What? Are you fucking kidding me? New York Times posts an article advocating against free speech.

[Buyetyen]

I'm glad you're against abortions

lol nope

 

[Cheetodust]

Yeah, to add rights not remove them.

Fine. Then the 13th amendment removed the right to own slaves. The 17th prohibited alcohol, the 21st repealed that but still outlaws transporting alcohol into territories where it's illegal.

To act like the founding fathers were infallible is asinine. Does anyone consider any right immutable really? Slavery is still perfectly legal for convicts in the US. Context matters. This isn't even taking a position against the first amendment. You already don't have free speech with regards to slander and libel. There IS a limit. It's perfectly valid to argue what that limit should be. You might disagree but you can't argue that there is no limit because that's provably untrue. If you can argue that this particular limit is crossing a line then fair but there needs to be a reason. We already know that speech can be limited if it causes harm. Also most countries aren't living in 1984 and have very different ideas of free speech than the US.

 

[stroopwafel]

Fine. Then the 13th amendment removed the right to own slaves. The 17th prohibited alcohol, the 21st repealed that but still outlaws transporting alcohol into territories where it's illegal.

To act like the founding fathers were infallible is asinine. Does anyone consider any right immutable really? Slavery is still perfectly legal for convicts in the US. Context matters. This isn't even taking a position against the first amendment. You already don't have free speech with regards to slander and libel. There IS a limit. It's perfectly valid to argue what that limit should be. You might disagree but you can't argue that there is no limit because that's provably untrue. If you can argue that this particular limit is crossing a line then fair but there needs to be a reason. We already know that speech can be limited if it causes harm. Also most countries aren't living in 1984 and have very different ideas of free speech than the US.

You really try to compare the right to free speech with slavery now? Is that the only analogy or comparison you people can ever make no matter the subject?

This not about individual laws changing it's about the constitutional foundation upon which values modern society and democracy is based. There are indeed laws against libel, slender, inciting to violence etc. But again this is up to the courts not the legislator.

 

[dreng3]

This not about individual laws changing it's about the constitutional foundation upon which values modern society and democracy is based. There are indeed laws against libel, slender, inciting to violence etc. But again this is up to the courts not the legislator.

Those laws were established by the legislators though.

I think we can all agree that free speech was necessary, and that it would be preferable to retain it, but it is also a fact that we've never seen a world like this. What worked in the past, and was required for things to work in the past, might not be the things we need today, perhaps they are the opposite.

In the times preceding agriculture free travel was necessary because it wouldn't be possible to live without travelling. Following the revolution free speech was necessary because you couldn't retain the newfound freedom without people to speak out against oppressors, tyrants and the unjust. But things change. I don't know if they've changed to the point where free speech isn't necessary, I hope not, but perhaps they have. Or perhaps we have grown to a point where free speech actually hurts us more than it helps us.
Free speech is what the people use to address injustice, but it is being twisted to the point where some are using it to perpetuate injustices.

 

[Iron]

Those laws were established by the legislators though.

I think we can all agree that free speech was necessary, and that it would be preferable to retain it, but it is also a fact that we've never seen a world like this. What worked in the past, and was required for things to work in the past, might not be the things we need today, perhaps they are the opposite.

In the times preceding agriculture free travel was necessary because it wouldn't be possible to live without travelling. Following the revolution free speech was necessary because you couldn't retain the newfound freedom without people to speak out against oppressors, tyrants and the unjust. But things change. I don't know if they've changed to the point where free speech isn't necessary, I hope not, but perhaps they have. Or perhaps we have grown to a point where free speech actually hurts us more than it helps us.
Free speech is what the people use to address injustice, but it is being twisted to the point where some are using it to perpetuate injustices.

I like to witness how the CCP is succeeding in its ideological struggle overseas.

 

[dreng3]

I like to witness how the CCP is succeeding in its ideological struggle overseas.

Did I ever bring up China?
My point is that (western) modern society has changed that and our values, and what we call rights, need to change with it. China ultimately needs to do something similar, there is a call, and need, for a different system and way of doing things there as well, perhaps it is time to change.

 

[Iron]

Did I ever bring up China?
My point is that (western) modern society has changed that and our values, and what we call rights, need to change with it. China ultimately needs to do something similar, there is a call, and need, for a different system and way of doing things there as well, perhaps it is time to change.

China is doing it. It merged capitalism into an effective authoritarian technocracy. That is something others will want to emulate, and free communications is a big roadblock to it (5G for example).

I apologize is this seems like a tangent but an honest discussion about actual political theory and the philosophy of the rights of man in this type of new world cannot be disconnected from current geo-political realities and that it's apparent there is a push to a type of governance akin to the CCP.

 

[Cheetodust]

You really try to compare the right to free speech with slavery now? Is that the only analogy or comparison you people can ever make no matter the subject?

Not even kind of. I was pointing out that amendments have been introduced to remove rights. You fabricated the straw man that I compared slavery and free speech seemingly from nowhere. You argued that amendments add rights. I argued that they have been used to take them away. You know, like the 17th and 21st amendments I mentioned. Funny how you didn't accuse me of comparing free speech to selling booze but I'm sure it wasn't an intentional bad faith argument.

This not about individual laws changing it's about the constitutional foundation upon which values modern society and democracy is based. There are indeed laws against libel, slender, inciting to violence etc. But again this is up to the courts not the legislator.

So you would support this decision if the courts were to make it?

 

[dreng3]

I apologize is this seems like a tangent but an honest discussion about actual political theory and the philosophy of the rights of man in this type of new world cannot be disconnected from current geo-political realities and that it's apparent there is a push to a type of governance akin to the CCP.

Sure, it is a relevant discussion, but the way I see it the people pushing towards that kind of system is actually using freedom of speech to do so. The very foundation of such a shift if to create not just civil unrest, but also uncertainty. Which I find is being done through both the press, social media, news, and other forms of media.

Of course there are also those pushing towards nationalism instead of authoritarianism, a push I find far more prevalent in the west, likely as a response to a poor push towards a global society, exacerbated by propaganda spread under the guise of freedom of speech.

 

[Agema]

Or was I too on the nose there?

No, you were just too busy putting in a virtue-signalling boilerplate that you missed the point by so badly you hit the next continent. Never mind, eh?

That is the mere definition of tyranny by the few. How Democracy ends by David Runciman is a good read on the matter.

It's not. It's the simple recognition that the people will lose faith in a right or freedom that is abused. If abused severely enough, they will start to turn on it. Or that an abused right will eventually lead to disorder and breakdown, and that will be aa gap the tyrannically inclined can exploit.

 

[Trunkage]

China is doing it. It merged capitalism into an effective authoritarian technocracy. That is something others will want to emulate, and free communications is a big roadblock to it (5G for example).

I apologize is this seems like a tangent but an honest discussion about actual political theory and the philosophy of the rights of man in this type of new world cannot be disconnected from current geo-political realities and that it's apparent there is a push to a type of governance akin to the CCP.

So... It's become America. Because its definitely Capitalists, Authoritarian and a technocracy. I dont think the word efficient fits though

 

[Gergar12]

Ah yes, Berkley liberals.

 

[CM156]

The 17th prohibited alcohol

The 17th Amendment deals with the direct election of senators. You may be thinking of the 18th amendment.

You already don't have free speech with regards to slander and libel.

Neither of which are crimes, but are instead torts. Tort actions that are very hard to win in many cases, and almost impossible if you're a public figure.

Quite frankly, I'm glad to see that this article is getting pushback since it's been posted.

 

[stroopwafel]

Not even kind of. I was pointing out that amendments have been introduced to remove rights. You fabricated the straw man that I compared slavery and free speech seemingly from nowhere. You argued that amendments add rights. I argued that they have been used to take them away. You know, like the 17th and 21st amendments I mentioned. Funny how you didn't accuse me of comparing free speech to selling booze but I'm sure it wasn't an intentional bad faith argument.

You make those comparisons without elaborating how they are judicially analogous to the right of free speech. Yes, they are technically changes but without proper context to how they relate to the matter at hand that doesn't say much. Laws change all the time but not constitutional laws that relate directly to the tenets of enlightenment upon which liberal democracy, separation of powers and civil society is build.

So you would support this decision if the courts were to make it?

Sure, courts have a say in how laws are interpreted but not how they are written.

It's not. It's the simple recognition that the people will lose faith in a right or freedom that is abused. If abused severely enough, they will start to turn on it. Or that an abused right will eventually lead to disorder and breakdown, and that will be aa gap the tyrannically inclined can exploit.

Perhaps so but it proves the old adage true then; every country gets the leader it deserves.

 

[Trunkage]

Ah yes, Berkley liberals.

Is that much different from normal liberals?

 

[Gordon_4]

Is that much different from normal liberals?

Think of it as the difference between a Labour supporter from say, rural NSW and one from Central Sydney

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Man, the article presents problems and why they're problems and the takes here are so shallow about free speech instead of examining the problems and their solutions.

We even get stuff like

America’s information crisis was not inevitable. Nor is it insoluble. Whatever the Supreme Court does, there’s no legal barrier to increasing the delivery of reliable information. The government, federal or state, could invest in efforts to do exactly that. It could stop the decline of local reporting by funding nonprofit journalism. It could create new publicly funded TV or radio to create more alternatives for media that appeals across the ideological spectrum. The only obstacles to such cures for America’s disinformation ills are political.

Which more or less says promote the truth harder, but mostly all it feels like this gets is kneejerk reactions

 

[Tireseas]

I listened to the article over my lunch hour. It's a pretty good summation of the competing issues around free speech in the internet and social media age, particularly the importance of how free speech is framed in determining where the restrictions should be. What it most certainly is not is a piece that comes out against free speech, making the title of this thread an unconscionable lie.

It's a piece that in the NYTimes Magazine (which is essentially the NYT's version of the New Yorker or New York Magazine) that is largely making more public what a lot of attorneys have been having in private pretty much since the advent of the internet: how do we address misinformation and unlawful behavior on a medium where the content is published faster than a website can actually respond to when most of the civil law built to address this was made in a pre-internet era where you could reasonably assume the publisher knew the content was there.

The article itself points out several separate but serious factors that each exacerbate the other. (1) the changing legal climate around free speech that further favors the more powerful over the less powerful, (2) a conservative media ecosystem where blatant falsehoods and misinformation is not addressed in any substantive way, (3) the nature of social media makes containment of misinformation extremely difficult even with firms willing to actually address the issues. Add to this, President Trump, who has treated any news that doesn't outright praise him with hostility.

This culminates in situations like this one:

In February, The Washington Post reported on an internal effort by Facebook (called Project P, for propaganda) after the 2016 election to take down pages that spread Russian disinformation. The project foundered after Joel Kaplan, Facebook’s vice president for global public policy, reportedly said at a high-level meeting, “We can’t remove all of it because it will disproportionately affect conservatives,” according to a source at Facebook who spoke to The Post anonymously. In an email this month, a Facebook representative said Kaplan’s point about Project P was that the company “needed a clear basis for the removal because the impact would be felt more on the right than the left, and we would face criticism.”

It's essentially a feedback loop: any attempt to crack down on misinformation will inevitably have a disproportionate affect on conservative sites, who, in turn run outrage pieces on how they're being discriminated against and get aligned politicians to threaten legislative action against facebook or similar platforms trying to address the issue. So in many cases, it's easier for platforms to do nothing but address the most inexcusable situations when a better approach would be to use the clout of the platform to push against those sites and reign in their editorial standards.

For what it's worth, I'm someone who believes that free speech is a means to an informed populace, so misinformation is a major violation of that. I actually used to occasion to look up a thread on a listserv I was once on discussing FOSTA/SESTA and the need to be very precise in how we deal with wrongdoing on the internet due to revolutionary nature of the medium being more akin to the printing press (and the centuries of sectarian and political warfare that followed) than, say transitioning from the radio to the TV.

 

[Revnak]

Is that much different from normal liberals?

The Bay Area is an abomination.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Man, the article presents problems and why they're problems and the takes here are so shallow about free speech instead of examining the problems and their solutions.

We even get stuff like


Which more or less says promote the truth harder, but mostly all it feels like this gets is kneejerk reactions

Ah yes, reporting paid for by the government, totally no possible problems with that!