Three links from manifestly right-wing organisations decrying the lack of free speech on the left are not exactly convincing.

Linking from right-wing organizations does not make the facts presented in the articles less true… you should critique the content of the articles, not their origin.

Brandolini's Law is relevant. If we havs to carefully point-by-point critique every point our opponent makes, while they get to use ChatGPT to write nonsense at fifty times human reading speed, we lose.

To work around this, when a bullshit-producing organization is cited, it's proper to ask for an alternative citation from an organization that produces mostly non-bullshit. If it truly isn't bullshit content, there should be many, so cite one.

It's just spam filtering. I don't reply to "forward this to ten people you know or suffer eternal damnation" but my ignorance doesn't mean they're right. If you put important content in an email starting with "Dear Sir or Madam, I have a business proposal, I am a Nigerian prince" that's on you and the fact that I ignore your email doesn't mean I agree with whatever you wrote in the email.

Except that in this particular case these were not bullshit articles. I had time to read them and I agree with them. You should read the articles before calling them names….

> Except that in this particular case these were not bullshit articles.

They are, though. I had time to read them, too, and agree with the "bullshit" assessment. Each relies on the deeply bad-faith idea (in each case, from people/groups all quietly permitting much more significant First Amendment violations go unchallenged, like the President extorting law firms and colleges for millions of dollars) that the ACLU must take up every case that comes their way. That has never been the case; if the Heritage foundation wants that, they can step in and help fund.

A good portion of the ACLU's job is to determine which cases will meaningfully advance civil rights; which cases will lead to precedent or outcomes that support their goals.

If they are not bullshit content, then please prove it by citing the same content from a not bullshit source. There should be plenty.

In other words, if your email really isn't a Nigerian prince scam, why did you choose to begin it with the words "I have a business proposal for you - you see, I am a Nigerian prince"?

Pretty telling what speech on the left and the right looks like.

For the left, it's:

> Eugene Debs, for example, was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act after he spoke at a rally for peaceful workers telling them they were “fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder”... Likewise, in 1919, Schenck v. U.S., the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Socialist Party member after he sent anti-war leaflets to men across the country.

For the right, it's:

> It will not defend the First Amendment rights of pro-life pregnancy centers [...to trick desparate women into receiving useless propaganda instead of the medical care they were seeking] or small religious businesses [...to deny service based on rank bigotry]. It no longer defends religious freedom [...to deny adoptions to LGBT couples[1], to fire employees for receiving or abetting an abortion[2], and to perjure yourself in a senate hearing about your intention to make legal rulings on the basis of religion[3]], although it once did. And in a leaked internal memo, the ACLU takes the position that free speech denigrating “marginalized groups” should not be defended.

If you're ever in a position to write "marginalized groups" in scare-quotes, perhaps that should be a wakeup call...

P.S. It doesn't help that your links are to 1) a libertarian thinktank founded to oppose the New Deal, 2) the Heritage Foundation and 3) an opinion piece by Alan Dershowitz. The first is extremely biased, and the latter two are just plain bad-faith.

[1] https://www.lgbtmap.org/kids-pay-the-price

[2] https://laist.com/shows/take-two/heres-the-last-of-the-bills...

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/feinstein-the-...

The next time somebody says the phrase "Fire in a crowded theater" to support free speech restrictions, remind them that this phrase comes from Schenck vs US (argued 1919), which was about whether you have the right to distribute antiwar pamphlets.

At issue was whether antiwar speech can constitutionally be punished as espionage, which can be a capital crime under US law, punishable by death.

Whether you're allowed to to speak in ways that Congress considers too close to 'creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent'. Whether you could criminalize speech deemed disloyal or detrimental to the war effort.

Woodrow Wilson was the 28th president of the United States, serving from 1913 to 1921, and among other things, his administration dramatically expanded the precedential authority of the federal government in authoritarian directions, particularly with regards to things like surveillance and censorship. The Sedition Act of 1918 "broadened the scope of prohibited speech to include any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the U.S. government, flag, or military", and the Espionage Act of 1917 "made it illegal to interfere with the military, obstruct recruitment, or convey information that could harm the U.S. or aid its enemies. "

It took the Warren and Burger courts of the 60's/70's to reel this back in and re-establish many of the Constitutional rights you were taught about. It's unclear whether the pendulum will swing back the other way precedentially, but doubtless Trump would prefer carte blanche to target dissidents.

I am so much not willing to listen to what heritage specifically has to say on the topic. Could you pick less hypocritical and less eager to lie resources to "definitely not pick up on left totally both side"? Heritage foundation literally where Project 2025 was created and published.

Also, I definitely love the track record of "the measure of free speech is your willingness to defend nazi and never use words to support the left":

> To be sure, the ACLU will still occasionally take a high profile case involving a Nazi or Klan member who has been denied freedom of speech, though there are now some on the board who would oppose supporting such right-wing extremists. But the core mission of the ACLU — and its financial priority — is to promote its left-wing agenda in litigation, in public commentary and, now, in elections. If you want to know the reason for this shift, [...]

Yeah, their litmus test is always willingness to defend nazi AND not have left like opinions. If you are aligned with right wing specifically, you are fine. Just dont you dare to have left like opinions. Total neutral.

Sure, here are some liberal leaning sources saying things you might not like if you believe these things, including vile things said by extremist groups, should be censored:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html

https://archive.is/TpU8Q

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/31/how-the-resurge...

Please note: I 100% abhor white supremacy and any kind of racism. But you can and should defend the right to free speech without agreeing with that speech.

We need to support the speech of all groups we detest - baby eaters, satanists, polygamists, racists, sexists, murderers, capitalists, Marxists, televangelists, etc. - in order to champion free speech for all. Once that freedom disappears, it won't come back. Then the systems of censorship and oppression will be used against us.

I'm LGBT. I know what it was like to grow up when my "lifestyle" was taboo. I know how easily and quickly society can change. I don't want to ever have my freedom removed or to be put into a box.

If you're uneasy about this, remember that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from judgement. If you say something disgusting, you'll lose credibility and business from most people. Crowds already effectively censor. But we don't need the government or public squares becoming thought police and building automated systems to muzzle and detain us. Once those systems get built, we're done for.

> We need to support the speech of all groups we detest - baby eaters, satanists, polygamists, racists, sexists, murderers, capitalists, Marxists, televangelists, etc. - in order to champion free speech for all.

Except that, in practice the defense of self styled free speech advocates did not extended to left, gay, radical feminists, progressives anyone not far right.

In what world is NY times left leaning.

> If you're uneasy about this, remember that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from judgement.

Somehow that part did applied to only selected groups. Criticising right and conservatives was treated as grave danger to free speech by the self styled free speech advocates.

The big crisis of free speech is never about speech rights of anyone left of center. Literally even now.

> Except that, in practice the defense of self styled free speech advocates did not extended to left, gay, radical feminists, progressives anyone not far right.

It absolutely has.

LGBT rights:

https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights-202...

NAMBLA:

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-defending...

HIV:

https://www.aclu.org/cases/outmemphis-v-lee

BLM:

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/in-a-major-win-for-our-r...

Women's rights:

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-rejects-ap...

That is all aclu which is (per articles posted in this thread) too much left and therefore not free speech by definition.

The hill article even articulated exactly that position openly.

Neither the left or the right wants anything. People inside each group do. This is an important distinction that pundits love to invert.

I have a very hard time taking any of your sources seriously, particularly when it comes to any categorization of "the left".

FEE is a conservative libertarian think tank. Heritage Foundation is the most infamous conservative think tank. Alan Dershowitz is most famous for defending Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, and Jeffrey Epstein, and decided to leave the Democratic party as soon as it showed signs of becoming a bit less Zionist.

These are prime examples of pundits who love to frame the "the left" as a singular cohesive boogeyman. You may not intentionally be picking on the left, but the sources you have cited make a living picking on a version of "the left" that they invented.

Then I recommend you have a look at the polling numbers on free speech presented here: https://www.natesilver.net/p/free-speech-is-in-trouble

I’m so tired of this false divide. Its the wealthy vs the rest of us.

I don’t want to go right or left. I want to move forward and leave this stupid, stupid mess behind.

Yes, the wealthy and their supporters, a.k.a. the right... the segment of the rest of us who knows about this ideological divide, a.k.a. the left... and the rest of the rest of us who don't take sides.

These words do mean things. The left is the ideology of supporting less tall power hierarchies, and the right is the ideology of supporting taller power hierarchies. Wealthy left-wing people don't stay wealthy for long, hence almost all wealthy people are right-wing.

Note a common misconception - in the American context, note the Democrats are not left. Trying to contort the definition of left to make the Democrat party fit the definition muddies the meaning severely. However many left-wing Americans do vote for the Democrat party, because game theory makes it the optimal vote if you're left-wing.