Use of the "N" word

[SimonDoom]

Any research to back your supposition?

We do not have universal high quality education yet. There is evidence that even as things stand, "fake news" the ultimate in "free speech", is believed and shared far more readily by the uneducated. For example, uneducated people are more likely to fear vaccines and believe Q-anon BS.

There are many examples of speech being squelched in universities. You're right about the anti-vax and QAnon BS, but that's just one part of the anti-speech problem. It's a problem that is not confined to any one educational demographic. I think educated people are more to blame because they should know better.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

There are many examples of speech being squelched in universities. You're right about the anti-vax and QAnon BS, but that's just one part of the anti-speech problem. It's a problem that is not confined to any one educational demographic. I think educated people are more to blame because they should know better.

Free speech doesn't mean no consequences, though. Freedom to say hateful stuff is one thing, but your employer doesn't have to let you do it on their private premises nor continue to employ you if you do it elsewhere.

Equally no-one has to offer you a platform. Many of the people whinging about not being invited to speak in unis are being knocked off potential invite lists when people realise they know fuck all about their subject. They may be entertaining but there's a limit to how many speakers any uni or uni society can fit in. If you don't make the cut, tough. Create a podcast or something.

 

[Winter_Fare]

There are many examples of speech being squelched in universities. You're right about the anti-vax and QAnon BS, but that's just one part of the anti-speech problem. It's a problem that is not confined to any one educational demographic. I think educated people are more to blame because they should know better.

Right. So, you do have some grown ass adults crying because they don't like something someone somewhere said.

Some people can't bear to hear that "gay rights are human rights". They start screaming to anyone that will listen that saying such things in public, is child abuse. Is that really ok, or are these paragons of freedom slandering innocent people, and inciting acts of violent hatred? (Remember, homophobic and also racist violence increased measurably during the Trump administration).

Is there not a line? Freedom of speech stops where another person's human rights start. The right to uninterrupted education for example, the right to hold hands with their significant other without having abuse hurled at them, the right to healthcare and freedom?

There has to be a line. For everyone's sake.

 

[Voboy]

Right. So, you do have some grown ass adults crying because they don't like something someone somewhere said.

Some people can't bear to hear that "gay rights are human rights". They start screaming to anyone that will listen that saying such things in public, is child abuse. Is that really ok, or are these paragons of freedom slandering innocent people, and inciting acts of violent hatred? (Remember, homophobic and also racist violence increased measurably during the Trump administration).

Is there not a line? Freedom of speech stops where another person's human rights start. The right to uninterrupted education for example, the right to hold hands with their significant other without having abuse hurled at them, the right to healthcare and freedom?

There has to be a line. For everyone's sake.

All the lines are situational and subjective. The vast majority respect those lines. The ones that do not are the ones that make the headlines, I suspect.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

I don't think there's any reason to believe that education gives people the critical thinking skills needed to handle free speech. In fact, the greatest threat to free speech comes from those who are highly educated.

That's a highly deceptive and incomplete "fact." Some highly educated people would very much like to threaten free speech, but they can't do it by themselves. They need some kind of power. Certainly they can just grab a critical mass of guns and give it their best shot. Far more often, however - and especially in existing regimes with splashes of democracy, secularism, and constitutionalism - they rally the idiots, which then indirectly gets them the guns. Amongst the ignorant, stupid masses, the suppression of speech is widely popular - and very few limit their censorious desires to the usual suspects of fraud, perjury, bad-faith contract-signing, defamation, and related acts of malfeasance.

So, here's the far-more-complete fact: a robust defense of free speech has, historically, only arisen from the highly educated. Those highly educated who stump for greater censorship hew to a general rule. They aren't the exception. They often amass enough power to make their censorious desires a reality, but, generally speaking, that still doesn't really differentiate them from the mob. Indeed, their power often derives from the mob. Meanwhile, the mob might amass a similar amount of power (though it's less likely in modern countries, since the mobs don't have nukes, tanks, fighter jets, or control over critical infrastructure,) and are quite likely to also install some kind of highly censorious regime.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You're being ridiculous, now. Those are actions, not speech.

Yes, that is the point I already made: Nazism is not merely "speech" and it's ridiculous to handle it as if it was.

Laws exist to stop people from hurting other people. Laws also exist to protect the right of people to advocate different political systems. The communists murdered millions of people. Do we ban communism, too? No. We let people say what they want, including Nazis.

Oh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

The Communist Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is an American law signed by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954 that outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in or support for the party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations

[ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court in AZ almost 20 years later, but as far as I can tell never wholly overturned at a national level]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders

Leaders of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) were accused of violating the Smith Act, a statute that prohibited advocating violent overthrow of the government. The defendants argued that they advocated a peaceful transition to socialism, and that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of association protected their membership in a political party... Public opinion was overwhelmingly against the defendants in New York. After a 10-month trial, the jury found all 11 defendants guilty. The judge sentenced them to terms of up to five years in federal prison, and sentenced all five defense attorneys to imprisonment for contempt of court. Two of the attorneys were subsequently disbarred.

After the first trial, the prosecutors – encouraged by their success – prosecuted more than 100 additional CPUSA officers for violating the Smith Act. Some were tried solely because they were members of the Party. Many of these defendants had difficulty finding attorneys to represent them. The trials decimated the leadership of the CPUSA.

...
Some of the defendants did not fare well in prison: Thompson was attacked by an anti-communist inmate; Winston became blind because a brain tumor was not treated promptly; Gates was put into solitary confinement because he refused to lock the cells of fellow inmates; and Davis was ordered to mop floors because he protested against racial segregation in prison.

Convictions were upheld on appeal. Learned Hand for Second Circuit, subsequently endorsed by SCOTUS:

In each case they [the courts] must ask whether the gravity of the 'evil', discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.... The American Communist Party, of which the defendants are the controlling spirits, is a highly articulated, well contrived, far spread organization, numbering thousands of adherents, rigidly and ruthlessly disciplined, many of whom are infused with a passionate Utopian faith that is to redeem mankind.... The violent capture of all existing governments is one article of the creed of that faith [communism], which abjures the possibility of success by lawful means.

A few years later Yates v. United States largely defanged the Smith Act by finding its wording to be narrower than previously interpreted (or at least that's my gloss of a complex legal tangle, YMMV) but didn't find it unconstitutional.

I think it'd be fair to say that the US courts rediscovered their love for the First Amendment only after it had become clear that Communism was never going to become a major political force within the USA, and that there was no great danger in letting the local reds say their bit.

Of course, constitutional protections don't apply equally to everybody. Even today it remains US policy to refuse immigration to current or recent Communist Party members. (The policy stipulates "totalitarian parties" in general, but only Communism is specifically named.) https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/u...y-based-on-membership-in-a-totalitarian-party

You can disagree with me. That's fine. That's the whole point of free speech. But stop accusing me of dishonesty and bad faith.

I do consider it dishonest to take a fringe position that most left-wing folk would reject, and attribute it to "the left" as some kind of bloc. I do consider it dishonest to refer to bills that have already passed and downplay them as "trying to pass".

If you're going to keep on doing stuff like that, I'm going to keep on calling it dishonest. If you don't want me using my free speech to characterise your behaviour that way, you're going to need to find different ways to behave.

[re: accusation of dishonesty and bad faith] It's a very bad habit of yours to do that with people you disagree with.

Is it, now?

Not that I'm always aware of my own failings, but having checked back on my posting history (hooray for the new and improved forum search), I'm not at all convinced that this is a general tendency of mine in the way that you're suggesting.

I'm open to evidence (via DM is fine, no need to stir drama here). OTOH, if you can't produce that evidence, obviously I'd expect a retraction and an apology.

It's an indication of your fundamental intolerance of points of view different from yours.

Nope. It is a response to specific things you do in discussions like this. No matter how often I mention what those things are and why they're objectionable, you insist on characterising it as "intolerance" rather than reflect on whether there might actually be a problem with the way you go about discussing things.

(I am intolerant of Nazism, as everybody ought to be, but that's a separate matter; you're not a Nazi.)

 

[Bramblethorn]

What happened to your well thought out responses? The "in my experience" line you used tells me that you aren't used to having to address rebuttals that you cannot refute. My first comment addressed to you stands.

"Common sense" isn't a rebuttal, glad we had this chat! Bye now.

 

[LegoHead]

"Common sense" isn't a rebuttal, glad we had this chat! Bye now.

"Common sense" is a self-evident truth discounted by people who want things done their way at any cost. Bye-bye.

 

[SimonDoom]

Nope. It is a response to specific things you do in discussions like this. No matter how often I mention what those things are and why they're objectionable, you insist on characterising it as "intolerance" rather than reflect on whether there might actually be a problem with the way you go about discussing things.

I overstated things in describing your attitude as one of "fundamental intolerance," and I apologize for that.

I disagree with you on some things, but you are vexing as hell because it takes time and effort to explain the basis of my disagreement in a way that's fair and responsive. You should have been a debater in school, if you weren't.

I'll give you a more complete response soon.

We agree we both hate Nazis. We've got that in common. That's something.

 

[dmallord]

I overstated things in describing your attitude as one of "fundamental intolerance," and I apologize for that.

I disagree with you on some things, but you are vexing as hell because it takes time and effort to explain the basis of my disagreement in a way that's fair and responsive. You should have been a debater in school, if you weren't.

I'll give you a more complete response soon.

We agree we both hate Nazis. We've got that in common. That's something.

I read this and smiled. A gentleman's acknowledgement of overstepping a bit AND the acknowledgement that there exists some common ground between the two of you. That's refreshing. We could use some of that in politics lately.

You ever consider wading into that swamp?