> Folks can rant about free speech all they want, but no sane person would actually want to experience it.
Always remember that "free speech" is 100% about the right to say what you want and not be prosecuted for it. It has never, ever been about the social consequences of any particular one person's speech. Insulting your boss and getting fired isn't an abridgement of free speech, neither is getting banned from the neighborhood pub for racist monologues.
This is the canonical meme of free speech, but there's a corollary that is becoming increasingly relevant. People who repeat what you just wrote usually seem to ignore it: If every arena where people actually meet is privately owned, and all of these places agree on what ideas are valid topics of discussion, the effect on society will largely be the same as if a state actor suppressed free speech.
We're not quite there as a society, but we are moving in that direction. Some of the biggest public arenas are close enough that it is a problem. As a current example, consider if Facebook, Twitter and reddit all agree that any discussion asking critial questions regarding transgender issues are grounds for expulsion. If this happens, there will be valuable discussions that don't happen, and society will be worse off for it. There will be people who make life-changing mistakes because they didn't have access to a viewpoint that catalyzed an insight that was important for them.
We're not quite there yet. But there are numerous incidents that make me worried that this trend will leave us with a society that's net worse off. Or moves towards violent conflict as the suppressing the free exchange of ideas has economic consequences where those with social access to free speech arenas get better opportunities, leaving the rest without even the possibility of engaging.
You see the latter being alluded to when investors on Twitter or elsewhere state that there are many factually true insights about startups that they would never state outside of a close circle of acquaintances, out of a legitimate worry that it would incite a Twitter mob and cause serious personal consequences. Everyone outside of their own sphere of influence are worse off for not being able to share the knowledge. Yet another wedge increasing the wealth disparity, and more fuel for the anger that comes along with it.
> There will be people who make life-changing mistakes because they didn't have access to a viewpoint that catalyzed an insight that was important for them.
This goes both ways though. Some people will choose to transition their gender because internet people might over-encourage them, but far more people who should transition won't because trans erasure, censorship, and discrimination was the norm until this decade. And technically, mostly still is the norm. You have far more "don't you dare imply being trans is ok" IRL than you have "don't you dare imply being trans is not ok" online.
And this comment leaves out critical facts. Medical professionals don't just hand out pills and surgeries to anyone who just walks in. Individuals are given serious consultations where they can help get a diagnosis and then the ability to make an informed decision in regards to their options.
People who regret transition are actually a tiny minority. Why is it a tiny minority? Because medical professionals put a lot of effort into vetting patients.
People getting "censored" are actually just repeating "somebody once regretted it, therefor no one should ever get it" over and over again, usually in less honest wording, often just transphobia or bullying just for the sake of it.
In normal parlance, this is just called "moderation".
That's a pretty dismissive way to say "jurisprudence".
> If every arena where people actually meet is privately owned, and all of these places agree on what ideas are valid topics of discussion, the effect on society will largely be the same as if a state actor suppressed free speech.
The concept that you're edging up to here is called "State Action". It's the idea that there are times and places where a private actor meets some sort of condition that makes them act so much like a government, that we hold them to the standards that we hold other governments, including all of the amendments and their existing jurisprudence.
While the Supreme Court has held up the concept of State Action, they've narrowed it significantly. The major case where State Action was upheld, Marsh vs. Alabama, the private actor in this case built a literal town. Since then the Supreme Court has been narrowing the precedent in this case, a process called "Limiting a case to its facts". Recent cases about State Action have had the court restrict State Action to "powers traditionally exclusive to the state", which does not include things like Twitter.
> People who repeat what you just wrote usually seem to ignore it:
This is both unnecessarily insulting, it's also wrong. People do talk about this stuff a lot, myself included. The fact that your reading list doesn't overlap with anyone who knows the jurisprudence here is your fault, not my fault.
> As a current example, consider if Facebook, Twitter and reddit all agree that any discussion asking critial questions regarding transgender issues are grounds for expulsion
This might be a problem under anti-trust issues, but it's not a 1st amendment issue.
> We're not quite there yet. But there are numerous incidents that make me worried that this trend will leave us with a society that's net worse off. Or moves towards violent conflict as the suppressing the free exchange of ideas has economic consequences where those with social access to free speech arenas get better opportunities, leaving the rest without even the possibility of engaging.
This is always the heart of the "free speech on Twitter" argument, and it is always extremely poorly thought out. Are you suggesting that Twitter cannot moderate beyond the (very wide) bounds of the first amendment? Because those "Twitter mobs" you fear are protected speech; if Twitter is held to the first amendment then they cannot be removed. Or are you suggesting that Twitter do something about the "Twitter mobs", which implies moderating some people for what they say on Twitter, which isn't exactly the "free speech" you're advocating for.
I didn't say that you were wrong, or dismiss your viewpoints. I'm pointing out that there is a broader debate here, which has value but is misunderstood by many. Freedom of speech as a philosophical concept spans wider than its codification in law, and probably requires adaption or extension in response to changing circumstances.
The "twitter mob" argument was really an ancillary point to show where one ends up if enough unpopular opinions are silenced. But it's interesting in itself. I don't think a participant in public debate in the 1700s would have reason to fear a crowd of tens of thousands stapling angry and occasionally violent rebuttals to their front door.
Okay, calling someone a fucking moron is protected speech. It would be problematic to censor it. But there is a problem if a crowd screams at someone who has valid (if controversial) points, if this happens to such a degree that they will self-censor or withdraw from the debate entirely, perhaps (rightfully) fearing for their livelihoods and personal safety. My example was a concrete instance of this.
Solution? Hell if I know. There's certainly a problem; a situation that has negative consequences. There's something to the viewpoint that cancelling someone is approaching an act of violence, where it affects a person's ability to earn a living and survive. But this is obviously not the last or only important point in such a debate. It's something that should be discussed widely.
It certainly appears to me that it is being discussed widely. I see this discussion all the time.
Really you are talking about societal norms. Sometimes I agree with those norms, and sometimes I don’t. I think the norm that gays should be ostracized was wrong, and I’m happy to see how much this is changing. I think the norm that racism shouldn’t be tolerated is right, and I’m happy when it is upheld.
The solution is to not look to the government to solve social issues like this. Governmental policy and law is way too slow, coarse grained, and unwieldy for stuff like this.
>Always remember that "free speech" is 100% about the right to say what you want and not be prosecuted for it
No I don’t remember. You can have “free speech” except the social consequences are that your neighbours lynch you in the streets. No I don’t recall it like that. Free speech has always been absolute because the majority opinion is immune from social consequences. It is the minority opinion that requires protection.
Lynching has always been a crime and that’s why nobody was lynched ever. The mob already has protection because their numbers. It is everyone but the mob that needs the protection.
You know, there is a rule about presuming good faith. Accusing me of "giv[ing] them up to the lynch mob" is not that. Knock it off.
Here's the issue, either you're advocating for something useless, or for the suppression of speech.
On one hand, you have the idea of criminalizing violent responses to unpopular speech. This is completely superfluous; we already criminalize violence, what will adding another law do, really? The theory might be that it'll dissuade action, but someone furious enough to literally lynch their neighbor over speech isn't rationally balancing the pros and cons. "I strongly disapprove of this and therefore I want whoever does it to be locked up forever" might feel viscerally good, but we know it's a bad way to run a country.
On the other hand, attempting to protect people from non-violent responses involves the suppression of speech based on popularity. You might have the right to say whatever you want, but I also have the right to tell you exactly how I feel about that. You can't abridge my legal right to say that because I happen to be in the majority any more than you can suppress my speech if I was in the minority. And if my push-back to your original speech is noxious in its own right, then maybe I'll suffer social consequences for my own speech, as is completely fair.
Oh, and remember that any tool you give the government might be abused. We're already seeing local cities trying to pass "hate speech" laws against anti-cop sentiment, which is probably not what the original authors had in mind. The path between "we need to suppress the mob" and "my political opponents are a mob and must be suppressed" is very straight and very short.
I don't think your straw man of my argument is particularly in good faith.
>Here's the issue, either you're advocating for something useless, or for the suppression of speech.
Incorrect. I'm pointing out your flawed argument where you somehow believe that "free speech" exists if there are social consequences for speaking. I provide a counter example where severe social consequences, effectively suppress speech.
As pointed out by another commenter on your post, freedom of speech is much more than the letter of the law. It is a much wider concept for exchanging ideas. Your claim that "not free from consequences" by the letter of the law while legally correct, is ironically, the polar opposite of what freedom of speech actually is.
> I provide a counter example where severe social consequences, effectively suppress speech.
You listed a crime that might happen, and then asserted that therefore we need more laws to protect speech. I find the argument unpersuasive, for reasons I have already provided.
As an aside, I find the hyperbole tiresome. "What if someone gets lynched?" is half a step away from "think of the children" in its triteness, and it's a really quick way to make these conversations go off the rail.
> Your claim that "not free from consequences" by the letter of the law while legally correct, is ironically, the polar opposite of what freedom of speech actually is.
And what, pray tell, do you recommend when the "social consequences" of free speech are also speech? Would you suppress the speech of "the mob" for the sake of the original speaker? Would you force people to associate with those they find noxious against their wills? If so, I don't think you're nearly as pro free speech as you think you are. If not, then I'm not really sure what you're actually advocating for, aside from generally being angry at Twitter.
You think that people aren’t already hiding their views because of social consequences? And this is progress? You’d rather that people hid what they really think?
Your entire view handicapped by your inability to see past what is and what is not allowed by law. You seem to think that only legal methods, instead of social or cultural changes are the only way to encourage a culture that values the freedom of speech. You are too shortsighted to see that freedom of speech is both a cultural and legal concept. More importantly, by arguing legal semantics, you don’t seem to understand why freedom of speech is necessary at all. Freedom of speech is merely an implementation detail. Has it never occurred to you to ask “what problem is it trying to solve?”
Always remember that "free speech" is 100% about the right to say what you want and not be prosecuted for it. It has never, ever been about the social consequences of any particular one person's speech. Insulting your boss and getting fired isn't an abridgement of free speech, neither is getting banned from the neighborhood pub for racist monologues.