Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Caring for others naturally limits our (general our) freedom.
That’s as maybe, but I don’t think people should be forced to care for others whether they want to or not.
For instance, some people cannot be named in news articles for legal reasons - for example, to protect the anonymity of domestic abuse victims. Should a newspaper editor be able to endanger a domestic abuse victim by publishing their name?
Not while it’s against the law, no. But I certainly think that in a free and democratic society they should be able to campaign for that law to be changed or repealed, and if enough people agree then it shall be so.
But do *you* think that law should be repealed? It clearly infringes on the freedom of speech of the newspaper editor, after all.
Did you miss the rest of my post, where I explained the difference?
It sounded like you were fine with laws restricting freedom of speech so long as people could argue against the laws. Which seems at odds with your previous insistence that supporting Nazism should be protected as free speech, hence me trying to clarify.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Caring for others naturally limits our (general our) freedom.
That’s as maybe, but I don’t think people should be forced to care for others whether they want to or not.
For instance, some people cannot be named in news articles for legal reasons - for example, to protect the anonymity of domestic abuse victims. Should a newspaper editor be able to endanger a domestic abuse victim by publishing their name?
Not while it’s against the law, no. But I certainly think that in a free and democratic society they should be able to campaign for that law to be changed or repealed, and if enough people agree then it shall be so.
But do *you* think that law should be repealed? It clearly infringes on the freedom of speech of the newspaper editor, after all.
Did you miss the rest of my post, where I explained the difference?
It sounded like you were fine with laws restricting freedom of speech so long as people could argue against the laws. Which seems at odds with your previous insistence that supporting Nazism should be protected as free speech, hence me trying to clarify.
Ok, yes, I can see that. Apologies for my lack of clarity.
The specific case of Germany banning support for Nazism is a bit of a meta-issue, in that the society has (as far as I’m aware, and I stand to be corrected if anyone knows otherwise) freely chosen via democratic means to limit their freedom of speech in that way. So I would say that the German people should be free to campaign for the law banning support for Nazism to be repealed, which if successful would then allow Nazi ideas to be campaigned for (and, of course, against) in subsequent elections.
My personal position, were I German (I’ve never even been to Germany) would be to support the first campaign but emphatically oppose the second.
Does that help to clarify where I’m coming from here?
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Caring for others naturally limits our (general our) freedom.
That’s as maybe, but I don’t think people should be forced to care for others whether they want to or not.
For instance, some people cannot be named in news articles for legal reasons - for example, to protect the anonymity of domestic abuse victims. Should a newspaper editor be able to endanger a domestic abuse victim by publishing their name?
Not while it’s against the law, no. But I certainly think that in a free and democratic society they should be able to campaign for that law to be changed or repealed, and if enough people agree then it shall be so.
But do *you* think that law should be repealed? It clearly infringes on the freedom of speech of the newspaper editor, after all.
Did you miss the rest of my post, where I explained the difference?
It sounded like you were fine with laws restricting freedom of speech so long as people could argue against the laws. Which seems at odds with your previous insistence that supporting Nazism should be protected as free speech, hence me trying to clarify.
Ok, yes, I can see that. Apologies for my lack of clarity.
The specific case of Germany banning support for Nazism is a bit of a meta-issue, in that the society has (as far as I’m aware, and I stand to be corrected if anyone knows otherwise) freely chosen via democratic means to limit their freedom of speech in that way. So I would say that the German people should be free to campaign for the law banning support for Nazism to be repealed, which if successful would then allow Nazi ideas to be campaigned for (and, of course, against) in subsequent elections.
My personal position, were I German (I’ve never even been to Germany) would be to support the first campaign but emphatically oppose the second.
Does that help to clarify where I’m coming from here?
So you think it should be legal for newspapers to name domestic violence victims but thing people should obey the law while it exists? Do I have that right?
Should newspapers be free to print the home addresses of people fleeing domestic violence?
Should newspapers be free to print the home addresses of people fleeing domestic violence?
I'd be curious to know what the law is on that in different places.
Obviously, the state can withhold releasing people's information for various reasons, but if I happen to have found out where someone is living via private channels, is there anything to stop me from publicizing that?
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Caring for others naturally limits our (general our) freedom.
That’s as maybe, but I don’t think people should be forced to care for others whether they want to or not.
For instance, some people cannot be named in news articles for legal reasons - for example, to protect the anonymity of domestic abuse victims. Should a newspaper editor be able to endanger a domestic abuse victim by publishing their name?
Not while it’s against the law, no. But I certainly think that in a free and democratic society they should be able to campaign for that law to be changed or repealed, and if enough people agree then it shall be so.
But do *you* think that law should be repealed? It clearly infringes on the freedom of speech of the newspaper editor, after all.
Did you miss the rest of my post, where I explained the difference?
It sounded like you were fine with laws restricting freedom of speech so long as people could argue against the laws. Which seems at odds with your previous insistence that supporting Nazism should be protected as free speech, hence me trying to clarify.
Ok, yes, I can see that. Apologies for my lack of clarity.
The specific case of Germany banning support for Nazism is a bit of a meta-issue, in that the society has (as far as I’m aware, and I stand to be corrected if anyone knows otherwise) freely chosen via democratic means to limit their freedom of speech in that way. So I would say that the German people should be free to campaign for the law banning support for Nazism to be repealed, which if successful would then allow Nazi ideas to be campaigned for (and, of course, against) in subsequent elections.
My personal position, were I German (I’ve never even been to Germany) would be to support the first campaign but emphatically oppose the second.
Does that help to clarify where I’m coming from here?
So you think it should be legal for newspapers to name domestic violence victims but thing people should obey the law while it exists? Do I have that right?
Should newspapers be free to print the home addresses of people fleeing domestic violence?
No, I don’t think newspapers should be allowed to name domestic violence victims and/or print their home addresses.
Yes, I think that people should be free to campaign for the law to be changed so that newspapers are allowed to name domestic violence victims and/or print their home addresses.
That I disagree (however strongly) with a given opinion does not mean I think other people should be prohibited from advocating for it.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Caring for others naturally limits our (general our) freedom.
That’s as maybe, but I don’t think people should be forced to care for others whether they want to or not.
For instance, some people cannot be named in news articles for legal reasons - for example, to protect the anonymity of domestic abuse victims. Should a newspaper editor be able to endanger a domestic abuse victim by publishing their name?
Not while it’s against the law, no. But I certainly think that in a free and democratic society they should be able to campaign for that law to be changed or repealed, and if enough people agree then it shall be so.
But do *you* think that law should be repealed? It clearly infringes on the freedom of speech of the newspaper editor, after all.
Did you miss the rest of my post, where I explained the difference?
It sounded like you were fine with laws restricting freedom of speech so long as people could argue against the laws. Which seems at odds with your previous insistence that supporting Nazism should be protected as free speech, hence me trying to clarify.
Ok, yes, I can see that. Apologies for my lack of clarity.
The specific case of Germany banning support for Nazism is a bit of a meta-issue, in that the society has (as far as I’m aware, and I stand to be corrected if anyone knows otherwise) freely chosen via democratic means to limit their freedom of speech in that way. So I would say that the German people should be free to campaign for the law banning support for Nazism to be repealed, which if successful would then allow Nazi ideas to be campaigned for (and, of course, against) in subsequent elections.
My personal position, were I German (I’ve never even been to Germany) would be to support the first campaign but emphatically oppose the second.
Does that help to clarify where I’m coming from here?
So you think it should be legal for newspapers to name domestic violence victims but thing people should obey the law while it exists? Do I have that right?
Should newspapers be free to print the home addresses of people fleeing domestic violence?
No, I don’t think newspapers should be allowed to name domestic violence victims and/or print their home addresses.
Yes, I think that people should be free to campaign for the law to be changed so that newspapers are allowed to name domestic violence victims and/or print their home addresses.
That I disagree (however strongly) with a given opinion does not mean I think other people should be prohibited from advocating for it.
So why is, in your schema, calling all widgetarians dangerous criminals who are a threat to women and children protected free speech but naming a victim of a widgetarian domestic abuser as an example isn't? What's the line? Why is it there?
The line is between what I personally happen to think is right and whether anyone who disagrees with me should be allowed to say so.
I mean, what kind of person would I be if I believed that everyone should be permanently forced by law to conform to my own view of what is right, with no means of changing or even trying to change that law? A fucking tyrant, that’s what.
Allowing newspapers to print details of women and children in danger has to be contrasted to superinjuctions protecting those rich enough to employ the best legal talent.
The law clearly serves those who make it, not the masses subject to it.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Good thing he doesn’t seem to be “pretending” anything or being “disingenuous,” i.e., dishonest, then. You know that people can disagree with each other without accusing each other of being dishonest, right? That you can think of someone as merely wrong?
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Good thing he doesn’t seem to be “pretending” anything or being “disingenuous,” i.e., dishonest, then. You know that people can disagree with each other without accusing each other of being dishonest, right? That you can think of someone as merely wrong?
There is a repeated pattern where the far-right attempt to gaslight others into accepting their bigotry. The pattern involves making utterly baseless accusations of bias "my freedom of speech is being infringed!" when there is no right to speech in every space. Everybody implicitly knows this; you can't just enter someone else's living room, strip naked and recite the works of Tennison. Nobody has that right unless invited.
Second, even if one is being prevented from airing views in a conference, that is not infringing rights given that there are plenty of other spaces where those views are regularly heard. A person's rights to air views generally are not infringed by rules in specific places.
Third, one can have a discussion about liberal democracy and the history and philosophy behind it, but it is incoherent to do that without understanding and referencing the basis of the same, developed over hundreds of years.
And no to Nazis.
Either one understands all these things or one is pretending not to understand them. There is no other option. I will not be gaslit.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Good thing he doesn’t seem to be “pretending” anything or being “disingenuous,” i.e., dishonest, then. You know that people can disagree with each other without accusing each other of being dishonest, right? That you can think of someone as merely wrong?
There is a repeated pattern where the far-right attempt to gaslight others into accepting their bigotry. The pattern involves making utterly baseless accusations of bias "my freedom of speech is being infringed!" when there is no right to speech in every space. Everybody implicitly knows this; you can't just enter someone else's living room, strip naked and recite the works of Tennison. Nobody has that right unless invited.
Second, even if one is being prevented from airing views in a conference, that is not infringing rights given that there are plenty of other spaces where those views are regularly heard. A person's rights to air views generally are not infringed by rules in specific places.
We are not talking about specific places, we are talking about society as a whole. We are talking about whether those “plenty of other spaces” should exist at all.
Third, one can have a discussion about liberal democracy and the history and philosophy behind it, but it is incoherent to do that without understanding and referencing the basis of the same, developed over hundreds of years.
And no to Nazis.
Either one understands all these things or one is pretending not to understand them. There is no other option. I will not be gaslit.
It is possible to understand something and still disagree with it. Are you really so fundamentalist about the Rightness of your opinions that you think the only possible reasons someone could ever express disagreement with them are idiocy, dishonesty or evil?
And once again, for the avoidance of doubt, what I’m talking about here is whether people with other ideas than yours should be allowed the same freedom to express those ideas that you have to express yours. I am not talking about whether their ideas are correct, or moral, or in any way good.
I can (and do) say “no to Nazis”, and mean it, and still say that expressing Nazi beliefs should not be a crime. I do not see any contradiction between those two positions. Both of them are firmly rooted in my belief in freedom, equality and fairness for all people.
It’s like ChastMastr said, I can hate what someone says with the fiery intensity of a thousand suns and still defend to the death their right to say it.
Again, this is incoherent. Politicians in the British parliament already have rights to speech. There are public spaces set up for free discussion.
The whole notion of "free speech" is that nobody is told what to say by the state. It did not and does not mean that people have the right to mouth-off wherever they please.
There's a notion, which one would know if there had been any appreciation of the history and theory of liberal democracy, that a) human flourishing means having the freedom to hold ideas that others don't like but b) that there are guard-rails surrounding hurt to others. Hence one might think anti-Semitic things at your dinner table but you don't get to incite violence by shouting them in front of a synogogue.
There is discussion of where these lines are and the consequences. Those discussions happen in Parliament where laws are debated.
It is simply gaslighting to continue to imply that we are not a liberal democracy because people can't just say whatever is on their mind with no consequences. And also that somehow the state is into mind control and captured by the "woke mind virus" because fascists can't just say whatever they like wherever they like.
Pretty hard to change laws when the law makers are among the richest people in the country.
Oh, well, that’s different then. If it’s hard to succeed via democratic means then you should absolutely just abandon democracy and force the whole of society to conform to your ideals whether they like it or not. That’s the only just and moral thing to do.
Pretty hard to change laws when the law makers are among the richest people in the country.
Oh, well, that’s different then. If it’s hard to succeed via democratic means then you should absolutely just abandon democracy and force the whole of society to conform to your ideals whether they like it or not. That’s the only just and moral thing to do.
/sarcasm
It's strange that you seem to see yourself as a protector of democracy despite continuing to advocate for allowing Nazi hate-speech despite this being continually determined unacceptable by elected politicians, in particular those who know history and lived through situations where fascism flourished.
Democracy is good when it agrees with your extreme position but bad when it legislates to protect lives?
Again, this is incoherent. Politicians in the British parliament already have rights to speech. There are public spaces set up for free discussion.
The whole notion of "free speech" is that nobody is told what to say by the state. It did not and does not mean that people have the right to mouth-off wherever they please.
There's a notion, which one would know if there had been any appreciation of the history and theory of liberal democracy, that a) human flourishing means having the freedom to hold ideas that others don't like but b) that there are guard-rails surrounding hurt to others. Hence one might think anti-Semitic things at your dinner table but you don't get to incite violence by shouting them in front of a synogogue.
There is discussion of where these lines are and the consequences. Those discussions happen in Parliament where laws are debated.
It is simply gaslighting to continue to imply that we are not a liberal democracy because people can't just say whatever is on their mind with no consequences. And also that somehow the state is into mind control and captured by the "woke mind virus" because fascists can't just say whatever they like wherever they like.
Have you actually been reading this thread? You know, the one called “The end of liberal democracies”? The one where some people have been saying certain ideas should be utterly prohibited from society as a whole (i.e. by the state) in the name of what they consider to be the common good? That public spaces set up for free discussion should not exist? That discussion of where the lines are and the consequences for crossing them should cease, lest it result in the lines being moved in what they consider to be the wrong way?
Have you missed the posts where I’ve said, several times now, that I don’t have a problem with the law banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue, I just have a problem with anyone who says that law should never ever be allowed to be repealed no matter how many people vote for a Party that wants to do so (and that I have an even bigger problem with anyone who says such a Party should be banned from even existing in the first place)?
You have repeatedly accused me of dishonesty, of gaslighting, and yet it is you who keeps acting as if I’m talking about people having the inalienable right to, as you put it, mouth off wherever they please when I have stated clearly, unequivocally, and repeatedly that that is not what I’m talking about when I refer to freedom of speech. So which of us is really being dishonest here? Which of us is really trying to gaslight the other?
Have you missed the posts where I’ve said, several times now, that I don’t have a problem with the law banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue,
I have to say I didn't get that from your posts at all. I thought you were saying you thought it was bad for people to do that but it shouldn't be illegal. I couldn't work out where you were going with arguing against prohibition of campaigning for changing laws because as far as I'm aware no-one has advocated that.
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing, as anyone who has ever said the wrong thing (which is all of us) knows from experience.
OK, so what are you thinking of as the prevailing view and what are you talking about with it being inane?
Being able to say what you like.
Freedom of speech, in the sense of being a human right, is the principle that individuals should be able to articulate ideas and opinions without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal sanction. But this right is not unconstrained. As the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights puts it, it is subject to restrictions necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security, public order, public health and morals.
In practice, communities of human beings have their own strong ideas about what you can or can't say, typically expressed through social norms, and typically mediated according to context. In the case of text-based discussion among people from disparate backgrounds, it isn't unusual to make these norms more explicit - to spell them out. These norms are for the benefit of the community, that people can engage in discussion in the confidence that others are going to respect them.
There seems to be a rather incoherent incompatibility between wanting to belong to a community, to take part in its activities, but in not wanting
to be considerate of the other members of the community when you do so.
In The Friends of Voltaire, Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. I'm afraid I find appeals to this particularly inane, when it is applied without reference to the community or context in which it is being campaigned for.
Have you missed the posts where I’ve said, several times now, that I don’t have a problem with the law banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue,
I have to say I didn't get that from your posts at all. I thought you were saying you thought it was bad for people to do that but it shouldn't be illegal. I couldn't work out where you were going with arguing against prohibition of campaigning for changing laws because as far as I'm aware no-one has advocated that.
As many others have pointed out, freedom of speech isn’t the same as freedom to harass, bully, intimidate or verbally assault others. I think those things are wrong no matter the content of what is being said or who it is being said to - so, essentially, I agree with banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue because doing so constitutes harassment, bullying, intimidation and verbal assault, not because of the antisemitism in and of itself.
I do think people should be free to express antisemitic views in a manner that is not directly harassing, bullying, intimidating or verbally assaulting someone else.
For the record, I also don’t think offending someone inherently constitutes harassment, bullying, intimidation or verbal assault.
Democracy is good when it agrees with your extreme position but bad when it legislates to protect lives?
Legislation enacted by a government put in place by society as a whole via a free and fair election is inherently democratic.
But so is the possibility of a different government, also put in place by society as a whole via a free and fair election, repealing that legislation.
The term “society as a whole” is relevant here, as society includes many who can’t vote, many who don’t vote and after that voting, we get parliaments, assemblies and governments that legislate and govern in the interests of things other than society as a whole. Usually, as I rather harp on about ad nauseam, this is in the interests of corporations and big business, which hold governments to ransom through economic threats.
Put plainly, the democratic process is a sham.
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing
So what, you think everyone would be better off and happier if they were only allowed to say the things the government permits them to say?
Assuming society needs a centralised form of government, why would it need to get involved in the mediation of speech?
I think this place is a fairly straightforward example of a community where freedom of speech is curtailed for the common good.
I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment.
Another significant aspect is inequality. But I do think it's the end of the line for liberalism, and about time. Roll on post-liberalism (if we're lucky).
Since you appear to be welcoming this, what exactly do you mean by liberalism in this case? I know there are some differences in meaning, depending on where in the world one is located. How would you distinguish it from “liberal democracy“ or for that matter “liberal politics“ as understood in the United States (liberal as contrasted with conservative)?
"Liberal" and "democracy" are two different things. Democracy isn't inherent to liberalism - it's more-or-less compatible, but the combination has given rise to a particular conception of what modern societies look like, and how they function.
My understanding is that there's a distinction between social liberalism and classical liberalism, in that social liberalism allows for more government intervention.
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing, as anyone who has ever said the wrong thing (which is all of us) knows from experience. My guess is that it's a corrective to historically draconian punishments for saying the wrong thing about the wrong person at the wrong time.
Also, returning to individualism, modern libel laws illustrate to me the extent to which freedom of speech has become wrapped up in an ideological expression of individualism.
If you're moving toward the "common good", in restricting Freedoms, you are naturally moving away from a liberal democracy. Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Like I said, this happens both on the left and the right. The extremes of which are communism ( on the left) and facism ( on the right). But really, they're the same thing pretty much.
I don't think you really understand the history and development of liberal democracy. Nobody, including John Stuart Mill, ever described a state where there are no boundaries to behaviour. Therefore the discussion is not whether there are any in a liberal democracy but where the lines should be drawn.
The way you frame the discussion is incredibly disingenuous.
The discussion is not being framed by myself but by many in the world. I gave an example in the OP.
The International IDEA is also framing the discussion with it's Global State of Democracy report here or it's more recent article here.
Or you can look to the Variaties of Democracy recent survey here.
Or even academic articles from Oxford if you prefer.
The evidence is liberal democracies are becoming more authoritarian.
There's three aspects of freedom of speech. One is political: the right to criticise the government or check the government's statements or otherwise speak truth to and about power without reprisal.
The other two are communal: the right to offer, defend, or criticise any opinions or hypotheses; and the right of all people to participate in debates about those opinions. The problem we're dealing with here comes when some participants offer opinions that other participants should be effectively excluded from debate - especially on the basis of identity rather than opinion.
I'm listening. But I don't understand your last comment. Can you expand please?
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Caring for others naturally limits our (general our) freedom.
That’s as maybe, but I don’t think people should be forced to care for others whether they want to or not.
For instance, some people cannot be named in news articles for legal reasons - for example, to protect the anonymity of domestic abuse victims. Should a newspaper editor be able to endanger a domestic abuse victim by publishing their name?
Not while it’s against the law, no. But I certainly think that in a free and democratic society they should be able to campaign for that law to be changed or repealed, and if enough people agree then it shall be so.
That’s what I mean by freedom of speech.
Look, we’ve got to have laws, or society just won’t function. But the only fair way to create those laws in a free society is via democratic means whereby everyone is free to state their case, and whichever case wins the day via a free and fair election becomes the law. But - and this is the important bit - that process never stops. Everybody stays free to state their case, and we hold regular elections so that changes in societal opinion can become reflected in the law. Nobody gets to decide that once they’ve got the laws they want in place then the freedoms and processes that enabled them to do so should just be removed so that nobody can ever change those laws again. It’s wrong when they try to do it by getting rid of the free and fair elections, and it’s also wrong when they try to do it by getting rid of the freedom for everybody to state their case in the first place.
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing
So what, you think everyone would be better off and happier if they were only allowed to say the things the government permits them to say?
Assuming society needs a centralised form of government, why would it need to get involved in the mediation of speech?
I think this place is a fairly straightforward example of a community where freedom of speech is curtailed for the common good.
I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment.
Another significant aspect is inequality. But I do think it's the end of the line for liberalism, and about time. Roll on post-liberalism (if we're lucky).
Since you appear to be welcoming this, what exactly do you mean by liberalism in this case? I know there are some differences in meaning, depending on where in the world one is located. How would you distinguish it from “liberal democracy“ or for that matter “liberal politics“ as understood in the United States (liberal as contrasted with conservative)?
"Liberal" and "democracy" are two different things. Democracy isn't inherent to liberalism - it's more-or-less compatible, but the combination has given rise to a particular conception of what modern societies look like, and how they function.
My understanding is that there's a distinction between social liberalism and classical liberalism, in that social liberalism allows for more government intervention.
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing, as anyone who has ever said the wrong thing (which is all of us) knows from experience. My guess is that it's a corrective to historically draconian punishments for saying the wrong thing about the wrong person at the wrong time.
Also, returning to individualism, modern libel laws illustrate to me the extent to which freedom of speech has become wrapped up in an ideological expression of individualism.
If you're moving toward the "common good", in restricting Freedoms, you are naturally moving away from a liberal democracy. Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Like I said, this happens both on the left and the right. The extremes of which are communism ( on the left) and facism ( on the right). But really, they're the same thing pretty much.
I don't think you really understand the history and development of liberal democracy. Nobody, including John Stuart Mill, ever described a state where there are no boundaries to behaviour. Therefore the discussion is not whether there are any in a liberal democracy but where the lines should be drawn.
The way you frame the discussion is incredibly disingenuous.
The discussion is not being framed by myself but by many in the world. I gave an example in the OP.
The International IDEA is also framing the discussion with it's Global State of Democracy report here or it's more recent article here.
Or you can look to the Variaties of Democracy recent survey here.
Or even academic articles from Oxford if you prefer.
The evidence is liberal democracies are becoming more authoritarian.
Have you read them? They are becoming more authoritarian because Nazis and the Far-Right are on the rise. How you think "liberal democracy" is in decline somehow because they are doing liberal things like protecting others and increasing rights is completely beyond my understanding.
In short none of these reports are suggesting that liberal democracies are becoming authoritarian because of the "woke mind virus" or because Nazis do not have freedom to shout slogans.
Have you missed the posts where I’ve said, several times now, that I don’t have a problem with the law banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue,
I have to say I didn't get that from your posts at all. I thought you were saying you thought it was bad for people to do that but it shouldn't be illegal. I couldn't work out where you were going with arguing against prohibition of campaigning for changing laws because as far as I'm aware no-one has advocated that.
As many others have pointed out, freedom of speech isn’t the same as freedom to harass, bully, intimidate or verbally assault others. I think those things are wrong no matter the content of what is being said or who it is being said to - so, essentially, I agree with banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue because doing so constitutes harassment, bullying, intimidation and verbal assault, not because of the antisemitism in and of itself.
I do think people should be free to express antisemitic views in a manner that is not directly harassing, bullying, intimidating or verbally assaulting someone else.
For the record, I also don’t think offending someone inherently constitutes harassment, bullying, intimidation or verbal assault.
Again then you need to go and think about the difference between fascists and One Nation Tories. And have a think about what happened in 1930s Germany. And read any of the mountains of literature written since the 1940s about the signs of authoritarianism.
Fascism is about dominance and violence. It just is.
Have you missed the posts where I’ve said, several times now, that I don’t have a problem with the law banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue,
I have to say I didn't get that from your posts at all. I thought you were saying you thought it was bad for people to do that but it shouldn't be illegal. I couldn't work out where you were going with arguing against prohibition of campaigning for changing laws because as far as I'm aware no-one has advocated that.
As many others have pointed out, freedom of speech isn’t the same as freedom to harass, bully, intimidate or verbally assault others. I think those things are wrong no matter the content of what is being said or who it is being said to - so, essentially, I agree with banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue because doing so constitutes harassment, bullying, intimidation and verbal assault, not because of the antisemitism in and of itself.
I do think people should be free to express antisemitic views in a manner that is not directly harassing, bullying, intimidating or verbally assaulting someone else.
For the record, I also don’t think offending someone inherently constitutes harassment, bullying, intimidation or verbal assault.
Offence isn't the issue. Framing it that way is how we get mocking nonsense about "hurty words" for actual threats to kill and crap about snowflakes when anyone dares speak back.
It's about voiced threats to people's safety, and speech which normalises attitudes which some people express through violence. Many vulnerable groups are experiencing more harassment now because social media is riddled with hate speech.
Have you missed the posts where I’ve said, several times now, that I don’t have a problem with the law banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue,
I have to say I didn't get that from your posts at all. I thought you were saying you thought it was bad for people to do that but it shouldn't be illegal. I couldn't work out where you were going with arguing against prohibition of campaigning for changing laws because as far as I'm aware no-one has advocated that.
As many others have pointed out, freedom of speech isn’t the same as freedom to harass, bully, intimidate or verbally assault others. I think those things are wrong no matter the content of what is being said or who it is being said to - so, essentially, I agree with banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue because doing so constitutes harassment, bullying, intimidation and verbal assault, not because of the antisemitism in and of itself.
I do think people should be free to express antisemitic views in a manner that is not directly harassing, bullying, intimidating or verbally assaulting someone else.
For the record, I also don’t think offending someone inherently constitutes harassment, bullying, intimidation or verbal assault.
Again then you need to go and think about the difference between fascists and One Nation Tories. And have a think about what happened in 1930s Germany. And read any of the mountains of literature written since the 1940s about the signs of authoritarianism.
Fascism is about dominance and violence. It just is.
Considering it was the founder of One Nation Toryism who made Victoria the Empress Of India, I'd say dominance and violence weren't totally absent from that tradition either.
Have you actually been reading this thread? You know, the one called “The end of liberal democracies”? The one where some people have been saying certain ideas should be utterly prohibited from society as a whole (i.e. by the state) in the name of what they consider to be the common good? That public spaces set up for free discussion should not exist? That discussion of where the lines are and the consequences for crossing them should cease, lest it result in the lines being moved in what they consider to be the wrong way?
I don't know which thread you've been reading, but when it comes to freedom of speech, this is the thread where I said:
Assuming society needs a centralised form of government, why would it need to get involved in the mediation of speech?
The laws that govern society are not the immediate issue. The expression of speech happens in a multitude of spaces, online and offline, mediated by a multitude of individuals, groups, communities, organisations and other entities. The degree and type of freedom anyone has to express themselves in a given space depends on how the space is mediated, and the rules, implicit and/or explicit, that are brought to bear.
As far as I can tell, what you are advocating for is the "right" for you (or anyone else) to advocate for any possible point of view in any shared space in which you happen to be expressing your opinion, regardless of what the other people sharing the space with you think is appropriate.
I do think people should be free to express antisemitic views in a manner that is not directly harassing, bullying, intimidating or verbally assaulting someone else.
For the record, I also don’t think offending someone inherently constitutes harassment, bullying, intimidation or verbal assault.
When does one thing cross over into the other, in your view, if ever? How do you deal with issues of power?
For instance; should they be free to express antisemitic views in a limited circulation magazine? How about a book? How about a national newspaper? Most of the national newspapers? Most national newspapers and TV channels?
The other two are communal: the right to offer, defend, or criticise any opinions or hypotheses; and the right of all people to participate in debates about those opinions. The problem we're dealing with here comes when some participants offer opinions that other participants should be effectively excluded from debate - especially on the basis of identity rather than opinion.
I'm listening. But I don't understand your last comment. Can you expand please?
Opinions that certain people based on background, gender, etc ought not to be able to speak challenge free speech as such. Less obvious, opinions that certain people are inherently stupid or dishonest and therefore are not worth listening to also challenge free speech. There are more insidious ways of challenging their freedom of speech as well: for example repeating falsehoods or arguments that have already been refuted about them, or otherwise taking up time and attention and making it difficult to make their voice heard.
...opinions that certain people are inherently stupid or dishonest and therefore are not worth listening to also challenge free speech.
Well, sure. But that works on an individual level as well. If someone says "Stetson is inherently stupid and therefore not worth listening to", that challenges my free speech. But I don't think people should be prohibited from saying that.
I think restrictions on speech are usually justified by the prevention of active harm, eg. someone will commit acts of physical violence against the defamed person or group, not passive harm like "People will stop listening to what you have to say." Because there's no inalienable right for anyone to have their opinions listened to.
Have you actually been reading this thread? You know, the one called “The end of liberal democracies”? The one where some people have been saying certain ideas should be utterly prohibited from society as a whole (i.e. by the state) in the name of what they consider to be the common good? That public spaces set up for free discussion should not exist? That discussion of where the lines are and the consequences for crossing them should cease, lest it result in the lines being moved in what they consider to be the wrong way?
I don't know which thread you've been reading, but when it comes to freedom of speech, this is the thread where I said:
Assuming society needs a centralised form of government, why would it need to get involved in the mediation of speech?
The laws that govern society are not the immediate issue. The expression of speech happens in a multitude of spaces, online and offline, mediated by a multitude of individuals, groups, communities, organisations and other entities. The degree and type of freedom anyone has to express themselves in a given space depends on how the space is mediated, and the rules, implicit and/or explicit, that are brought to bear.
As far as I can tell, what you are advocating for is the "right" for you (or anyone else) to advocate for any possible point of view in any shared space in which you happen to be expressing your opinion, regardless of what the other people sharing the space with you think is appropriate.
Nothing in anything I’ve said suggests that anyone should be compelled to agree with anything anyone else says, or to refrain from disagreeing - however strongly - with anything they say. On the contrary, I think that the right to disagree with anything anyone - anyone - else says is the most fundamental part of freedom of speech as I understand it.
If your position is that government should not legally prohibit any form of speech, and therefore that no form of speech should attract criminal penalties, but that individual people should be free to decide not to associate with those whose views they find abhorrent then that’s fine with me.
If Person A finds Person B’s views so objectionable that they will refuse to engage with Person B on any level, that they will leave any shared public space that Person B enters, and that they will prevent Person B from entering any private space that they (Person A) control, that’s fine. But if Person A seeks to have Person B removed from society itself, or otherwise prevented from expressing their views even in shared public spaces, even if Person A isn’t present, then that’s different. And I would say the same thing regardless of what the views of the people concerned are, and regardless of whether I’m Person A, Person B, or a disinterested third party observer.
But if your position is that only certain views should be allowed to be expressed in shared public spaces then we very quickly come up against the question of who gets to decide which views those are. And that, in turn, very quickly ends up with people saying words to the effect of “I should get to decide, because I’m RIGHT, dammit”. The problem with which is, everyone thinks they’re RIGHT. There’s no independent or objective definition of RIGHT barring God Himself coming down on a cloud of fire and declaring unequivocally and inarguably what RIGHT is. So, until that happens, it behooves us all to have a bit of fucking humility, to accept that however firmly we believe what we believe we are only human and can be wrong, and therefore to accept that we should allow all opinions to be freely advocated for in the democratic process. Which, again, is emphatically NOT the same thing as saying everyone should be free to do what they like whenever and wherever they like, just that they should be free to state their case alongside all the other cases and the electorate as a whole should be free to decide which case to accept and thus which laws to live by.
Have you actually been reading this thread? You know, the one called “The end of liberal democracies”? The one where some people have been saying certain ideas should be utterly prohibited from society as a whole (i.e. by the state) in the name of what they consider to be the common good? That public spaces set up for free discussion should not exist? That discussion of where the lines are and the consequences for crossing them should cease, lest it result in the lines being moved in what they consider to be the wrong way?
I don't know which thread you've been reading, but when it comes to freedom of speech, this is the thread where I said:
Assuming society needs a centralised form of government, why would it need to get involved in the mediation of speech?
The laws that govern society are not the immediate issue. The expression of speech happens in a multitude of spaces, online and offline, mediated by a multitude of individuals, groups, communities, organisations and other entities. The degree and type of freedom anyone has to express themselves in a given space depends on how the space is mediated, and the rules, implicit and/or explicit, that are brought to bear.
As far as I can tell, what you are advocating for is the "right" for you (or anyone else) to advocate for any possible point of view in any shared space in which you happen to be expressing your opinion, regardless of what the other people sharing the space with you think is appropriate.
Nothing in anything I’ve said suggests that anyone should be compelled to agree with anything anyone else says, or to refrain from disagreeing - however strongly - with anything they say. On the contrary, I think that the right to disagree with anything anyone - anyone - else says is the most fundamental part of freedom of speech as I understand it.
If your position is that government should not legally prohibit any form of speech, and therefore that no form of speech should attract criminal penalties, but that individual people should be free to decide not to associate with those whose views they find abhorrent then that’s fine with me.
If Person A finds Person B’s views so objectionable that they will refuse to engage with Person B on any level, that they will leave any shared public space that Person B enters, and that they will prevent Person B from entering any private space that they (Person A) control, that’s fine. But if Person A seeks to have Person B removed from society itself, or otherwise prevented from expressing their views even in shared public spaces, even if Person A isn’t present, then that’s different. And I would say the same thing regardless of what the views of the people concerned are, and regardless of whether I’m Person A, Person B, or a disinterested third party observer.
But if your position is that only certain views should be allowed to be expressed in shared public spaces then we very quickly come up against the question of who gets to decide which views those are. And that, in turn, very quickly ends up with people saying words to the effect of “I should get to decide, because I’m RIGHT, dammit”. The problem with which is, everyone thinks they’re RIGHT. There’s no independent or objective definition of RIGHT barring God Himself coming down on a cloud of fire and declaring unequivocally and inarguably what RIGHT is. So, until that happens, it behooves us all to have a bit of fucking humility, to accept that however firmly we believe what we believe we are only human and can be wrong, and therefore to accept that we should allow all opinions to be freely advocated for in the democratic process. Which, again, is emphatically NOT the same thing as saying everyone should be free to do what they like whenever and wherever they like, just that they should be free to state their case alongside all the other cases and the electorate as a whole should be free to decide which case to accept and thus which laws to live by.
No. The Far-Right have places where their views can be aired, but these are almost always places where they are immediately challenged. On the whole they are ideas held by deplorable people with weak constitutions, so they don't like being "picked on" in these spaces so look for other places where they can dominate the discussion.
The person who thinks that women should not have high academic positions does not make that case in University Council or in the pages of an academic journal, because they know that they would be robustly challenged. They make these stupid comments in places where they can belittle women, in the common room and in a crowded room at a conference.
The person who thinks that women should not have high academic positions does not make that case in University Council or in the pages of an academic journal, because they know that they would be robustly challenged. They make these stupid comments in places where they can belittle women, in the common room and in a crowded room at a conference.
A hundred or so years ago, those positions were reversed. The people who thought women should be allowed to have high academic positions would have been laughed out of University Council or academic journals. So they made their case elsewhere, and other people started listening and agreeing, and change happened. Was that wrong? And if not, on what grounds is it wrong for those who disagree to use the same means to attempt to reverse that change?
The person who thinks that women should not have high academic positions does not make that case in University Council or in the pages of an academic journal, because they know that they would be robustly challenged. They make these stupid comments in places where they can belittle women, in the common room and in a crowded room at a conference.
A hundred or so years ago, those positions were reversed. The people who thought women should be allowed to have high academic positions would have been laughed out of University Council or academic journals. So they made their case elsewhere, and other people started listening and agreeing, and change happened. Was that wrong? And if not, on what grounds is it wrong for those who disagree to use the same means to attempt to reverse that change?
About 100 years ago women could not earn degrees from Oxford so had no access to University Council. 150 years ago no woman could get a degree from any British university.
The person who thinks that women should not have high academic positions does not make that case in University Council or in the pages of an academic journal, because they know that they would be robustly challenged. They make these stupid comments in places where they can belittle women, in the common room and in a crowded room at a conference.
A hundred or so years ago, those positions were reversed. The people who thought women should be allowed to have high academic positions would have been laughed out of University Council or academic journals. So they made their case elsewhere, and other people started listening and agreeing, and change happened. Was that wrong? And if not, on what grounds is it wrong for those who disagree to use the same means to attempt to reverse that change?
About 100 years ago women could not earn degrees from Oxford so had no access to University Council. 150 years ago no woman could get a degree from any British university.
So no. Not the same.
Well, @Marvin said "the people who thought that women
The person who thinks that women should not have high academic positions does not make that case in University Council or in the pages of an academic journal, because they know that they would be robustly challenged. They make these stupid comments in places where they can belittle women, in the common room and in a crowded room at a conference.
A hundred or so years ago, those positions were reversed. The people who thought women should be allowed to have high academic positions would have been laughed out of University Council or academic journals. So they made their case elsewhere, and other people started listening and agreeing, and change happened. Was that wrong? And if not, on what grounds is it wrong for those who disagree to use the same means to attempt to reverse that change?
So, until that happens, it behooves us all to have a bit of fucking humility, to accept that however firmly we believe what we believe we are only human and can be wrong, and therefore to accept that we should allow all opinions to be freely advocated for in the democratic process. Which, again, is emphatically NOT the same thing as saying everyone should be free to do what they like whenever and wherever they like, just that they should be free to state their case alongside all the other cases and the electorate as a whole should be free to decide which case to accept and thus which laws to live by.
Again, as above in my post about power relations, where does 'free advocacy' cross over into 'everyone should be free to do what they like whenever and wherever they like' and who arbitrates that line?
Well, I think that depends. There's nothing illiberal about restricting your ability to, let's say, have a factory belching out toxic fumes on your private property; preventing you from doing that recognizes that your "private property" is not self-contained and isolated from the rest of us, but that what you do on your property has an effect on the common air, on the water table, on the local propensity to flooding, and so on.
Similarly, there is nothing illiberal about restricting your ability to inflict your second-hand smoke on third parties.
Preventing consenting adults from smoking (or engaging in BDSM, or whatever other activity they want to engage in that both provides them pleasure and inflicts harm on them) in a space that is sufficiently private that none of their emissions practically impinge on anyone else is illiberal. You can apply exactly the same argument to any narcotic.
Liberal-shaped counterarguments might address whether a person was in a position to give meaningful consent. Certainly for some of the more addictive substances, it is far from obvious to me that consent can ever be really meaningful.
But if your position is that only certain views should be allowed to be expressed in shared public spaces then we very quickly come up against the question of who gets to decide which views those are.
This is where I think it gets confusing, or at least potentially confusing.
“Allowed” or “prohibited” by whom? The government only? Or do you also mean others?
And “shared public space” in what sense of “shared” and “public”? Public property that is open to all, like a park or town square? Or do you mean anywhere “the public” gathers, even if privately owned, like a pub? Or a church?
And if you’re talking about anything other than government regulation or lack of regulation, how does it connect to “liberal democracies”?
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing, as anyone who has ever said the wrong thing (which is all of us) knows from experience.
OK, so what are you thinking of as the prevailing view and what are you talking about with it being inane?
Being able to say what you like.
Freedom of speech, in the sense of being a human right, is the principle that individuals should be able to articulate ideas and opinions without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal sanction. But this right is not unconstrained. As the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights puts it, it is subject to restrictions necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security, public order, public health and morals.
In practice, communities of human beings have their own strong ideas about what you can or can't say, typically expressed through social norms, and typically mediated according to context. In the case of text-based discussion among people from disparate backgrounds, it isn't unusual to make these norms more explicit - to spell them out. These norms are for the benefit of the community, that people can engage in discussion in the confidence that others are going to respect them.
There seems to be a rather incoherent incompatibility between wanting to belong to a community, to take part in its activities, but in not wanting
to be considerate of the other members of the community when you do so.
In The Friends of Voltaire, Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. I'm afraid I find appeals to this particularly inane, when it is applied without reference to the community or context in which it is being campaigned for.
You may find it inane, but that doesn't mean all of us do. And I'd say that laws against "crying 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre' is very different than some of the restrictions some people here seem to desire or approve of.
In practice, communities of human beings have their own strong ideas about what you can or can't say, typically expressed through social norms, and typically mediated according to context.
Yes--but often, down through history, to the detriment of many people. Heresy laws (not merely declaring some ideas heretical, but with actual legal penalties), speaking out against anything in the government, speaking out in favor of various notions in the sciences, speaking out in favor of the rights of various minorities (particularly LGBTQ people), and so on. I think this part of why we need to be extremely careful about restricting freedom of speech (and freedom of thought, etc.). Apart from people's freedoms in general, we've seen where it leads over millennia, and even now in various places. I believe we should not do that again. This is less than a theoretical "slippery slope" and more of a "oh look at that mountain we kept sliding down over and over, which led to the deaths of countless people over the centuries who said what those power decided was 'the wrong thing.'"
I'd also add that "the norms" in a given time and place largely means "what the majority likes"--or "what those in power like"--but protecting the rights of those in the minority, or who are not in power (which are two different things, but both still matter) is very, very important.
It's the best/safest option we seem to have so far, in my view--as I said in another thread, as Lewis put it, the best argument for democracy is that no one person in our fallen world can be trusted with too much power. This would also apply to a small group of people, I believe.
Have you missed the posts where I’ve said, several times now, that I don’t have a problem with the law banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue,
I have to say I didn't get that from your posts at all. I thought you were saying you thought it was bad for people to do that but it shouldn't be illegal. I couldn't work out where you were going with arguing against prohibition of campaigning for changing laws because as far as I'm aware no-one has advocated that.
As many others have pointed out, freedom of speech isn’t the same as freedom to harass, bully, intimidate or verbally assault others. I think those things are wrong no matter the content of what is being said or who it is being said to - so, essentially, I agree with banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue because doing so constitutes harassment, bullying, intimidation and verbal assault, not because of the antisemitism in and of itself.
I do think people should be free to express antisemitic views in a manner that is not directly harassing, bullying, intimidating or verbally assaulting someone else.
For the record, I also don’t think offending someone inherently constitutes harassment, bullying, intimidation or verbal assault.
(or engaging in BDSM, or whatever other activity they want to engage in that both provides them pleasure and inflicts harm on them)
I think I should mention (about BDSM specifically) that BDSM does not, even if pain is involved, necessarily mean actual harm--indeed, one phrase we often use in the community is "safe, sane, and consensual"--emphasis on "safe," though we also often use the acronym RACK,* risk-aware consensual kink. The question of how far in some areas is OK to go can be another matter, but as the Ship's token leatherman/kinkster, I thought I should mention this wee addendum.
* I have no idea how long it took somebody to come up with this one, or whether the acronym, like SHIELD in the Marvel comics/movies, came first
Comments
It sounded like you were fine with laws restricting freedom of speech so long as people could argue against the laws. Which seems at odds with your previous insistence that supporting Nazism should be protected as free speech, hence me trying to clarify.
Ok, yes, I can see that. Apologies for my lack of clarity.
The specific case of Germany banning support for Nazism is a bit of a meta-issue, in that the society has (as far as I’m aware, and I stand to be corrected if anyone knows otherwise) freely chosen via democratic means to limit their freedom of speech in that way. So I would say that the German people should be free to campaign for the law banning support for Nazism to be repealed, which if successful would then allow Nazi ideas to be campaigned for (and, of course, against) in subsequent elections.
My personal position, were I German (I’ve never even been to Germany) would be to support the first campaign but emphatically oppose the second.
Does that help to clarify where I’m coming from here?
So you think it should be legal for newspapers to name domestic violence victims but thing people should obey the law while it exists? Do I have that right?
Should newspapers be free to print the home addresses of people fleeing domestic violence?
I'd be curious to know what the law is on that in different places.
Obviously, the state can withhold releasing people's information for various reasons, but if I happen to have found out where someone is living via private channels, is there anything to stop me from publicizing that?
No, I don’t think newspapers should be allowed to name domestic violence victims and/or print their home addresses.
Yes, I think that people should be free to campaign for the law to be changed so that newspapers are allowed to name domestic violence victims and/or print their home addresses.
That I disagree (however strongly) with a given opinion does not mean I think other people should be prohibited from advocating for it.
So why is, in your schema, calling all widgetarians dangerous criminals who are a threat to women and children protected free speech but naming a victim of a widgetarian domestic abuser as an example isn't? What's the line? Why is it there?
I mean, what kind of person would I be if I believed that everyone should be permanently forced by law to conform to my own view of what is right, with no means of changing or even trying to change that law? A fucking tyrant, that’s what.
The law clearly serves those who make it, not the masses subject to it.
Good thing he doesn’t seem to be “pretending” anything or being “disingenuous,” i.e., dishonest, then. You know that people can disagree with each other without accusing each other of being dishonest, right? That you can think of someone as merely wrong?
Pretty hard to change laws when the law makers are among the richest people in the country.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
There is a repeated pattern where the far-right attempt to gaslight others into accepting their bigotry. The pattern involves making utterly baseless accusations of bias "my freedom of speech is being infringed!" when there is no right to speech in every space. Everybody implicitly knows this; you can't just enter someone else's living room, strip naked and recite the works of Tennison. Nobody has that right unless invited.
Second, even if one is being prevented from airing views in a conference, that is not infringing rights given that there are plenty of other spaces where those views are regularly heard. A person's rights to air views generally are not infringed by rules in specific places.
Third, one can have a discussion about liberal democracy and the history and philosophy behind it, but it is incoherent to do that without understanding and referencing the basis of the same, developed over hundreds of years.
And no to Nazis.
Either one understands all these things or one is pretending not to understand them. There is no other option. I will not be gaslit.
We are not talking about specific places, we are talking about society as a whole. We are talking about whether those “plenty of other spaces” should exist at all.
It is possible to understand something and still disagree with it. Are you really so fundamentalist about the Rightness of your opinions that you think the only possible reasons someone could ever express disagreement with them are idiocy, dishonesty or evil?
And once again, for the avoidance of doubt, what I’m talking about here is whether people with other ideas than yours should be allowed the same freedom to express those ideas that you have to express yours. I am not talking about whether their ideas are correct, or moral, or in any way good.
I can (and do) say “no to Nazis”, and mean it, and still say that expressing Nazi beliefs should not be a crime. I do not see any contradiction between those two positions. Both of them are firmly rooted in my belief in freedom, equality and fairness for all people.
It’s like ChastMastr said, I can hate what someone says with the fiery intensity of a thousand suns and still defend to the death their right to say it.
The whole notion of "free speech" is that nobody is told what to say by the state. It did not and does not mean that people have the right to mouth-off wherever they please.
There's a notion, which one would know if there had been any appreciation of the history and theory of liberal democracy, that a) human flourishing means having the freedom to hold ideas that others don't like but b) that there are guard-rails surrounding hurt to others. Hence one might think anti-Semitic things at your dinner table but you don't get to incite violence by shouting them in front of a synogogue.
There is discussion of where these lines are and the consequences. Those discussions happen in Parliament where laws are debated.
It is simply gaslighting to continue to imply that we are not a liberal democracy because people can't just say whatever is on their mind with no consequences. And also that somehow the state is into mind control and captured by the "woke mind virus" because fascists can't just say whatever they like wherever they like.
Oh, well, that’s different then. If it’s hard to succeed via democratic means then you should absolutely just abandon democracy and force the whole of society to conform to your ideals whether they like it or not. That’s the only just and moral thing to do.
/sarcasm
It's strange that you seem to see yourself as a protector of democracy despite continuing to advocate for allowing Nazi hate-speech despite this being continually determined unacceptable by elected politicians, in particular those who know history and lived through situations where fascism flourished.
Democracy is good when it agrees with your extreme position but bad when it legislates to protect lives?
Have you actually been reading this thread? You know, the one called “The end of liberal democracies”? The one where some people have been saying certain ideas should be utterly prohibited from society as a whole (i.e. by the state) in the name of what they consider to be the common good? That public spaces set up for free discussion should not exist? That discussion of where the lines are and the consequences for crossing them should cease, lest it result in the lines being moved in what they consider to be the wrong way?
Have you missed the posts where I’ve said, several times now, that I don’t have a problem with the law banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue, I just have a problem with anyone who says that law should never ever be allowed to be repealed no matter how many people vote for a Party that wants to do so (and that I have an even bigger problem with anyone who says such a Party should be banned from even existing in the first place)?
You have repeatedly accused me of dishonesty, of gaslighting, and yet it is you who keeps acting as if I’m talking about people having the inalienable right to, as you put it, mouth off wherever they please when I have stated clearly, unequivocally, and repeatedly that that is not what I’m talking about when I refer to freedom of speech. So which of us is really being dishonest here? Which of us is really trying to gaslight the other?
I have to say I didn't get that from your posts at all. I thought you were saying you thought it was bad for people to do that but it shouldn't be illegal. I couldn't work out where you were going with arguing against prohibition of campaigning for changing laws because as far as I'm aware no-one has advocated that.
Freedom of speech, in the sense of being a human right, is the principle that individuals should be able to articulate ideas and opinions without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal sanction. But this right is not unconstrained. As the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights puts it, it is subject to restrictions necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security, public order, public health and morals.
In practice, communities of human beings have their own strong ideas about what you can or can't say, typically expressed through social norms, and typically mediated according to context. In the case of text-based discussion among people from disparate backgrounds, it isn't unusual to make these norms more explicit - to spell them out. These norms are for the benefit of the community, that people can engage in discussion in the confidence that others are going to respect them.
There seems to be a rather incoherent incompatibility between wanting to belong to a community, to take part in its activities, but in not wanting
to be considerate of the other members of the community when you do so.
In The Friends of Voltaire, Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. I'm afraid I find appeals to this particularly inane, when it is applied without reference to the community or context in which it is being campaigned for.
Legislation enacted by a government put in place by society as a whole via a free and fair election is inherently democratic.
But so is the possibility of a different government, also put in place by society as a whole via a free and fair election, repealing that legislation.
As many others have pointed out, freedom of speech isn’t the same as freedom to harass, bully, intimidate or verbally assault others. I think those things are wrong no matter the content of what is being said or who it is being said to - so, essentially, I agree with banning people from shouting antisemitic things in front of a synagogue because doing so constitutes harassment, bullying, intimidation and verbal assault, not because of the antisemitism in and of itself.
I do think people should be free to express antisemitic views in a manner that is not directly harassing, bullying, intimidating or verbally assaulting someone else.
For the record, I also don’t think offending someone inherently constitutes harassment, bullying, intimidation or verbal assault.
The term “society as a whole” is relevant here, as society includes many who can’t vote, many who don’t vote and after that voting, we get parliaments, assemblies and governments that legislate and govern in the interests of things other than society as a whole. Usually, as I rather harp on about ad nauseam, this is in the interests of corporations and big business, which hold governments to ransom through economic threats.
Put plainly, the democratic process is a sham.
The discussion is not being framed by myself but by many in the world. I gave an example in the OP.
The International IDEA is also framing the discussion with it's Global State of Democracy report here or it's more recent article here.
Or you can look to the Variaties of Democracy recent survey here.
Or even academic articles from Oxford if you prefer.
The evidence is liberal democracies are becoming more authoritarian.
I'm listening. But I don't understand your last comment. Can you expand please?
Yes.
Have you read them? They are becoming more authoritarian because Nazis and the Far-Right are on the rise. How you think "liberal democracy" is in decline somehow because they are doing liberal things like protecting others and increasing rights is completely beyond my understanding.
In short none of these reports are suggesting that liberal democracies are becoming authoritarian because of the "woke mind virus" or because Nazis do not have freedom to shout slogans.
Again then you need to go and think about the difference between fascists and One Nation Tories. And have a think about what happened in 1930s Germany. And read any of the mountains of literature written since the 1940s about the signs of authoritarianism.
Fascism is about dominance and violence. It just is.
Offence isn't the issue. Framing it that way is how we get mocking nonsense about "hurty words" for actual threats to kill and crap about snowflakes when anyone dares speak back.
It's about voiced threats to people's safety, and speech which normalises attitudes which some people express through violence. Many vulnerable groups are experiencing more harassment now because social media is riddled with hate speech.
Considering it was the founder of One Nation Toryism who made Victoria the Empress Of India, I'd say dominance and violence weren't totally absent from that tradition either.
As far as I can tell, what you are advocating for is the "right" for you (or anyone else) to advocate for any possible point of view in any shared space in which you happen to be expressing your opinion, regardless of what the other people sharing the space with you think is appropriate.
When does one thing cross over into the other, in your view, if ever? How do you deal with issues of power?
For instance; should they be free to express antisemitic views in a limited circulation magazine? How about a book? How about a national newspaper? Most of the national newspapers? Most national newspapers and TV channels?
Well, sure. But that works on an individual level as well. If someone says "Stetson is inherently stupid and therefore not worth listening to", that challenges my free speech. But I don't think people should be prohibited from saying that.
I think restrictions on speech are usually justified by the prevention of active harm, eg. someone will commit acts of physical violence against the defamed person or group, not passive harm like "People will stop listening to what you have to say." Because there's no inalienable right for anyone to have their opinions listened to.
Nothing in anything I’ve said suggests that anyone should be compelled to agree with anything anyone else says, or to refrain from disagreeing - however strongly - with anything they say. On the contrary, I think that the right to disagree with anything anyone - anyone - else says is the most fundamental part of freedom of speech as I understand it.
If your position is that government should not legally prohibit any form of speech, and therefore that no form of speech should attract criminal penalties, but that individual people should be free to decide not to associate with those whose views they find abhorrent then that’s fine with me.
If Person A finds Person B’s views so objectionable that they will refuse to engage with Person B on any level, that they will leave any shared public space that Person B enters, and that they will prevent Person B from entering any private space that they (Person A) control, that’s fine. But if Person A seeks to have Person B removed from society itself, or otherwise prevented from expressing their views even in shared public spaces, even if Person A isn’t present, then that’s different. And I would say the same thing regardless of what the views of the people concerned are, and regardless of whether I’m Person A, Person B, or a disinterested third party observer.
But if your position is that only certain views should be allowed to be expressed in shared public spaces then we very quickly come up against the question of who gets to decide which views those are. And that, in turn, very quickly ends up with people saying words to the effect of “I should get to decide, because I’m RIGHT, dammit”. The problem with which is, everyone thinks they’re RIGHT. There’s no independent or objective definition of RIGHT barring God Himself coming down on a cloud of fire and declaring unequivocally and inarguably what RIGHT is. So, until that happens, it behooves us all to have a bit of fucking humility, to accept that however firmly we believe what we believe we are only human and can be wrong, and therefore to accept that we should allow all opinions to be freely advocated for in the democratic process. Which, again, is emphatically NOT the same thing as saying everyone should be free to do what they like whenever and wherever they like, just that they should be free to state their case alongside all the other cases and the electorate as a whole should be free to decide which case to accept and thus which laws to live by.
No. The Far-Right have places where their views can be aired, but these are almost always places where they are immediately challenged. On the whole they are ideas held by deplorable people with weak constitutions, so they don't like being "picked on" in these spaces so look for other places where they can dominate the discussion.
The person who thinks that women should not have high academic positions does not make that case in University Council or in the pages of an academic journal, because they know that they would be robustly challenged. They make these stupid comments in places where they can belittle women, in the common room and in a crowded room at a conference.
A hundred or so years ago, those positions were reversed. The people who thought women should be allowed to have high academic positions would have been laughed out of University Council or academic journals. So they made their case elsewhere, and other people started listening and agreeing, and change happened. Was that wrong? And if not, on what grounds is it wrong for those who disagree to use the same means to attempt to reverse that change?
About 100 years ago women could not earn degrees from Oxford so had no access to University Council. 150 years ago no woman could get a degree from any British university.
So no. Not the same.
Well, @Marvin said "the people who thought that women
So you are - essentially - a moral relativist?
Again, as above in my post about power relations, where does 'free advocacy' cross over into 'everyone should be free to do what they like whenever and wherever they like' and who arbitrates that line?
Well, I think that depends. There's nothing illiberal about restricting your ability to, let's say, have a factory belching out toxic fumes on your private property; preventing you from doing that recognizes that your "private property" is not self-contained and isolated from the rest of us, but that what you do on your property has an effect on the common air, on the water table, on the local propensity to flooding, and so on.
Similarly, there is nothing illiberal about restricting your ability to inflict your second-hand smoke on third parties.
Preventing consenting adults from smoking (or engaging in BDSM, or whatever other activity they want to engage in that both provides them pleasure and inflicts harm on them) in a space that is sufficiently private that none of their emissions practically impinge on anyone else is illiberal. You can apply exactly the same argument to any narcotic.
Liberal-shaped counterarguments might address whether a person was in a position to give meaningful consent. Certainly for some of the more addictive substances, it is far from obvious to me that consent can ever be really meaningful.
Also this is getting heated. Everyone please remember we are not in hell.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
“Allowed” or “prohibited” by whom? The government only? Or do you also mean others?
And “shared public space” in what sense of “shared” and “public”? Public property that is open to all, like a park or town square? Or do you mean anywhere “the public” gathers, even if privately owned, like a pub? Or a church?
And if you’re talking about anything other than government regulation or lack of regulation, how does it connect to “liberal democracies”?
You may find it inane, but that doesn't mean all of us do. And I'd say that laws against "crying 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre' is very different than some of the restrictions some people here seem to desire or approve of.
Yes--but often, down through history, to the detriment of many people. Heresy laws (not merely declaring some ideas heretical, but with actual legal penalties), speaking out against anything in the government, speaking out in favor of various notions in the sciences, speaking out in favor of the rights of various minorities (particularly LGBTQ people), and so on. I think this part of why we need to be extremely careful about restricting freedom of speech (and freedom of thought, etc.). Apart from people's freedoms in general, we've seen where it leads over millennia, and even now in various places. I believe we should not do that again. This is less than a theoretical "slippery slope" and more of a "oh look at that mountain we kept sliding down over and over, which led to the deaths of countless people over the centuries who said what those power decided was 'the wrong thing.'"
I'd also add that "the norms" in a given time and place largely means "what the majority likes"--or "what those in power like"--but protecting the rights of those in the minority, or who are not in power (which are two different things, but both still matter) is very, very important.
Certainly not happening much lately on this side of the Pond. You have Kennedy and his henchmen working to dismantle science because it is too woke.
It's the best/safest option we seem to have so far, in my view--as I said in another thread, as Lewis put it, the best argument for democracy is that no one person in our fallen world can be trusted with too much power. This would also apply to a small group of people, I believe.
Agreed on all counts.
This is true. But it doesn't mean we give up.
I think I should mention (about BDSM specifically) that BDSM does not, even if pain is involved, necessarily mean actual harm--indeed, one phrase we often use in the community is "safe, sane, and consensual"--emphasis on "safe," though we also often use the acronym RACK,* risk-aware consensual kink. The question of how far in some areas is OK to go can be another matter, but as the Ship's token leatherman/kinkster, I thought I should mention this wee addendum.
* I have no idea how long it took somebody to come up with this one, or whether the acronym, like SHIELD in the Marvel comics/movies, came first
I know. God help us. (I'm in the US, for anyone who doesn't know. Pray for us!!)