What's worse: freedom of speech or controlling of freedom of speech

[nazrakin]

"De-platform"? That's a new one. Sorry but "free speech/expression" is protection from government only, period. You are not entitled to any platform outside of designated public forums.

Exactly. Google, Facebook, Twitter, ect have no obligation to let you use their products as free speech platforms. These are privately owned services that they have invested millions/billions of dollars into and if they decide that Nazi propaganda is bad for their business then they should have the freedom to remove it. Its no different than if a Tumbler nerd got into your house and started lecturing you on gender equality... you have every right to toss them out ass because your home is not a public platform.

[downnola]

On the contrary, I just don't subscribe to infantile notions.

Your attempt at irony I suppose?

The only relevant application is the legal applicable. Everything else is just whining. Outside of public forums/property, you are not entitled to any platform, ever, period. If you want a soap box to yell from, buy your own.

And you think the "free speech is an unwritten concept that fits my world view" tripe makes you any more credible? Please.

You're arguing against things I haven't said. I never said people are entitled to a platform. Do us both a favor and read John Stuart Mill.
@Haven, I'll reply tomorrow when I get a chance.

[Endus]

I'm arguing that de-platforming people on the basis of disagreement, while perfectly legal and within one's right, denies one's ability to have their ideas changed.

Not even remotely. There's a vast world of difference between not allowing someone to use your platform to spread their message, and not understanding that message. In fact, in most cases, it's because they understand that message that they choose to deny them the use of the platform.

These days it's mostly the right who are being denied the opportunity to speak, and rightly so in some cases I might add. However, there are also liberals, like Richard Dawkins, for example, who are having their events canceled for purely bullshit reasons.

Trying to make this about left- or right-wing politics is a distraction. It isn't based on political leanings in any way whatsoever. People spouting abusive or inflammatory speech have been denied platform access. If they're mostly on the right wing, then that's coincidental, unless you're seriously arguing that right-wing views are inherently abusive or inflammatory, which I'd disagree with.

If you want examples of the left being denied the ability to express themselves then simply look into the past and consider Rosa Luxemburg. I'd say being shot and thrown into a river for thinking differently is one of the more final forms of "de-platforming" you'll find.

That's a pretty fantastic false equivalence.

"Hey, Youtube demonetizing my anti-Muslim hate speech rants is totally the same thing as being shot and thrown into a river for talking about socialist theory and taking anti-war stances."

C'mon. That's obviously unreasonable.

[Adam Jensen]

I'd rather listen to racist pieces of shit like David Duke than allow for censorship.

Because with censorship in place, it's much harder to stop pieces of shit like David Duke should they ever get in power.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Free speech is fine right up until you have people advocating for violence, murder, genocide, and "peaceful ethnic cleansing" (lol American nazis).

Many will probably disagree with me because they claim some slippery slope fallacy, like "oh noes, then police will start arresting people for jokingly saying "I'm gonna kill you!"" as they run after them with a foam bat, but most sane and educated humans can tell the difference between genuine threats and joking talk.

[Hooked]

I have a long list of things the first amendment shouldn't protect, so I actually would be cool with getting rid of the first amendment altogether. We would soon find out who cant color inside the lines if the first amendment were removed.

[downnola]

Not even remotely. There's a vast world of difference between not allowing someone to use your platform to spread their message, and not understanding that message. In fact, in most cases, it's because they understand that message that they choose to deny them the use of the platform.

I don't buy that for a second. To assume that you fully comprehend someones views without allowing them to express those views in a public dialog, because you think you know everything there is to know about their point of view, is pure arrogance. Young adults in a university setting are exactly the kind of people who should have their axioms challenged. They don't have the capacity to fully understand what's going on around them. That's why they're in university to begin with. University de-platforming is only one example of "de-platforming" that happens, but it's the example I'm going with at the moment.

Trying to make this about left- or right-wing politics is a distraction. It isn't based on political leanings in any way whatsoever. People spouting abusive or inflammatory speech have been denied platform access. If they're mostly on the right wing, then that's coincidental, unless you're seriously arguing that right-wing views are inherently abusive or inflammatory, which I'd disagree with.

That's a pretty fantastic false equivalence.

"Hey, Youtube demonetizing my anti-Muslim hate speech rants is totally the same thing as being shot and thrown into a river for talking about socialist theory and taking anti-war stances."

C'mon. That's obviously unreasonable.

I'd actually understand the motivation behind the concept if those preaching it were also avowed communists

I'm not making this about left vs right. You brought it up first, which is why I gave the examples I did. If anything, I'm of the opinion that people willingly enter echo chambers, and that they ought to hear things they disagree with regardless of their political leanings.

My point is obviously lost in this exchange. I specifically wrote "If you want examples of the left being denied the ability to express themselves" for a reason. My argument goes beyond de-platforming and left vs right politics. I see utility in not assuming you know everything, and that even if someone has views that are 99% wrong, there is still something to be gained from that 1% that may be correct. Again, people are perfectly within their right to not grant others an audience, and they'll certainly rationalize the reasons for doing so. That doesn't mean they're not fools in the long run for doing it.

[Endus]

I don't buy that for a second. To assume that you fully comprehend someones views without allowing them to express those views in a public dialog, because you think you know everything there is to know about their point of view, is pure arrogance.

This only makes sense if you imagine that the person in question has literally never spoken at any point prior to the planned speech, and nobody has any idea what their views are.

Which is obviously ridiculous.

Young adults in a university setting are exactly the kind of people who should have their axioms challenged. They don't have the capacity to fully understand what's going on around them. That's why they're in university to begin with. University de-platforming is only one example of "de-platforming" that happens, but it's the example I'm going with at the moment.

They also have precisely zero capacity to actually make any kind of decisions at all regarding who the university hosts.

I'm not making this about left vs right. You brought it up first, which is why I gave the examples I did.

Went back to my first response to you. I didn't bring up left- or right-wing politics. I made on argument about whether the people complaining were communists or not, specifically, since their entire position is hostile to the concept of property rights, but that was about specific hypocrisy, not left/right politics in general.

[Hooked]

With all due respect endus, you live in Canada so kindly see your way out of our politics in the USA. We don't care what you spew.

[Endus]

With all due respect endus, you live in Canada so kindly see your way out of our politics in the USA.

This thread doesn't have anything to do with the United States. Not that you'd have a point if it were.

[Hooked]

This thread doesn't have anything to do with the United States. Not that you'd have a point if it were.

Freedom of speech is exclusively an American law.

[kail]

Arresting/fining anyone because of what they said is a dangerous line to cross, no matter how twisted or illogical their statements may be. Our form of free speech is fine as it allows anything but threats and panic causing speech.

[Endus]

Freedom of speech is exclusively an American law.

A claim that makes no sense whatsoever. Freedom of speech as a concept did not emerge in the United States originally, and it was not the first and has by no means been the only nation to incorporate that concept into their law.

[arandomuser]

Weird how freedom of speech has such a narrow definition for conservatives,
for example neo nazis saying "If i get into power i want to exterminate millions of people" although a direct threat of violence is considered "free speech"
but saying you dislike israels palestine policy is considered vioelnt extremism and you can now be fined and arrested for it, which they are perfectly fine with, what am i missing?

[Forogil]

Exactly. Google, Facebook, Twitter, ect have no obligation to let you use their products as free speech platforms. These are privately owned services that they have invested millions/billions of dollars into and if they decide that Nazi propaganda is bad for their business then they should have the freedom to remove it.

Contrary to what some say it's not only that simple.

Government actually influence the actions of those privately owned services: they can (and have) made laws making it a crime for them to host Nazi propaganda, strong-arm them without laws (including the threat of laws), or use other legal means to make the companies do their work (including juicy government contracts).

On the other hand Government can also require platforms to not censor contents (except as approved by the government) in order to get immunity from certain law-suits - this is done e.g. for phone and post communication in many countries. They can, of course, also strong-arm them in this way.

The reason they do this is both that the government doesn't have the resources to censor everything (cheaper), and because it shields the government from criticism since they don't seem to be doing the censoring.

An additional complication is that government make laws that can cause others to take action: defamation, copyright, etc. Thus anyone claiming to be a copyright holder can remove youtube videos (or their music tracks). It's easier for the platform (youtube) to remove everything requested than to fully investigate the claims.
Obviously a Government can also claim to be a copyright holder to supress free speech - even in other countries.

For actual censorship an important distinction is normally between pre-censoring (i.e. having someone look at the contents before it is published) and law-suits for illegal speech after it has been published. Many countries avoid pre-censoring except during wars, so regardless of how vile you are you may hold speeches, because the alternative would make it too easy for governments to suppress dissenters.

There are signs that government want Youtube etc to pre-censor the contents, and already in the 1920s the US government strong-armed the movie industry into "voluntarily" pre-censoring movies, whereas some other countries have (or have had) government pre-censorship of movies.

[Slant]

I'd rather listen to racist pieces of shit like David Duke than allow for censorship.

Because with censorship in place, it's much harder to stop pieces of shit like David Duke should they ever get in power.

If people like him ever get in power, censorship is the first thing he'd implement. Not the moderated control that we have currently, I mean actual censorship. Because you people have no idea what censorship really is. You're just using it, because it's a dramatic buzzword.

- - - Updated - - -

A claim that makes no sense whatsoever. Freedom of speech as a concept did not emerge in the United States originally, and it was not the first and has by no means been the only nation to incorporate that concept into their law.

I posted you something about our constitution yesterday. It feels like I could make that same post every day. :P

[downnola]

This only makes sense if you imagine that the person in question has literally never spoken at any point prior to the planned speech, and nobody has any idea what their views are.

Which is obviously ridiculous.

People barely understand their own beliefs, let alone the beliefs of others. Unless you have some evidence to suggest human beings have transcended cognitive bias and morphed into perfectly rational human beings, then I see no reason why dialog shouldn't still be considered a helpful tool.

The interaction between speaker and audience is the reason organizations invite guests to speak to begin with. It's that opportunity for dialog that is lost.

They also have precisely zero capacity to actually make any kind of decisions at all regarding who the university hosts.

Students are more than capable of influencing who is invited to speak or not. Even the threat of a campus protest can result in an event being canceled. A campus protest would be meaningless if they didnt have that influence.

[Hobb]

Freedom of speech is fine. Just need to remember it doesn't grant you freedom from consequences.

[Sama-81]

I'm not arguing that people should be compelled to provide platforms to anyone who wants one. I'm arguing that de-platforming people on the basis of disagreement, while perfectly legal and within one's right, denies one's ability to have their ideas changed. I'd never argue that anyone deserves an audience, but there are plenty of examples of people denying themselves the opportunity to have their axioms prodded.

It's worth pointing out as well, that in some countries it certainly isn't always perfectly within one's right to do so. Including countries more democratic than the US, and more democratic than Canada. Allowing people to do so absolutely isn't a given, as Endus seems to think it is.

[Felya]

There is nothing wrong with freedom of speech, because you can respond with shut up or just walk away. The issue people have with freedom of speech, is the ability to say shut up or walk away.

- - - Updated - - -

It's worth pointing out as well, that in some countries it certainly isn't always perfectly within one's right to do so. Including countries more democratic than the US, and more democratic than Canada. Allowing people to do so absolutely isn't a given, as Endus seems to think it is.

Because this comparison is illogical. If I start a forum and choose to block opposing opinion, it is the expression of my right to freedom of speech. It's my right to tell you to shut up. I'm not preventing you from starting your win forum and my success in having a larger audience is not taking away your rights. You are demanding to take away mine...

- - - Updated - - -

Freedom of speech is fine. Just need to remember it doesn't grant you freedom from consequences.

That's the only issue. We have freedom of speech, not freedom of consequence of speech. People blocking you from their property, due to your speech, does not inhibit you from starting your own. The fact that you don't want to invest in having as big of audience as your rival, means you are censoring your self.