[0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...
Hardly. Especially on the left. Including such issues as the ban on breastfeeding photos, ban on trans people using their names, and widespread failure to ban hate speech.
(I'm sure I've seen one case of someone recieving a pile of death threats, reporting them, getting told they were "not offensive", then reposting them as an image to say what sort of garbage facebook tolerates .. and then getting that post deleted by facebook. But not any of the original abuse.)
The problem is that free speech of any value has to be facilitated by the likes of Facebook and other companies. If companies control who gets banned for saying something, and their goal is largely profit-driven, and the consensus is to make communication habitable for the most consumers(as opposed to actual expression of ideas beyond vapid Instagram photos), we are essentially screwed. The left is at an advantage because they have the facade of being the ones who fight for social injustice and those who are "historically oppressed", which are things that most people, including many conservatives, can't really argue against on face value; when they are handed the keys to media power, they behave just as conservative religious fundamentalists would, just with their own particular set of ideas that are not always congruent.
That is why I find the public's support of censorship, and the socially-acceptable level of vexation over "offensive" ideas, to be very disturbing. I find that I cannot even trust a large number of people who I know, and I think many people have discovered the same thing, which is why platforms like Facebook have turned into digital ghettos.
Well this sounds unfortunate ...
> might get a reputation for being a bunch of things you're not
.. but that's just other people's free speech?
> I'm often seen as a conservative for bringing up the fact that violent crime in America is down
True, and also free speech. I'm slightly surprised this labels you as a conservative.
I'm not really seeing the "world of hurt", just a world of other people's free speech?
No. That saying "Hey, I want to own my own semi auto rifle." leads to someone thinking you are alt-right has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Their expressing their view of you being alt-right does, but the logical jump itself does not.
Now, people are free to think what ever they want. Not exactly given in a single Amendment, but people would agree holding some belief is a freedom. But we can still say that some beliefs being wide spread is a bad thing.
>True, and also free speech.
Their spreading their view of grandparent as being conservative is free speech. Their actually having this view is not related to free speech at all.
Take a comparison, imagine extremely racist views became extremely widespread and people kept bringing them up. Even though this is free speech, we still put limits on it. For example, the notion of creating a hostile work environment and the penalties that can bring.
Furthermore, the country most in favor of limiting free speech to protect minorities, Germany(70% pro, 29% against, total population) , ironically has the most experience with the dangers of both extremes of allowances on speech. On one hand the Nazi's were able to rise to power partly because they were able to publicly scapegoat groups of people who were eventually slaughtered en mass. On the other hand you have the Stasi who would torture and murder people based on a whiff of being critical of the ruling party.
Look, I'm for free speech, but lets not pretend that its an issue that doesn't require a modicum of nuance to approach.
They're not publishers, so your argument falls apart in the very first sentence.
I don't recall a time in history when services (what Facebook et al. are) were allowed to police the content of communications made with their service. I don't recall AT&T, when they allow customers to communicate using their telephone lines, being allowed to police the content of those communications. I don't allow printer manufacturers being allowed to police the things people print.
Before you reach for the keyboard to type the words, "that's different" - no, no it's not. It's not different at all. Facebook offers a service. They aren't publishers. My analogy is closer to reality than yours. It just so happens that Facebook is technically able to police my speech, and so you've chosen to shrug and say it's okay. If AT&T had been technically capable of listening to my speech and policing it, what argument would you make that they shouldn't be allowed to do that? Whatever argument you come up with, I make the same argument for facebook.
> I'm for free speech, but
"...but I'm not really for free speech."
It's all or nothing. You either accept it as a principle because you understand that it's literally the most important principle, or you don't. In your case, you don't.
This is because by posting on facebook or appearing on google you are implicitly now a representative of them because they're branding is all over that homepage. If you say something that facebook really disagrees with and would rather not say they have every right to not say it.
It's why Cloudflare didn't drop the Daily Stormer until after DS started to try and say the CF was on board with their views.
What law you would write and who it should apply to? You think Facebook should be mandated to host all non-illegal content, yes?
What about Flickr? What about Gardening.com? What about NoNazisAllowed.com? What would you propose as the legal standard for deciding who is a common carrier and who is not?
I don't have a horse in this race, but let's at least start the discussion with something concrete.
Has liberalism and free speech only existed in the time span where there's been regulated common-carrier type "services"?
Lets roll back the clock to before AT&T. Was there free speech and liberalism? Was any printer required to print anyone's manuscript? Was any newspaper required to be open to all opinions? Was any private person or organization required to spread those opinions across the world?
Historically, Facebook is much more like an open-to-the-masses publisher/distributor than you claim, with the difference resting more in economics (cost of publishing) than anything else. But that difference is hugely significant in practical terms - an unrestricted Facebook doesn't have much historical analog at all, hence the debate.
EDIT: apparenty people do talk about free speech, but they seem unaware of their rights.
The ideal "find your words despicable but defend your right to say them" is not all that common in practice, never has been. It's an idealist's position.
I'd guess that the results have more to do with political leanings on the underlying issue, than the free speech one. IE, the more concerned with hate speech, the more illiberal they are in the survey. Change "offensive to minority groups" to "spread lies about the President," and I suspect a different spread.
It needs to be courts who defend these things and they'll do it, if the laws are there.
I had to look that one up. A tankie is a hardline stalinist who defends old USSR policies in all cases. I really have a hard time believing that there is a rise in people like that.
The whole "antifa is just as bad"/"hard right and hard left are the same" thing just helps mask the real rise of the alt-right who have amassed a lot of power, they just helped elect a president. The hard-left has nowhere near that much power.
Tankies? I think of that as the Communists who supported Stalin's invasion of Hungary in the 1950s. What does that mean here?
I have no idea what chunk of the actual population they are, but I know a lot of people in Antifa self identify as tankies. I could be wrong though, usually am.
The ECHR Article 10 recognises this:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
.. which is how Germany can have its ban on Nazi symbols.
I agree though. They haven't. Even in countries with a high regard for free speech, there are exceptions. Nor is internet censorship the end of democracy.
But, directionality is important in politics. China provides an alternative example, that breaks many of the "rules" entirely. You can have a great firewall. China does. It's doing OK. Why can't Turkey? Why can't India? Why can't the EU?
^thanks for posting, btw. I've never read it, and I'm a citizen.
^^Ok… that caveat appears 5 times, allowing the limiting of 5 different rights for almost any reason any member state decides.
This really bothers me. I wish they had left these rights out, and only included rights that they can actually agree on.
That's there to allow a ban on porn. Which the US has as well, despite not having a similar clause.
Article 10 is comparatively well drafted. It's Article 8's nebulous "family life" that's the problem, with all sorts of surprising implications. It's as bad a drafting mistake as the US's 2nd amendment.
China thinks it should be illegal to say something that threatens the stability of the governing party as an institution, so they control information more heavily. But it's not yet clear what they've proven in the past 60-odd years. Remember that their centralized system did also lead to things like the 'Great Leap Forward'...
People still call the 250-year-old USA an experiment, and apparently it still has some surprises up its sleeve. So what does that make the upstart PRC? Certainly not a bedrock reaching back to Neo-Confuscionism and beyond.
I don't think so:
>..."shouting fire in a crowded theater" refers to an outdated legal standard. At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a "clear and present danger." But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own.
http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/...
China breaks from the “norm” drastically in a lot of ways. It doesn’t recognise the right of the public to elect officials, for example. There are lost of countries with flawed/fake democracies but most have democratic constitutions, officially. China is different.
20-30 years ago, liberal democracy was the only game in town. All new states formed on this basis. None of the ex-soviet states opted for official one-party constitutions, because it wasn’t one of the options.
There are many one party states, in practice. They don’t make it official. For example Egypt & Syria (also Iraq & Libya, formerly) have been one-party republics for 3 generations. Officially, they’re democracies because it was considered the only legitimate way. They rely on fake elections, emergency laws or some other theatre to get around their own official norms.
My point is that if arab revolutions of the 60s or post soviet revolutions of the 90s had happened today, they may have opted for the “Chinese Model” instead.
But, constitutions aren’t written every day. Laws are. Regulations are written every minute.
I’m trying not to be normative or negative about China. Just noting that China as an example, has an impact. It’s now a superpower and acts as a role model. A moderate position on internet censorship is now someplace between “uncensored” and “china.” Anything in between is within the “normal” range.
What about Arab spring of 2011? They still tried to setup a democracy afterwards. One of the motive for those revolution where abuse of power by the governments and by the police. This things are hard to deal with if you don't recognize a number of rights to your citizens.
It is very hard to prosecute someone based on threats. You have to be able to prove intent to follow through.
The west is an example of a region that can succeed without "western" liberal freedoms. "Western" liberal freedoms in the west were things attained after becoming wealthy and stable.
However, freedom is not. Freedom is well defined. The right to travel. The right to exchange your currency, or your work value. The right to buy and sell stuff with foreign countries (ie: trade).
Think your country ban travelling for 6 months to save up on hard currencies. Think your country banning certain imports (luxury)
China might be good for the average and bottom person but not for the freedom seeker.
I agree that it's perceived that way by many, and perception is reality to a great extent.
However, the jury is still out. Many countries have advanced to China's level of development while remaining authoritarian. S. Korea and Taiwan did it from roughly the 1950s to the 1980s. But it's hard to name one that advanced beyond that without adopting democracy.
It's also interesting to look at in historical context (all of the following is based on memory from reading Chinese history; probably a few details are off): Before the Opium Wars in the mid-19th century, China saw itself as the center of the world, far superior to all other nations, and had been using the same political system, under a variety of rulers, since roughly 250 BC (with many long interruptions).
The economic and military superiority of the Western powers was a shock, and China tried to adjust by changing as little as possible in order to maintain the culture and political system (and political power of the elite, of course). The steps they took were something like the following: First they tried to just buy the weapons, but that didn't work - you need skilled people to maintain them, supplies, etc.; you need skilled commanders and training; and you need to build them yourself or be dependent on foreign powers. Then they tried just hiring, then training a few people. Then realizing they needed the foundation of Western intellectual resources (science, open inquiry, etc.) to use Western tech effectively and to compete, IIRC they tried to open Western education to just a few. ... None of the half-measures were nearly effective enough, and in 1911 the Qing dynasty collapsed and a period of civil war began which ended in 1949 when the Communists conquered the country. Due in part to the horrible behavior of the Western powers and of others such as Japan, who all took advantage of China's weakness (remember that the UK actually controlled a major Chinese city until 1997), the period from the Opium Wars to 1949 is called the Century of Humiliation by some.
The recent attempt to adopt a Western economy without a Western political system seems, in a way, to be a continuation of the 19th century policies; I'm not sure it will be successful. The Communists are like the Confucian dynasties in other ways too. For example, the focus on corruption fits perfectly; a well-known theory of the cycle of the dynasties includes them collapsing under corruption. The Communists are fighting hard not to have history repeat itself, but IMVHO, it's no coincidence: A great advantage of democracy is the great reduction of corruption (though there still is too much); the free press reveals it, opposing parties harp on it, and the corrupt get voted out of office. Imagine the corruption of a U.S. political party that had been in office since 1949, couldn't get voted out of office, had no opposition, and controlled the press.
I'm sure China would happily adopt "western liberal freedoms" if didn't mean opening their citizens to brainwashing by western media and all their data being accessible to the CIA.
How laughably circular. Governments do not get to be immune to criticism.
Western elites have been trying to brainwash people against China since long before the idea of the internet was conceived.
>Governments do not get to be immune to criticism.
Edward Joseph Snowden.
China’s success has proven that countries can succeed without adopting western liberal freedoms. In fact, success adopting only a small subset of economic and personal freedoms, and none of the political freedoms. The economy is good, the state is stable..
Proof of concept for non-liberal systems.
This means freedoms need to be argued for on their own merits. Free speech for its own sake. No censorship for its own sake. etc.
Much harder. Much more prone to compromise and erosion.