Consider that certain people's freedom of speech is already stifled.
What should we do about that?
Want to trade places with them?
Are you claiming that safe-space movements that stifle free speech are justified, because someone else's free speech was stifled?
Please give us an example with details of what exactly you are talking about.
Safe spaces do not stifle free speech. Just as your ability to limit who enters your home (if you have one) does not stifle free speech, safe spaces do not stifle free speech.
I would argue that they actually increase freedom of speech, because they give certain individuals freedom to express themselves without fear of retribution. Something that can be rather difficult achieve for some people.
Of course, there are problems with the safe space movement. For example, they often highlight racial/ethnic/gender differences between people. In my analysis, it seems that marginalized people have realized the world is not going to change any time soon, and that they will continue to be marginalized – which is the motivation for creating a safe place.
Should Facebook/Twitter be a "safe space"? Probably not – but Facebook has been very succcesful at creating such safe spaces with their Groups platform, which seem to be gaining more and more traction.
But first, since you're defending the concept, how would you define a safe space... and how is the space kept "safe"?
The definition of a "safe space" is one where free speech is not allowed. We have had safe spaces for centuries, they are called homes. At home, you are free to shield yourself from whatever speech, ideas, or behavior you find offensive. The whole crux of a free society is the freedom to be boorish, crude, or otherwise offensive. That's what freedom means. It means there is no authority that decides what forms of speech or expression are not allowed. We already have laws against assault and harassment, and those are enough.
Yes they do. If you would like I can provide countless references and videos that showcase just how much they stifle free speech.
Yes, they do, by definition.
A space where you can't say certain things doesn't stifle free speech.
Care to explain?
The parent poster said he was for defending free speech, why would he want to switch places to somewhere where it's restricted?
What is your objection even? That because free speech is restricted in e.g. North Korea we should start restricting it elsewhere?
Or are you implying that oppressed demographics(e.g. homosexuals, black people, etc.) are having their freedom of speech stifled and therefore restrictions in free speech as a result of the 'safe space' movement are justified?
That's the only reasonably understandable(albeit flawed in my personal opinion) interpretation of your comment I can really make.
Care to clarify?
It's funny to see people get bent out of shape at the idea that they might have to watch what they say when the consequences of saying something offensive are just that a platform might not let them publish everything they want to while there are large groups of people who already have to watch what they say because the consequences of saying something that another group disagrees with are rape threats, death threats, and harassment campaigns.
I strongly believe in free speech and I will absolutely be 'bent out of shape' when people or groups try to stifle it.
>there are large groups of people who already have to watch what they say because the consequences of saying something that another group disagrees with are rape threats, death threats, and harassment campaigns.
Please provide me a modern day example of this in the US.(where these companies are located)
If tons of people are self-censoring or avoiding speaking at all for fear of being doxxed and getting death or rape threats, do we really have free speech?
There's a cottage industry of throwing rhetorical bombs and trolling 4chan in order to get threats. The people complaining the loudest about threats are reluctant to actually get the police involved, and they never stop trolling because they realize the threats aren't real.
tldr: Internet threats are no reason to even consider curtailing free speech.
"You will be judged by the company you keep" is starting to bite these platforms, and they're trying to do something about it.
Yes we do. If you self-censor because you are afraid of the consequences of your speech, that makes you a coward. Far better for cowards to cower in fear silently then for everyone to be forcibly silenced to placate cowardice.
Because banning death threats is forcibly silencing people?
Please tell me I'll reading that wrong.
You answered your own question. Its already a crime to make death threats. If you are afraid to speak your mind or otherwise do what you think is right because you are afraid of the consequences, whether they be crimes or not, you are a coward.
Most of the internet we choose to use is a collection of walled gardens. People can kick you out of their garden, that's how it works.
We're discussing a normative conclusion that even though "people can kick you out of their garden, that's now it works", perhaps people shouldn't choose to kick others out of their "garden" because of disagreements and free speech issues (though they're always welcome to do so).
Godwin-evoking private forum moderators exercising their right to police their turf aside, I always find self-moderating upvote/karma systems on forums interesting. Ostensibly the point is to allow users to control the tone of the site, and promote interesting, relevant content. In practice it is used to bury unpopular opinions and register distain.
Some comments are justifiably downvoted for being of spectacularly low quality, whilst many others are hit for not reflecting prevailing opinion - essentially we (internet commentators in general, not specifically HN, although it's hardly exempt) actively squash Free Speech on a daily basis.
And remember, most of the stuff we're talking about here are twitter eggs saying they're going to rape someone's family to death because a video game was delayed. No reasonable person would consider that protected speech.
The question at hand is: do we want to be permitted to hear hate speech? Twitter and Facebook (and the law in some jurisdictions) are saying: "no, you may not encounter these subjects where we have the power to stop you, because it may inspire bad things within you -- either personal pain, or worse yet, radicalization."
Your second point is that none of this content is any good, anyway -- that we're better off getting rid of it.
FB and Twitter can do what they like, and there is something to be said for removing low quality content in order to achieve a better product. But "hate speech" seems much broader than that.
In Chaplinsky (a terrible SCOTUS decision that has been abandoned in practice), a WWI-era court decided that an anti-war protester couldn't disseminate anti-war rhetoric to his fellow immigrants (in Yiddish, btw). This was "like shouting fire in a crowded theater." Some things are just too dangerous to say out loud.
Are we so certain of our current taboos that we really don't want to hear from the fringe? Are we really OK with giving up our right to hear controversial viewpoints and decide their merits for ourselves? Because that's what these rules/laws do -- they don't force you to hear anything. You are always free to block, ignore, etc. They prevent you from encountering the content in the first place -- someone gets to decide for you what is and isn't "safe," because they're afraid you'll be influenced by it.
For me, I don't want to be kept ignorant of something because someone decides I'm better off not hearing. Even if that speech is violent, racist, conspiratorial, or just plain nutty. I can decide when divert my attention. It's part of being an adult -- learning that words can't hurt you.
Where did I even indicate or hint to that???
Having freedom of speech is not the same thing as forcing someone to listen to you.