That’s a tiring argument and describing that as a very American way of fetishising free speech is entirely appropriate.
Free speech is hard. And there are many difficult questions around it where you have to actually engage with the content of something.
So I get why people want to take shortcuts, but that is just so tiring. This unwillingness to even engage with content is extremely tiring.
People are responsible for their own actions. "But he incited me to violence!" is not an excuse for violence. Maybe in the case of a superior giving a subordinate a direct order (in which case both are responsible), but "the man on Twitter told me to do it" should hold about as much sway as Son of Sam's "the neighbor's dog told me to do it".
Even if someone is saying something supportive to you, you would probably prefer they don't scream it in your face.
Posting a statement to a Twitter account that people are free to follow, ignore, or block at their will is not even remotely comparable to physically forcing yourself into their presence to yell at them.
Now, how we determine demeaning language and what the punishment/cost is for using it is a worthwhile discussion. We _already_ have a system for when someone’s _character_ is attacked publicly: libel/slander.
1. Requires actual damages. The speech cost you money or demonstrably harmed you in some way. No, "you hurt my feelings" or "I paid with my identity" doesn't count.
2. Both parties have an opportunity to plead their case to a neutral adjudicator. The proceedings are generally public record and there is a process for appeals. The rules governing the system (laws) are public record and citizens have a say in electing the representatives who write those rules.
3. The speech must be not only demonstrably false, but intended to be believed and also be something that reasonable person could possibly believe. Opinions generally do not meet the level of libel or slander.
Yeah, that's not bad. Compare that to Twitter's system where an opaque set of rules are applied inconsistently by an unaccountable party with no appeal process.
If you can think back to a time when you have been verbally abused, use that as a model. For some folks, this happens routinely on Twitter and real life (usually for minorities in a group). Nobody said Twitter’s framework is the correct system, but suggesting that demeaning someone is “free speech” has me scratching my head.
I can’t say certain things and that’s totally fine. Disliking someone doesn’t mean that demeaning them is necessary. It’s already not legal in the workplace in the US when it is prolonged or severe.[0]
The alternative already exists today and is being applied unevenly globally.[1] I brought up examples of free speech exceptions already. I believe demeaning someone should also be an exception, and yes today that isn’t an exception in the US. Perhaps we need very precise definitions for these concepts to avoid over application, but hate “words” and the like are easy first passes.
Harassment is not illegal in the criminal sense. It is a cause you can sue people for. That also means it requires evidence and convincing a judge and possibly a jury. Again, there is a due process. It's not at the whim of a corporation. It also requires real damages such as a negative impact to someone's career, not just hurt feelings.
That's the case with all of the exceptions to free speech: there is a tangible, real world impact such as loss of income or risk of physical harm. "Feeling demeaned" is none of those things and is something that anyone can claim about anything. How you feel about something is also a choice. You can choose whether or not to let speech affect you like that.
I'll assume it's the latter, and say that's very fair. I'll also say, respectfully, it isn't terribly relevant to my observation of someone who made their point by collectivizing an entire nation of people, and did so in a pretty ham-fisted way, while availing themselves of the thing they seek to restrict.
Maybe I just find the complete absence of self-awareness in that comment to be oddly charming.
That's exactly how a lack of self awareness works.
I also hope my efforts to make it clear it was a commentary on its poetic formulation and potentially a road toward something much worse than the ill which we seek to eliminate, and not an attack on the character of someone I don't know personally (which I try to refrain from doing), were not similarly inscrutable.
That said, I thought it was a point I understand somewhat, however it was made. I just disagree with it.
But I agree with that statement. "Free speech" is often seen as absolute. But it is not absolute. Not even in the US. It never was. And it should not be. There is always a trade-off.
Limits are (copied from Wiki because I am lazy), for example: "libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury"
With that said, if you want to see laws have any effect, enforcement is required.
Calls for both an increased number of laws and enforcement of said laws (which is implicit in the assumption that these new laws will have a positive effect on a bad situation) is cause for pause, as, again, that has historically been the means by which states have worked actively against things that many observers would reasonably consider to be essential inputs to securing fundamental human rights.
It has a LOT of practical utility... But it's really important, I think, to know what that utility is and what its limits are.
And the limits exist and are quite noteworthy. Restricting someone from saying something defamatory is legally challenging relative to, say, the UK. But repeat someone's story verbatim and claim it as your own? Oops, you violated copyright, and no amount of bleating about your First Amendment rights will get you off the hook for the money you owe them, even if you didn't charge for your copy.
I find something deeply satisfying about the idea of someone generalizing 333-million people in one comment, using the word "fetishizing" to describe their view of a principle which has generally been regarded as essential to the vast majority of advances in human rights anywhere progress has been made, and while commenting thusly has done so all in the service of making the central point that it is they who overly-value free speech.
> Group b folks, such as myself, are not saying that we're concerned about dinner conversations. We're concerned about speech that is being amplified in a way where there's a civic responsibility to ensure that the harmful messages are not being amplified.
So public speech should be further limited, provided La Résistance is still permitted to speak freely as we enter an era with an ever-increasing number of state-aligned location-aware microphones in homes, workplaces, vehicles, pockets and (on) wrists?
What could possibly go wrong in that scenario?