State of Speech

[Drathnoxis]

The last paragraph was me proposing, that while very difficult, you could theoretically get a court to step on and regulate certain things with enough effort, mostly specifically referring to NDAs. Mostly I was hoping Drath would then explain specifically what he finds so repulsive about NDAs.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you wanted me to go on.

Basically, as you said, corporations have so much power because of their money and NDAs take away one of the few options people have to redress the balance. One of the common ways I've heard of NDAs being used is that a major corporation will wrong an individual through massive negligence, and the individual will sue them. The corporation will then offer to settle out of court with an NDA being one of the terms. The individual is then left with the option of a long, drawn out legal battle they can't afford with an entity that has unlimited funds or a bit of money for their silence. Most people will take the money, but that isn't justice. The company isn't receiving appropriate retribution for their crimes, the legal precedents are never being set because it doesn't make it through court, and the public is never notified about the transgressions because of the NDA. That last point is the worst thing because the public should be entitled to know about that sort of thing, but nobody who knows is allowed to tell them. So the companies are allowed to go along, trampling whoever get in the way under their feet and never even have to worry about their reputation being tried in the court of public opinion.

I'm not a fan of use of NDAs in employment contracts either. I can see some value to them in certain cases, but it goes along with signing away your right to intellectual property you create (even in your spare time) and non competition clauses to really erode your rights as an individual and ensure that nobody is able to get out from under the thumb of a major corporation.

Edit: Also wasn't this thread in the WW? I could have swore it was.

 

[Silvanus]

The problem is that in thunderf00t case he said legitimate opinions (at least back then) and the answer was to attempt to destroy his life. There's not a lot of point of being able to express your opinion if people can destroy your life afterwards.

The "attempt to destroy his life" we're talking about, here, took the form of criticism, though. What's the alternative? That he can say what he likes (and with an enormous platform provided by his employer), but that critics may not, even without that same platform?

And it raises the philosphical question: Does not expressively forbidding something means actively encouraging people to act in this way? Which can be a thread in itself.

It means allowing it to occur. It is widely recognised that the government's accepted role includes preventing certain harmful behaviours. That usually includes severe or damaging discrimination.

 

[Callate]

What does plausible deniability have anything to do with what he said? I don't see anything in what he said that suggests it's okay for the government to secretly employ people to do that. I'd imagine the reason they get away with it isn't because the law says it's fine but rather because you can't punish someone for something you can't prove they're guilty of. I'm not sure how you expect to get rid of plausible deniability?

Sorry if that was not clear.

If prohibiting the free exercise of speech is an action only the government is supposed to be prevented from undertaking, then all an agent of a government needs to do to continue to hinder free speech is make sure that it isn't recognized that it's the government that is doing so.

As when an agent provocateur infiltrates a group and provokes violence at a protest to justify a broader legal crackdown against said group, or an official anonymously organizes or arranges funding of an "astroturf group" to lobby for or against issues or persons in a way the official him- or her-self cannot be seen to advocate.

If speech is supposed to be protected from suppression on a broader scale, whether legally or just as a practical and ethical standard, then even if the person(s) suppressing that speech cannot be proven to be working for the government, the act is still wrong.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

What does plausible deniability have anything to do with what he said? I don't see anything in what he said that suggests it's okay for the government to secretly employ people to do that. I'd imagine the reason they get away with it isn't because the law says it's fine but rather because you can't punish someone for something you can't prove they're guilty of. I'm not sure how you expect to get rid of plausible deniability?

Sorry if that was not clear.

If prohibiting the free exercise of speech is an action only the government is supposed to be prevented from undertaking, then all an agent of a government needs to do to continue to hinder free speech is make sure that it isn't recognized that it's the government that is doing so.

As when an agent provocateur infiltrates a group and provokes violence at a protest to justify a broader legal crackdown against said group, or an official anonymously organizes or arranges funding of an "astroturf group" to lobby for or against issues or persons in a way the official him- or her-self cannot be seen to advocate.

If speech is supposed to be protected from suppression on a broader scale, whether legally or just as a practical and ethical standard, then even if the person(s) suppressing that speech cannot be proven to be working for the government, the act is still wrong.

Well except depending on how broad you want that then you're denying private entities other rights out of fear of who they might be. Private entities should not be constrained the same way that the government should. I should not, for example, not be allowed to kick someone off my property because I dislike the shit they say, regardless of if someone decides that's 'suppressing speech'. Generally speaking... I should not be forced to give leeway to people for fear that I'm secretly the government and I'm suppressing their speech

Also, the examples you gave aren't really suppressing speech... they're framing someone or just secretly funding certain speech

 

[Callate]

Well except depending on how broad you want that then you're denying private entities other rights out of fear of who they might be. Private entities should not be constrained the same way that the government should. I should not, for example, not be allowed to kick someone off my property because I dislike the shit they say, regardless of if someone decides that's 'suppressing speech'. Generally speaking... I should not be forced to give leeway to people for fear that I'm secretly the government and I'm suppressing their speech

Also, the examples you gave aren't really suppressing speech... they're framing someone or just secretly funding certain speech

I'm not sure that I see how associating members, and especially leaders, of a group with illegal acts isn't a suppression of speech. At best it costs them time and attention that might otherwise be spent towards the group's goals; at worst, it costs money for a legal defense, puts members of that group in legal jeopardy that could see them fined or imprisoned, and casts a negative association in the minds of observers that may not be easily allayed, even if the sabotage is later unearthed.

As for the latter, it varies; groups like the Moral Majority and the PMRC of the 1980s had a significant role in attempting to stifle or censor media that they found "harmful to children" or "detrimental to family values".

There's an increasingly uneasy question as an increasing number of "public" venues are actually privately owned- whether it's the bandwidth infrastructure purchased by an Internet provider or a privately owned company that happens to hold a de facto monopoly in certain areas of discourse- say, Google, Facebook, Youtube, Patreon- whether the boundaries of the ability to speak and be heard or be silenced or suppressed- are so easily drawn.

 

[man2man]

I think free speech is important, but we have to imprison people that say things that are intolerant.

We have seen what happened in germany in 1933 when free speech went too far.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

"Free Speech" is a dogwhistle for fools.

For starters, it's a manufactured virtue because as soon as a foreigner leaks documents as to military actions they want to throw them in prison despite not breaking any laws in the country of residence... Or how about imprisoning communists? Or how about government threats to MLK?

The U.S. has never had "free speech" as American idiots pretend they have. It's the country that invented the Espionage Act of 1917 which imprisoned people for saying the U.S. shouldn't treat the successful revolution in Russia as an enemy of the state.

I have greater liberties about what I say in Australia as opposed to what the U.S. government would otherwise push for my extradition if I do.

"Free speech" is dog whistling for idiots who pretend like being anything less than an offensive **** to people is somehow being in transgression of it. You know, ignoring the fact that when people say something meaningful the president renounces their press pass at the White House. Or somehow an Australian publishing papers they received from sources online of government activities is a 'criminal' act (somehow).

Free speech should mean a government can't push to extradite, and throw you in jail, or shoot you for simply what you say. The U.S. is outrightly the worst offender of the Western world of this very basic concept in both the 20th and 21st century.

After all... Pompeo's excuse to have Assange extradited was precisely the fact that he was a foreigner, therefore had no rights of free speech (albeit ignoring that countries he were in do have protections and it was not considered a crime) ... so that's precisely how much they really don't give a shit.

So hey, U.S. "free speech" ... don't be a foreigner and don't say nasty things about the U.S. or publish documents of various atrocities they get up to... or else you get a predator drone enema or black bagged by the CIA.

Glad to see no shortage of idiots thinking free speech begins or ends at you simply have the capacity to be a **** wherever you like, yet pretending ordinary people should have to put up with that without cost to your social esteem, your paycheque, or your eligibility to be somewhere.

If you think that's "free speech" you're a fucking idiot.