-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Research shows prejudice, not principle, often underpins free-speech defense
- Thread starter Slayven
- Start date
Folks cite it without understanding it
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
The people that are fighting for the free speech of racists turn out to have racist views/motivations? i would have never guessed.
User 73706
Banned
yeah but how do we know the technology involved wasn't inherently reverse racist? the story seems to have a pretty blatant anti-free speech bias if you ask me
yeah this isn't surprising
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone and is unfortunately why I have to start sending some side-eye when I hear it being thrown out nowadays.. "Free Speech" has a very specific meaning (the government can't jail/touch you for anything you say or write with very few exceptions) but you hear it thrown out ALL the time in tons of irrelevant scenarios. Its almost never in defense of say groups like BLM but rather in defense of Nazis and those spouting bigotry/misogyny/etc. So often when people are screaming for "free speech" what they actually mean is "I or person X should be able to say whatever we what whenever we want wherever we want without any pushback or any consequence". That's not what "Free Speech" is or how it works.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
"often underpins". It doesn't really matter if it's the majority of cases or a significant minority or whatever. Most people aren't guided by principle on anything.
Where the rubber hits the road on this question is mostly a conflict between the government and the ACLU.
Where the rubber hits the road on this question is mostly a conflict between the government and the ACLU.
Great, looking forward to being called racist a lot more.
The fact that people ignore principles to favor their biases should be pretty self-evident, though. Liberals are all for big government until Trump is in power, conservatives are all "states rights" until they can stomp on some poor and/or black people.
Why does the article and their press release not actually have a link to read the study?
The fact that people ignore principles to favor their biases should be pretty self-evident, though. Liberals are all for big government until Trump is in power, conservatives are all "states rights" until they can stomp on some poor and/or black people.
Why does the article and their press release not actually have a link to read the study?
Count Dookkake
Member
Research shows that "often" will be read as "always."
Anyway, I suspect most people are willing to go to bat for speech that they agree with.
Anyway, I suspect most people are willing to go to bat for speech that they agree with.
Teknopathetic
Member
"The fact that people ignore principles to favor their biases should be pretty self-evident, though. Liberals are all for big government until Trump is in power, conservatives are all "states rights" until they can stomp on some poor and/or black people."
This is the wackest both-sides I've ever seen.
This is the wackest both-sides I've ever seen.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
The people that talk the most about free speech usually only pop up in certain cases
There's plenty of threads to look back through
There's plenty of threads to look back through
because the study is paywalled behind an academic journal, as most academic studies tend to be
what?
What has Trump done that is big government? He has sought to eliminate many of the laws and regulations that would entail a "big government" approach. False equivalency for the sake of it is dumb.
I mean just looking at healthcare, if Trump came out with a public option fix to Obamacare I don't think many Liberals would disagree or hate him for it. But he hasn't so what the hell are you talking about.
plagiarize
Banned
Added the link in the Op
Wanda/Wander
Member
So what you are saying they are right?
I think this is a simplistic view free speech, especially in the age of social media when dog piling and public shaming make it incredibly easy for small groups of people to shut down speech.
I agree that freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from consequence of speech, but if our view of free speech is so narrow that only violence from the state can infringe it, it's not really free speech.
But hey I'm just a racist defending other racists so what do I know.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
Water is wet but nonetheless, nice to read about the research done into such a polarized topic.
you started out good but then you had to go and holler like a hit dog
Protesting hate speech is also a way you excercise speech. So would trying to stifle that be considered silencing speech?
Or maybe let's stop using free speech as a crutch for hate speech without consequence.
Or better yet stop telling people that are being dehumanized and threatened by dangerous bigots to find a better way, while offering no tangible solution.
Or maybe let's stop using free speech as a crutch for hate speech without consequence.
Or better yet stop telling people that are being dehumanized and threatened by dangerous bigots to find a better way, while offering no tangible solution.
Danke. Doesn't look like my school subscribes to that journal, oh wells.
...As a general rule, yes?
freethoughtbubble
Member
I'm a big free speech guy, but yeah nowadays (maybe always) the principle is most often invoked by people who don't know--and don't care to know--what it actually means, what it actually protects. They just exploit it because they have no other leg to stand on. Makes me sad that "muh free speech" has become a joke or even a slur for so many.
starchild excalibur
Member
Liberals aren't opposed to big government. They're opposed to big government that implements bone-headed, idiotic, and myopic decisions like cutting the EPA budget, seeking to ban people based on religion, and trying to spend millions on unnecessary border protections.
Given how ass-backwards some states are in the US (sorry, southern states), I'm still a fan of big government over-riding the less progressive ideologies some southern states would love to cling to if allowed. I just disagree with the current administration's usage of that power.
VendettaRed07
Member
The bill of rights is a limit on the powers of the federal government. That's what it does. So currently, when people say that some college student protesting someone like Milo speaking at their university is an "affront to freedom of speech", is just wrong.
If someone wants to go to a University and tell black people, immigrants and gays to fuck off in a speech, people can tell that guy to fuck off before they get the chance to. That is an exercise of their first amendment rights as well. People on the right trying to argue that white supremacists have a right to large platforms and no one can say anything about it because "first amendment", don't know what they are talking about because the government isn't involved in this scenario at all.
The dangerous part of this comes from something i read recently which says that Human Rights are susceptible to a tragedy of the commons, whereby the Right has a certain amount of exhaustible capital. People draw on that capital to use the right to defend something unpopular. You can use free speech to defend Nazis, but it's like sending your sheep to graze in the village commons. You can do it once in a while, but do it too much and the commons become exhausted, and suddenly there's a demand for an amendment against Hate Speech.
Wrong. It is. What happens socially between parties engaged in discourse whether cordially or adversarially is something else entirely.
There is no legal recourse for losing an argument or presenting information that others find to be toxic and offensive.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Yup upon reading the article I immediately thought of the Ann Coulter/Milo Yannabitch/Richard Sphincter threads
capitalCORN
Member
As a Canadian. hate speech is illegal already so... not democratic?
My point is that free speech is a concept that should and does exist outside of its definition in the bill of rights. I'm not American so the bill of rights doesn't apply to me. Heck, Australia didn't even have free speech protected in its constitution.
My point isn't to defend racists. Let's use the victims of GamerGate who lost their jobs due to people harassing their employers due to speech that GamerGaters didn't like. Obviously we don't shrug our shoulders and say "Eh, No state violence involved, therefore no free speech concerns." It's never been easier for someone to lose their livelihood due to what one group may view as offensive speech. No one cares when it's the racist, but you don't exactly have to look hard to find people you agree with having their speech curtailed.
Like I said earlier, I'm not arguing against the consequences of speech. It's paradoxical and a bit of a contradiction, yeah. And I admit it's a balance thing. All I'm saying is free speech is something people should try and encourage outside of its implementation in law. Because what happens when the law changes?
A person who invests enough energy to write essays philosophizing about edge cases of the general principle of free speech that despite their apparent passion for the topic cannot bring themselves to go through the effort of saying in no uncertain terms that "racism is morally reprehensible" is showing quite a suspicious discrepancy.
Beware inconsistent demands for rigor! Someone who only perks up when it's time to defend Nazis yet bent over backwards to condemn Kaepernick doesn't actually care about absolute free speech.
Beware inconsistent demands for rigor! Someone who only perks up when it's time to defend Nazis yet bent over backwards to condemn Kaepernick doesn't actually care about absolute free speech.
User 73706
Banned
is there any chance you could, like, ask for a refund on my single or something
Gentleman Jack
Member
Why, do you make it a habit to say a lot of racist things?
Byakuya769
Member
Whatever.
You probably love welfare for the poor but hate corporate welfare. #bothsides
TestOfTide
Banned
I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time I see certain kinds of posters defending Shitheads like Milo or Coulter.
#bothsides amirite? Good thing we know better than these other schlubs. Wink wink
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked