Free Speech

[IrisAlthea]

I’ve been thinking on and off about posting something about this for some time now. I was reminded after posting about how differently we can think about posting on a site like this and with all the discussion about Twitter and the more local discussion about a new change in Swedish constitutional law that impacts both freedom of speech and of the press.

The free speech policy and open discussion was very big part of why I ended up on Lit. All my favourite online haunts have put emphasis on that, just moderating for things that badly disrupt useability for others or would cause trouble with the law.

Since Web 2.0 was discovered and used by broader circles and the advent of social media, there has been an increase in cries for more restriction and moderation to make the digital town square more accessible to everyone.

Where do you fall on the scale from free speech to ”if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”?
Do you think free speech is under threat these days or is the free debate under threat by unregulated troll armies?
Do the big social media companies need regulating?
Where do you see the things going in this area from here?

 

[Escierto]

Elon says you can have free speech as long as you don’t make fun of his micro penis.

 

[PaxNurgle]

I generally agree with the OP. I am a fan of free speech, but I also firmly believe privately owned forums such as this have a right- and a certain responsibility, to moderate the content of their users and what they post. It isn't so much a free speech issue but rather the right of a private forum to enforce certain guidelines as they see fit.

If the trolls want their Stormfront site to post their hateful rhetoric, then they can have it; that's what it's for- but I would commend the moderators on this site if they would NOT let Literotica turn into an erotic-themed version of Stormfront.org. I have seen and read many posts, not so much on this sub-forum but on the Politics forum for sure- that would blatantly be classified as hate speech and which, as a site owner, I would not tolerate.

 

[twister947]

There's a tension between unfettered free speech and the best interests of society. Achieving equipoise is the challenge. Still, I'm haunted by something I came across years ago: "Freedom defined is freedom denied."

 

[drobert44]

There's a tension between unfettered free speech and the best interests of society. Achieving equipoise is the challenge. Still, I'm haunted by something I came across years ago: "Freedom defined is freedom denied."

Good quote.

 

[Mnkinkcpl]

Personally I think that our freedom of speech has been disappearing since the phrase "politically correct" was coined and that was what 30 + years ago.

I guess it's been around a lot longer.

The phrase politically correct first appeared in the 1930s, when was used to describe dogmatic adherence to ideology in authoritarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

 

[PaxNurgle]

And yet, now, Politically Correct is defined as anything that is OPPOSED to the ideals of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Specifically the racial ideals of the former and the totalitarian ideals of the latter. I have read a lot of cringe-worthy speech on these very forums that promote Nazi and totalitarian ideals, along with calls to violence and elimination of people's natural rights- which I find deeply disturbing.

I believe it should be up to the forum moderators to enforce certain standards on their site, so that it does not turn into a platform for anti-social extremist ideas, and I have concerns that these forums are turning into that very thing. By "De-platforming" extremism, you are not really violating anyone's freedom of speech, but rather denying them a venue to express it. Again, that is what sites such as Stormfront.org are for. Users like the various "Yomeme" screen names (of which this individual has at least a half dozen in current use on the politics sub-forum) or whichever screen name "Botany Boy" and "Busybody" are currently using, would still be free to post their hateful crap on that site. But maybe not this one.

 

[firmbutgentle]

To repeat what GoldenCompulsion said, no moderation rules or content restrictions here relate to "freedom of speech." The government isn't involved, and that's all the first amendment applies to.

Beyond that, you can set aside a lot of the chatter about "political correctness" and so on, and just focus on what's actually happening. Is someone being attacked, or bullied, or threatened? Is someone being made to feel unwelcome because of who they are? Is the conversation being disrupted? All those are perfectly valid reasons to remove posts in a forum like this.

To quote the bartender at closing time, you can keep on drinking if you want, but you can't do it here.

 

[firmbutgentle]

And yet, now, Politically Correct is defined as anything that is OPPOSED to the ideals of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

Remember that the usage of "politically correct" in current conversation began as satire, and was picked up perjoratively by the more extreme "conservatives" in the 80s. Anyone using it intelligently knows its origin.

 

[Mnkinkcpl]

No my comment was and is that there was a time where you could say something completely benign and not be called out for it. It has very little to do with politics but just a change in society where it seems that everyone gets butt hurt by words even benign ones.

I was reprimanded for saying the phrase "gaydar' because I'm not gay and according to the person who attacked me that only gay people are allowed to use that.

The Nazi thing was just what I found on the origin of the phrase.

 

[firmbutgentle]

This is what many people intentionally miss. They say freedom of speech is dying, but that's often because they want the freedom to do stuff like this. (By the way, extremists will do it no matter what. Proper regulation just tends to thin numbers and scatter larger groups, weakening their herds.) Or, they just don't care if people do stuff like this because the majority of these attacks affect marginalized populations... and maybe there is an exaggerated view of "freedoms" being taken away, because people so often get bullshit fed to them in the form of fake outrage and all sorts of nonsense.

Exactly. Every time I ask someone for details of how they or someone has been silenced by "the woke left" or whatever, it invariably comes down to resentment that they can't be abusive any more. They can't make racist jokes, they can't harass trans people, they can't make jokes about Jews being greedy. And they always use the language of bullies. Why can't they take a joke? We're all friends here! You know we love you. All those things that get that nervous sickly smile from the victim. It's always and only about abuse.

 

[firmbutgentle]

No my comment was and is that there was a time where you could say something completely benign and not be called out for it. It has very little to do with politics but just a change in society where it seems that everyone gets butt hurt by words even benign ones.

There's another way to look at it. Perhaps there are people for whom that speech was never benign, but rather, was frightening or dangerous. What's changed is simply they can say something about it instead of keeping their heads down and mouths shut.

 

[Mnkinkcpl]

There's another way to look at it. Perhaps there are people for whom that speech was never benign, but rather, was frightening or dangerous. What's changed is simply they can say something about it instead of keeping their heads down and mouths shut.

That may be but a children's rhyme comes to mind.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

No we all know that this isn't true, words can hurt emotionally but unless the words are used to incite physical action then they should be swept to the side.

To many people don't have the ability to ignore or deflect words they don't like.

 

[Mnkinkcpl]

Thanks for the clarification.

The phrase "attacked" here is suspect for me. Mainly because attacked is such a strong choice for a scenario where someone almost certainly criticized you publicly and maybe it embarrassed and/or annoyed you because you want to say whatever you want without repercussions.

The world has never been without repercussions for the words we choose. The fact is that the parameters you may be familiar with are shifting, as they always have been. You just don't realize that this is normal and inevitable. The repercussions are also pretty minimal. Somebody with no real power gave you their opinion. No real action was taken against you.

You can take or leave their opinion. There's no need to be butthurt.

I used attacked on purpose, the individual got right up in my face chest bumping me and yelling loudly. His hands were raised in a threatening manner.

 

[Mnkinkcpl]

So... how is this relevant to the "disappearance of free speech"?

I'm not defending the behavior but it has nothing to do with the conversation about the regulating speech on the internet at all. Or about regulating speech in real life. If it is true that someone assaulted you, then you have legal recourse against them for doing that. It has nothing to do with what you said beforehand or the words that came out of their mouth during/after.

This back-and-forth is going nowhere because you are complaining about a problem that doesn't exist.

You questioned my use of the word attacked, I was just clarifying why I chose that word.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Are you comparing individual websites' regulations to Nazi Germany? Report back and say it ain't so, please.

The Nazi thing was just what I found on the origin of the phrase.

Thank you both for handling this calmly enough for it not to go all Goodwin.

 

[IrisAlthea]

There's a tension between unfettered free speech and the best interests of society. Achieving equipoise is the challenge. Still, I'm haunted by something I came across years ago: "Freedom defined is freedom denied."

Yes.
For me I think, perhaps not a definition but a guiding light, ”Your freedom ends where someone elses begins” has helped me decide where I draw a line.

To repeat what GoldenCompulsion said, no moderation rules or content restrictions here relate to "freedom of speech." The government isn't involved, and that's all the first amendment applies to.

And I wasn’t talking about here or on any specific site.
I mentioned it because it was held up as a standard to live by here and elsewhere. It was even in the forum header here once:


What I find myself thinking about these days, is that web 2.0 actually did create a bit of a democratic opening for people to get their point of view out, organize political movements and activities even in places where it would otherwise have been impossible. (Not always with the best end result admittedly, but that’s another topic I think.)
On the other hand we see some people being scared off, by things that are actually criminal behaviour and would be treated as such if done offline. We see people buying a bigger impact and bandwidth. We see things being banned because they make someone else uncomfortable which sounds like a good thing until you realize that you can’t discuss cruelty against animals, social problems or nursing issues etc because some just want a place for happy fluff and nothing that can offend.

Is someone being made to feel unwelcome because of who they are?

This is actually where it gets really interesting for me, with the ”because of who they are”.
I don’t think of a forum as a place where anyone is obliged to make anyone else feel a certain way. To me, it’s not a living room but the town square.

Conservatives complain about what one may call the New Left's version of "political correctness," but conservatives AKA the New Right have their own version of "political correctness" as well

Yes.
I tend to get blocked and deleted the minute I post in those antivax, too high gas price, bad health care etc groups.
It doesn’t really split along a political line. It seems to be more about the places where facts tend to get in the way of being outraged.

 

[IrisAlthea]

I believe it should be up to the forum moderators to enforce certain standards on their site, so that it does not turn into a platform for anti-social extremist ideas, and I have concerns that these forums are turning into that very thing.

As you know the Politics Board and General Board are unmoderated, so it’s kind of entering at your own risk there.

And to some extent, I assume that people must find it entertaining to some extent, because otherwise several posters would be talking to themselves exclusively, in threads ignored by almost all other posters.

Where is freedom of speech disappearing in the United States? UK? Etc.?

Last wednesday the parliament here voted for a change in constitutional law, making it illegal to spread information that could hurt our country’s relationship to another country or integovernmental organisation.
The journalist who was responsible for raising awareness about UN forces being involved in molesting minors in Central Africa has pointed out that this law would have been a serious hurdle to his work. Almost all publisher’s and journalist’s organisations have spoken up and pointed out that they will have to take care from now on not to annoy for example Mr Erdogan which doesn’t seem that hard to do. Human rights organisations have spoken about how bringing up transgressions could be an issue when for example China has a history of being offended by it. It still hasn’t made much of a splash with the voters.

On the other hand, after our election Annie Lööf who has been the leader for the Centre Party for 11 years resigned saying she’s just grateful not to have gotten hurt. There has been loads of vitriol against her over the years both online and otherwise. During the campaign there was a political murder and the perpetrator has said that he was after Annie Lööf too.
Things like that are not making people more keen to be outspoken and take part in debate and politics, to the point where it is becoming a democracy problem.

And while we are on the topic of being "PC" or not, there are conservative-leaning affinity groups on the web. I don't belong there, so I don't go there. And conservatives don't come to places where all The Gays and Transes chat about their favorite TV show. Is this the disappearance of free speech? I don't think so. This is the continuation of the age-old tradition of organization by like peer groups. People socialize with those they are similar to. If you don't fit in and abide by the unwritten social rules, you are outcast. Not even actively by the people, but by yourself-- your unwillingness to continue on with a group that doesn't sit well with you.

This is fine if it is about socializing. Less so if it means staying in your echo chamber full time and even worse if some important processes in society are dealt with there. Excluding people who don’t hang out for example on the golf course, in the men’s sauna, country/gentlemen’s club etc has not been a good thing historically for democratic representation.

I used attacked on purpose, the individual got right up in my face chest bumping me and yelling loudly. His hands were raised in a threatening manner.

Yeah, that is unacceptable.
I hope, even if it is a bit against hope, that other people around reacted and helped put a stop to it.

No we all know that this isn't true, words can hurt emotionally but unless the words are used to incite physical action then they should be swept to the side.

To many people don't have the ability to ignore or deflect words they don't like.

I don’t think it is that easy, but it certainly would be helpful if people tried to look past the words and at the intention behind them.
Being obtuse about some words that were perfectly benign are now used differently by other groups than before, is also part of the problem though. Not saying that’s you, just to be clear.

 

[twister947]

Free speech is a foundational component of western democracy; it is also the Trojan Horse that our enemies are using to attack that same democracy.i don't know the answer...

 

[Goldenfinger]

free speech is a precious thing. Most dont really understand what it’s. We are loosing the free speech battle. You don’t have to agree with what one says but should respect the right for them to say it. And just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t make them your enemy.


View attachment 2189816

 

[FelHarper]

Exactly. Every time I ask someone for details of how they or someone has been silenced by "the woke left" or whatever, it invariably comes down to resentment that they can't be abusive any more.

It’s easy to fall into a trap of defending unacceptable behavior because it aligns with a larger objective. I think that free-speech advocates sometimes make this mistake about people who perhaps really did earn their bans, and advocates of curated speech make this mistake when defending overzealous censorship.

There have been many cases where merely using a word has gotten people banned, demonetized and deplatformed. Carl Benjamin, aka Sargon of Akkad, got banned by the platform Patreon when he used the “n-word” tauntingly to describe white supremacists. He was literally criticizing the kind of people that you would like to see banned when Patreon banned him. Sam Harris canceled his own Patreon in protest of Patreon’s action. Do you think that the use of a word (in this case on a third-party platform) gives adequate cause to censor speech?

We’ve also had several cases where academics and scientists made a joke (typically involving women) and were fired or deplatformed. There was never malice expressed in these examples, no targeting to specific people, and often the humor was self-deprecating. The inability to joke about controversial topics has been lamented by comedians and creators such as Chris Rock, John Cleese, and Mel Brooks have expressed concern about the climate of censorship. I recently got a temporary ban myself for saying “Adolph Hitler”, where I was making a joke about him being a failed artist. Again, it appears that the words themselves have been banned by these platforms, regardless of context or intent.

Complicating matters is the ambiguous language and seemingly arbitrary basis for banning that occurs. In every instance that I have seen of banned people sharing the messaging they have received, the feedback given by the platform references “community guidelines” without specifying which guideline or guidelines apply. This gives the (justified) impression that the bans are arbitrary.

I think it is a dangerous thing to normalize the censorship of ideas, words, and humor because of the potential for (and actualization of) abuse. Punishing bad behavior, the threats, stalking and harassment that most have mentioned here, are a different matter, and punishing those online is just an extension of laws that punish it offline.

Social media platforms have already shown that they have a disturbing amount of influence over public opinion through their algorithms, which is also dangerous. As someone who is concerned about the future of my civilization, I hope that our society’s current obsession with social media is short-lived. I don’t think that human beings are well-equipped to interact in a rational and healthy manner on these platforms.

 

[Lady2020]

Free speech, to me, means there are consequences for encouraging and planning an insurrection when an election doesn't go the way you want. It also means there are consequences against encouraging violence against anyone or any group.

 

[Goldenfinger]

Where is freedom of speech disappearing in the United States? UK? Etc.?

During the previous presidency, I could refer to the former president as a cuck and a moron publicly and I wouldn't be punished. I could make the same jokes now if I wanted to, about the current president. This constitutes freedom of speech because I am not defaming either of these people nor inciting people to commit a crime with my words. You can't say the same for those who criticize Xi Jinping and the Chinese Community Party, who get prison time. Ren Zhiqiang is one such critic.

Are you comparing individual websites' regulations to Nazi Germany? Report back and say it ain't so, please.

Conservatives complain about what one may call the New Left's version of "political correctness," but conservatives AKA the New Right have their own version of "political correctness" as well. Because conservativism has its own dogma. "Political correctness" regulates opinions and behavior/speech that are socially acceptable. To assume that conservatives don't have their own version of this is incorrect. Nationalism, ethnocentrism (especially xenophobia), etc., to name a couple tenets of what is "correct" for the New Right.

Real life has laws. So it would follow that the internet is subject to laws. Because the internet is real life. It is a virtual space created by servers that exist in real life, operated by people who exist in real life.

Print is subject to laws. You can't print a diatribe against your neighbor in the newspaper that describes a plan to sneak into their house and kill them. You can't do that on the internet, either.

And while we are on the topic of being "PC" or not, there are conservative-leaning affinity groups on the web. I don't belong there, so I don't go there. And conservatives don't come to places where all The Gays and Transes chat about their favorite TV show. Is this the disappearance of free speech? I don't think so. This is the continuation of the age-old tradition of organization by like peer groups. People socialize with those they are similar to. If you don't fit in and abide by the unwritten social rules, you are outcast. Not even actively by the people, but by yourself-- your unwillingness to continue on with a group that doesn't sit well with you.

It is not "unfair," it is fact.

This is what many people intentionally miss. They say freedom of speech is dying, but that's often because they want the freedom to do stuff like this. (By the way, extremists will do it no matter what. Proper regulation just tends to thin numbers and scatter larger groups, weakening their herds.) Or, they just don't care if people do stuff like this because the majority of these attacks affect marginalized populations... and maybe there is an exaggerated view of "freedoms" being taken away, because people so often get bullshit fed to them in the form of fake outrage and all sorts of nonsense.

In reality, people have always attacked, bullied, threatened, ostracized, run out of town, and killed others. They have done so in an organized manner, in mobs.

Thinking of the white mobs in the Detroit suburbs viciously harassing and attacking new black families in their neighborhoods in the 1950s. Stalking them. Breaking windows. Painting the outside walls black. Banging pots and pans. Pouring salt onto the lawn. Committing arson. Having their white children run reconnaissance and advance the harassment campaign even further. All in an effort to force the black family to move out of their new home. Oh, I can go back even further, but I don't have to. This is just a more recent example, and one that was tolerated by the Detroit police.

So what, do we just let the internet run loose because it's supposedly just a form of speech? Should online hate be tolerated because it's online? Because it supposedly doesn't count as real life? How many threats (attempted & realized) on people's lives have to happen before it is taken seriously?

There is enough of a pattern here where it becomes suspicious.

I believe a lot of people are afraid to voice their opinion due to being attacked by others.

 

[IrisAlthea]

It’s easy to fall into a trap of defending unacceptable behavior because it aligns with a larger objective. I think that free-speech advocates sometimes make this mistake about people who perhaps really did earn their bans, and advocates of curated speech make this mistake when defending overzealous censorship.

Yup, this.

I believe a lot of people are afraid to voice their opinion due to being attacked by others.

Yes, I think so too.
The problem for me is that while some are afraid because of actual attacks and/or intimidations like @Mnkinkcpl talked about others are afraid to speak up because they are uncomfortable with having their opinion questioned ore even just having other opinions voiced.
The first I think needs fixing, but it is a slippery slope.

Social media platforms have already shown that they have a disturbing amount of influence over public opinion through their algorithms, which is also dangerous.

This is a big part of what is worrying and what makes it hard for me to say ”well, they are private companies, their hous their rules” which is what I normally think and still think when it comes to places like this one.
Having let the big social media companies grow so big and globally influential that they almost turn into some kind of infrastructure, creates a new situation entirely.
Having them moderated by algorithms only very poorly overseen by humans, both without language and cultural competence, let alone time to do a good job.

As someone who is concerned about the future of my civilization, I hope that our society’s current obsession with social media is short-lived. I don’t think that human beings are well-equipped to interact in a rational and healthy manner on these platforms.

I’m not holding my breath.
Even those who understand that we are the product, not the customer, still find it useful enough to hang out there and lament the fact to each other.
And humans are poorly equipped to handle driving cars, but we’ve yet to stop. (Sorry, driving in high traffic and snow, doesn’t do my confidence in humanity any good)

 

[wallstreetguy]

There is no free speech on this site, just as there is none in most American discussion platforms. If a person expresses a thought that is to the right of Trotsky, that person will be attacked and villified by a cadre of lefties here (and anywhere else), to say nothing of being privately stalked. The comments are all personal and do not really focus on any of the factual points made in the original post. It then becomes a pile-on. It is ridiculous and I feel foolish for ever having taken part.
Whatever. I often make the mistake of commenting on these forums (as I am right now, LOL). While here, I should spend time on other, more productive endeavors.