Apparently.
-
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
That is literally what free speech is. That's it. Always has been. So your two choices are 1. We have always lived in an oppressive anti-speech society, or 2. You don't know what you're talking about.
I know which one I'm picking.
DragonGirl
Member
Humans run on Intuition. We lean one way or the other without much basis then post hoc rationalize why we did so. Intuition is in charge. Logic and Reason play the roles of Lawyer and PR Agent and are firmly in the employment of Intuition. Using "free speech" to justify a bias is just another example of this.
Imperfected
Member
You... do realize "Democrats love big government!" is a ridiculous Republican strawman and not an actual description of party policy or motivation, right?
Like, this isn't some absurd binary state where Democrats will always want more government and Republicans will want less, regardless of the issues on the table or the perceived efficacy of the presented initiatives/bureaus. That's not even what the Baby's First Politics breakdown of Federalism vs. States' Rights actually means, much less the reality.
As an example, Democrats have generally been opposed to the War on Drugs and the runaway growth of the prison-industrial complex for years. Republics have generally been opposed to regulations on the purchase and use of firearms for years. The party positions on these issues are largely opposing, meaning that both parties have, to some degree, advocated for both the expansion/empowerment and reduction/curtailing of the same exact agencies, and that's before you even get into things like the Republican policy stance being de facto in favor of an expanded/strengthened federal military, regardless of who's in power.
I know it's going to get in the way of you feeling like a third-party snowflake bristling with youthful disaffection, but please, please educate yourself.
Mr_Appleby
Member
I believe that anglicizes to "No shit, sherlock."
thecouncil
Banned
If I call someone a piece of shit and they punch me in the face for it, I don't see anyone crying "free speech". It's like it only applies to racists.
Maybe I'm not quite understanding, I think I always assumed that a lot of people who use 'free speech' to protect crappy speech are also crappy people.
I guess what's confusing me is that there seems to be a sort of... 'Told you so' attitude in this thread? Were there people who thought that every person who uses the 'free speech' argument in situations of racist speech were not also racist? Or is this study justifying the presumption that anyone who says 'free speech' in that situation is also racist (I don't think it does that at all).
Help me out here.
I guess what's confusing me is that there seems to be a sort of... 'Told you so' attitude in this thread? Were there people who thought that every person who uses the 'free speech' argument in situations of racist speech were not also racist? Or is this study justifying the presumption that anyone who says 'free speech' in that situation is also racist (I don't think it does that at all).
Help me out here.
Psychoward
Banned
I was gonna type up something about that line particularly, but yeah you said it better than I would have.
User 73706
Banned
User 73706
Banned
safe spaces exist for a reason bro
Neither dogpiling nor shaming someone stops them from speaking. Those are responses to speech, and they are speech themselves. Some people seem to think "free speech" means that people have to give them a platform, and listen and agree to their ideas. That's not the case. No one's stopping you from speaking by refusing you a platform, or disagreeing with you in number, or saying you're a bad person for saying what you said.
You can speak, but that creates no obligation in anyone to listen, take you seriously, or allow you to speak without response.
The weird part is that Wikipedia doesn't actually say that at the moment. It was a phrase injected, then reverted, for much the same reasons people are giving here. Currently, Wikipedia defines freedom of speech as:
But I'm sure certain wiki editors are hard at work trying to shove it back into the article.
Yep
"Well, if I say something stupid, my peers shouldn't be able to tell me to stop talking! They're impacting my freedom of speech!"
Get the fuck outta here with that
Like say a guy in a store is screaming insults at customers.
Should the business not be able to remove him from the premises? Because that's what these people mean by "societal sanction". Good luck on building a functioning society that way.
Find me a liberal representative that campaigned on "big government" like conservatives campaign on "small government."
That would be an example of "fighting words," which (in the US) are NOT protected speech.
"Liberals are for big government"-----translated------they don't want to let us fuck over minorities and poor people and women.
"We're for small government"--------translated--------we want to fuck over minorities and poor people and women.
You see it in opposition to abortion, getting the government involved in your reproduction, who and who can't marry, getting government involved in the relationship of people who love each other. You see it in their constant attempts to disenfranchise minorities from voting rights. "Small government" is horseshit. And it always has been.
"We're for small government"--------translated--------we want to fuck over minorities and poor people and women.
You see it in opposition to abortion, getting the government involved in your reproduction, who and who can't marry, getting government involved in the relationship of people who love each other. You see it in their constant attempts to disenfranchise minorities from voting rights. "Small government" is horseshit. And it always has been.
theprodigy
Member
Did someone just try to edit Wikipedia to win an argument on GAF?
yanipheonu
Member
Dictionary definitions in this case are, ironically, rarely definitive. Especially for broad ideas like freedom of speech.
For example, I probably couldn't get away with using a dictionary definition of a major philosophical idea for a Philosophy essay.
Frankly >_> I've seen Philosophy lectures devolve into what the definition of a definition is.
elrechazado
Banned
Found the amirox alt?
You have no idea what youre talking about. Oh and because youre getting piled on, I just want to make it clear that your right to free speech is not being impeded here.
Also Ironic that people using the excuse of societal sanctions are more so arguing against freedom of speech than those dog piling are. Which is hilarious to me.
So why not use the actual dictionary instead of Wiki where things can be edited?
When I show up to a campus to give a speech and people protest, thats an infringement of my free speech.
Well I mean, when I Google 'free speech definition', Google gives me this:
This makes no distinction between a state or non-state and actually seems too broad. So I used the next result, which was Wikipedia.
User 73706
Banned
if i'm in an e-debate and my opponent wins because SEO gave them an irrefutable academic source for their argument, that's an infringement on my free speech
I agree that freedom of speech should be reserved for the interaction between people and the government we shouldn't handwave societal sanction as if society is always right, we've been wrong in the past and there are things in which we are wrong now that we just don't know yet.
travisbickle
Member
I'd say both censorship and restraint are shorthand for state-sponsored intervention.
A private book publisher choosing not to publish your book because you're a shitty human being isn't censorship. And a university not allowing your promo tour on campus because it has no educational value isn't restraining your first amendment rights. You need the state to restrict speech.
Wiki is the fourth result in... I don't think you're being honest here.
You chose Wiki because it fit the narrative you were pushing.
Or maybe it's the way the phrase is typed into Google:
Edit: Typing it the way you did into my Google showed the same thing. So maybe it's only the US Google that shows it that way.
The issue is, you can't support free speech and take issue with social sanction, when the sanction is speech. If you believe that people have the right to speak freely, then you believe that society has the right to express their disdain and repulsion for your ideas.
Now, if by societal sanction you mean being put in the stocks by your village, absent the government, I think most of us can agree that's not okay either. But what people are complaining about when their speech is "infringed" is that people don't agree with them, and are drawing conclusions about their character based on their speech and behavior.
How would you even go about enforcing such a thing? By what mechanism could you possibly stop a "dogpile" either online or in real life, without doing the same thing to your opponent you claim is being done to you?
Now, if by societal sanction you mean being put in the stocks by your village, absent the government, I think most of us can agree that's not okay either. But what people are complaining about when their speech is "infringed" is that people don't agree with them, and are drawing conclusions about their character based on their speech and behavior.
How would you even go about enforcing such a thing? By what mechanism could you possibly stop a "dogpile" either online or in real life, without doing the same thing to your opponent you claim is being done to you?
You really calling me a liar over this? We can't have a conversation without you accusing me of falsifying something to score a point?
Sure, I get all that. That's what I said it was paradoxical and basically a contradiction. Isn't me telling someone not to dog pile a restriction of their free speech? But isn't the dog piling (and effectively stopping someone speaking) restricting their free speech? Round and round it goes. As I said in my very first post, I'm not trying to argue against consequences of speech. My worry is if we take free speech and define it solely in the context of the relationship between the citizen and the state, it takes away the impetus to try and encourage a culture of free speech between citizens.
I mean, if tomorrow we had a thread on here about a store refusing to sell GTA due to its content (which we've had before because Target in Australia did it), everyone would be crying censorship.
I'm not saying a company doesn't have the right to fire someone for speech. I'm saying I find it a worrying prospect if that becomes the norm. Because what is and isn't "acceptable" speech to society changes all the time and we'll all find ourselves on the wrong side of it at one point or another.
InsaneZero
Member
All of this only goes around and around if you consider free speech to be something more than the right to speak without being arrested. Your definition of free speech becomes paradoxical because you're trying to apply a concept enshrined as law as a social norm.
Dogpiling doesn't stop you from posting. You being upset that other people disagree with you may cause you to stop, but that's a choice you make. People disagreeing with you in number -- which is all dog-piling is -- doesn't silence you, particularly not on a forum where the communication is asynchronous.
No, people with a poor understanding of censorship would be crying censorship. Stores have the right to pick and choose what they sell. GTA's speech is not infringed because a store refuses to do business with them. The first amendment also includes the right of assembly, which has been found to include the right to free association. We are allowed to choose who we do business with, so long as the reasons are not discriminatory.
And? No one ever promised anyone that free speech came without friction. Such an idea is impossible. Companies, and the people that work there, have the right of association, too. And it's just as important as the right to free speech. That's part of why they're in the same amendment in the U.S. Constitution -- freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. The idea that you can say whatever you want, no matter how odious, and companies still have to work with you and people still have to treat you the same is just bizarre.
It's a state of existence that has never been and never will be. If you act like a giant public asshole, people are going to avoid you, and no one is going to want to work with you. That's not the government punishing you for speaking, that's a natural consequence of our freedom to choose who we want to associate with.
I would like to point out here that I've literally been fired twice for expressing opinions my bosses didn't like. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, I'm saying it's a necessary negative if you want free speech and free assembly.
There's a difference between the general principle of freedom of speech and first amendment rights. People conflate the two and usually completely misunderstand the latter only applies to protection from government intervention into your speech. If you get fired from work for shouting "gas the Jews", then they are restricting your freedom of speech, but tough shit. It's your employers right to do so, and has nothing to do with the first amendment.
Again, there is a difference between the general principle of censorship and government censorship. A store banning the sale of certain media due to its content can fall under de-facto censorship. Something that isn't being blocked by government, but is still being made unavailable to the public.
No, neither of those examples are restrictions on free speech.
And Target not carrying GTA is also not a free speech issue.
Edit: I was going to expand, but besada said it far better.
Brianimaniac
Banned
It's way more complicated than you're making it out to be.
http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04...have-a-right-to-speak-at-public-universities/
It doesn't, though, unless it's a monopoly. Plenty of other places through which GTA can sell, including an ability to sell directly to customers if they desired. Censorship requires the suppression of speech. The reason it's so often tied to government is that government is usually the only entity capable of actually suppressing speech.
Today it could be argued that other such entities exist, but one store refusing to carry your product isn't censorship in any form.
I feel like this ignores the human behaviour side of it though. Dog piling actively discourages a person from contributing any further in the conversation as well as discourages others from joining in on the same side, because who wants to jump in to defend the dude everyone is piling on (I'm not talking about this thread, or even NeoGAF in general, I mean more broadly). By treating anyone who presents unpopular speech as a pariah and shaming them, how are you not actively discouraging unpopular speech in the future?
I'd also disagree that dog piling is simply people disagreeing with you in number. I'd add the word 'aggressively' before disagreeing. Let me go find a Wiki definition to prove my point...
I don't disagree with any of that. Let's change the scenario - what if Target has an effective monopoly on video game sales?
cyclonekruse
Member
That's kind of to be expected, though. It's unlikely that you'll be called to defend inoffensive speech, after all.
Discouraging speech and restricting speech aren't the same though. No one is actually stopping you from speaking, and if you feel you are being "pressured" not to speak, that is entirely your own decision to restrict your own speech.
Thus you're not restricting free speech. They are still free to speak. That's literally the point of it all.
You don't have a right to not be discouraged.
And unless there is a literal monopoly enforced by law, that question is irrelevant.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked