing Saddles”)
2 Likes
No. It is not how we decide if neo-nazis can hold a rally in my home. That some people in Austria chose to follow a particular market economy is completely unrelated. Your red herring is in the wrong barrel. Kindly remove it.
It’s not a straw man my friend. You are arguing that private actors should be forced to amplify the voices of people they do not agree with. Since I do not agree with the neo-nazi set, I am rightly concerned that people with your agenda would shape our nation in to a place where I have no say about whether or not neo-nazis can hold a rally on my lawn. Or to put a finer point on it, you are suggesting that owners of large lawns who allow people to come and speak should be compelled to allow anyone to speak. You are furthering the idea that all voices deserve to be heard. They do not.
4 Likes
How I wish that more people realized this and really wrapped their heads around it; because too many seem to completely misunderstand what it actually means.
*lolz @ including Methodists
7 Likes
As @gracchus said. The internet itself not the sites on it is the sidewalk. Find a hosting provider that doesn’t give a ratfuck about what you host and set up your own web server. Spout off all the racist shit you want to spout off there. However nobody has to actually go visit it.
7 Likes
You do know that only Nazis claim that Austria is a part of Germany, right? Also, [citation needed], but elsewhere. No room here to defend my “national honor”.
The logical end-points of a sliding scale of tradeoffs are often straw-men. I am very much convinced that it would be a bad thing to force @anotherone to provide their house to neo-nazis to hold rallies in, and yes that is the “eventual progression” of my defense of free speech.
Just like communism is the “eventual progression” of all arguments for any kind of social programs. And I wasn’t even demanding concrete actions yet (others here might have), and no one was demanding complete “socialization of the means of production sharing opinions”.
True. But just saying, by lumping me in with US conservatives, you might have been overreacting. And if your judgement of others’ opinions leaves no room between “I will strive not to commit microaggressions by never criticizing AA” and “I’m a tough-guy conservative bigot”, you might be oversimplifying things. In my conversations with right-wingers in my own country, I have found that 50% of what divides us is just symbolism that stands in the way of ever discussing the real issues.
I am also aware that I need to be careful on this topic because if I argue on “their” side, I will end up in bad company. But that is the problem with “symbolic” issues - suddenly right or wrong don’t matter, it’s all about what other opinions the enemy holds.
1 Like
You can’t reduce the problem to extreme cases everyone should unquestionably agree on.
In light of the recent technological development which threw the way societies used to operate internal communication into complete chaos, we need to find a new agreement on the balance between social cohesion and individual expression. And that’s not going to happen if half of the political spectrum is excluded from the debate as illegitimate nazi-enablers.
3 Likes
I would argue that this is a sliding scale with only 2 points - no one can force another to amplify anothers voice on one end and we can force people to amplify the voices of others on the other end. What do you imagine is the middle ground?
1 Like
Like here, you mean?
(not intended to be negative to BB)
2 Likes
*lolz
BB does indeed count as social media, but I thought that comment was meant to be sarcastic… like a lot of the content here usually is.
1 Like
I. AM. NOT.
I am only saying that if some people get their voices amplified and others don’t, they don’t enjoy freedom of speech in equal measures. I am not saying that the state should immediately step in to “equalize” that.
Possible points on the middle ground are:
- Everyone gets to keep their own soapbox and decide who uses it. But in this version of reality, it is considered a nice thing to do to offer your soapbox to others with whom you might not agree. Conversely, you’re less likely to be the focus of a shitstorm for giving others a platform.
- Same as above, but not extending to actual nazis.
- Make a distinction between commercial enterprises/private homes/private soapboxes/etc.
(just like churches don’t need to provide a venue for a gay marriage, but a business selling wedding cakes might not be allowed to refuse to sell one to the couple, depending on jurisdiction)
Only #3 even includes a law, the others are just ideas about “how things should be done”. Just like the opinion that rich people should give to charity is not communism, but is still a lot less “capitalist” than the idea that “poor people had their chance to become rich on their own, after all”.
1 Like
They do in fact enjoy equality of their freedom of speech. What they do not share is equality of audience.
As for your middle ground(s)
- That’s the current status quo which is "no one can force you to amplify the voices of others. So… one end of the scale.
- Nonsensical. How does everyone get to keep their own soapbox except for a certain group? That is NOT freedom of speech. It is not on the scale at all.
- That is the other end which is forcing some actors to amplify the voices of others. It also creates a class of people for the sole purpose of legal discrimination which is simply wrong.
So you are left with a scale with 2 points.
Not a freedom of speech issue unless your employer is the government
Actually it is showing that speech has consequences besides having the freedom to say something without government censorship. You are free to sling insults at people, people are free to react to it negatively as well.
3 Likes
By that logic you enjoy the same equality of freedom of speech in an empty underground cell.
1 Like
