I don’t know about you, but any social group I’ve been part of has had its boundaries beyond which some speech and behavior becomes unacceptable and has consequences. What kind of social groups are you part of where all speech, including lies, insults, smearing, is accepted?

>What kind of social groups are you part of where all speech, including lies, insults, smearing, is accepted?

What kind of horrible friend group are you part of that believes people should be thrown in jail for telling lies or insulting people?

There’s a huge chunk of forum managera, BBS admins, moderator who have long since seen this tested empirically.

The Silicon Valley elite are dinosaurs who came to this realization too damn late.

They, argued about free speech too long.

The elite are out of touch.

The greatest hold they have on speech isn’t shutting or removing misinformation.

The hold they have on society is that the data needed to make these decisions intelligently is behind an NDA.

Every scientist who worked on this with data, is employed by These forms.

That is where the silence is deafening. And the success of it is that people are still arguing yesterday’s battles while the front has moved away.

Well, and all of Europe and Asia.

The united states is basically unique in the strength of it's speech protection, and even that is only the government. I'd challenge you to name a social group, any social group, that wouldn't ostracize you for saying certain things.

Freedom of speech is not violated by ostracism, because freedom of speech (as a right) is the right to say what one wants, to whom one wants, at a time of one's choosing and the implied listener's freedom - to listen to whom one wants (or not) at a time of one's choosing (and hence to what one wants).

If someone is ostracised that is an example of the listener exercising their free speech rights, not a violation of them.

Some use this as an example of why companies like Twitter and Facebook may remove someone from their platform, but I would argue firstly that they are a monopoly exercising monopoly power, hence violating one's rights to free speech, and that they are not platforms any more because of their interventionism in the speech of others (and currently have too much protection under law to do this). The monopoly power is the most important thing to challenge, in my view.

To the contrary, many Silicon Valley elites trend far more libertarian than the average population, so it's actually the opposite (depending on which elites you're talking about, they're not monolithic).

And it absolutely is widely accepted if you look at democratically produced law across the world. Restrictions on harmful speech exist literally everywhere in democracies. It's what people vote for. It's absolutely widely accepted.

> And it absolutely is widely accepted if you look at democratically produced law across the world.

Widely believed would be a better phrasing, as you may compare anywhere with low to no support for free speech and they will be more oppressive and violent than anywhere in say Europe or North America that has greater support for free speech, the correlation will be huge.

Then you could compare somewhere like the US with somewhere like France or Germany and ask if there is a greater amount of violence in either and see what could be attributed to speech. I doubt you'll be able to produce strong enough evidence for your position to then claim it as widely accepted over widely believed or just advocated for by parties that benefit from less freedom of speech.

Maybe you can, but I'd need to see it first.

> Widely believed would be a better phrasing, as you may compare anywhere with low to no support for free speech and they will be more oppressive and violent than anywhere in say Europe or North America that has greater support for free speech, the correlation will be huge.

Europe is one place with more limitations on "free" speech, and pretty much no parties or political grass-roots movements here are campaigning for any radical changes towards an American-style legislation. (Right-wing populist parties and movements in several countries are complaining about hate-speech legislation going too far -- and may even have a point -- but AIUI not even that means they're against the main idea that it's right to ban harmful speech; they just disagree on the definition and limits of what's "harmful" with regards to the kind of speech they want to indulge in.)

> Then you could compare somewhere like the US with somewhere like France or Germany and ask if there is a greater amount of violence in either and see what could be attributed to speech.

Crazy American lies freely spread under the guise of "Free speech!" gave you January 6.

I'm a bit surprised, it's enshrined in both US written and case law?

See e.g. [1] for an overview or [2] specifically for hate speech.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words