The refrain "I believe in free speech, BUT" is so common that first amendment lawyers regularly joke about it [0] [1] [2].
"Free speech for me— but not for thee" is also the title of an excellent book by Nat Hentoff [3]
Personally I like how ACLU founder Roger Baldwin put it to historian Arthur Schlesigner, Jr.:
> Arthur: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?"
> Roger: "That's a classic argument, you know. That's what they said about the Nazis and the Communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us. Therefore, we'd suppress ‘em first. We're going to use their method before they can use it.
> Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it." [4]
> Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it.
This isn't empirically true though, as someone else mentions in this thread there's a fair amount of evidence that past a certain point, more free speech makes fomenting a populist revolt to end democracy easier, not harder, and that if democratic stability is what you're opting for, something more akin to western Europe's laws would be better than the US's.
Like, as much as I like the ACLU, the argument you're presenting is functionally "trust us", which, no, I don't trust the free speech advocacy org to have an objective view on the dangers of unrestricted speech. It is contrary to your nature.
> This isn't empirically true though, as someone else mentions in this thread there's a fair amount of evidence that past a certain point, more free speech makes fomenting a populist revolt to end democracy easier, not harder, and that if democratic stability is what you're opting for, something more akin to western Europe's laws would be better than the US's.
Since you must have already read my above comment about punishable speech that "in context, directly causes specific imminent serious harm", you must now be arguing that there are words beyond that which cause violence. That's wrong. Words are not violence. When you punish speech that does not cause violence, you turn into the censor. Consider how you sound when you argue this point [1]. It draws people towards the cause you seek to censor, not away from it. You enable your opponent, just as Anthony Comstock did over a hundred years ago. People root for the underdog, they want to hear both sides, and to be trusted to make up their own minds. When you take away their ability to choose, you become their enemy, not their ally.
> the argument you're presenting is functionally "trust us",
Fundamentally, this is the exact opposite of the point I'm making. The censor is saying, "trust me, this was bad, seeing it will hurt you". Free speech advocates are saying, "make up your own mind" and that you have the right to associate with whomever you please.
> which, no, I don't trust the free speech advocacy org to have an objective view on the dangers of unrestricted speech.
Free speech does not mean unrestricted speech, as mentioned above.
> It is contrary to your nature.
It sounds like you feel there is no common ground to be found. Yet we are all human. We have both similarities and differences that can be discovered through conversation, some of which may be easy like this one, some of which may be hard. Giving up on that is the equivalent to saying we should either all duke it out or live separately. I'm probably not the most difficult person debate-wise you'll ever meet. You might as well start somewhere.
> Since you must have already read my above comment about punishable speech that "in context, directly causes specific imminent serious harm", you must now be arguing that there are words beyond that which cause violence.
Correct.
> Words are not violence.
Sure. But I never claimed as such. I said words could cause violence. Combustion is not flight, and yet combustion, in the right circumstances, causes flight. Two things need not be equivalent for there to be a causal relationship between them.
> you turn into the censor.
Assuredly, but here you're begging the question. Why is becoming the censor an ill that must, at all costs, be avoided?
> It draws people towards the cause you seek to censor, not away from it.
This is a common claim, but we know it to be untrue. While certainly, some people may be drawn to the restricted section of the library, fewer people will ultimately here the material than if it's being preached about on the street. We see this with censorship all the time, both empirical examples (censorship of sex-related topics in religious communities) and quantifiable ones [0].
> Fundamentally, this is the exact opposite of the point I'm making
No, I mean that in the quote you provided, his claim that "in our experience, actually censoring makes things work" is totally unsupported. You have to trust him that that's true, and of course the guy who runs the free speech organization is going to say that censorship is bad. If he didn't believe that, he wouldn't run the free speech organization. My simple question is "what if there's a point after which free speech actually makes things worse"?
I mean you already agree that such a point exists: imminent violent action. But presumably I could come up with other examples of things you'd be okay with censoring (CSAM is a common example). If you're okay banning that speech, what's the harm in moving the needle a bit in one direction or the other, especially if moving it results in a society that is more stable?
I think there are good and nuanced answers to all of those questions, but you aren't even engaging with them because you seem to be claiming that, without exception, it is obvious that the optimal and least harmful choice when picking what speech we should ban is "imminent violence incitement and nothing else", and when I ask "why set the bar there", you quote someone who says "trust me". That's not convincing.
> I think you should stop ignoring the parts you don't accept, you're coming across as dishonest.
What parts?
> Specifically with the irony that while you decry "trust us," it is precisely what is required to accept your "moving of the needle a little bit."
Not at all because, I have not argued for any particular movement. What I'm asking for is a argument that the status quo is optimal that is more robust than "trust us the alternatives would be worse", especially when there are fairly good examples of the needle being in other places in other nations and it being, generally speaking, fine.
> I have not argued for any particular movement. What I'm asking for is a argument that the status quo is optimal
Why? Nobody said it's written in stone. Laws remain open to interpretation for as long as a judiciary exists.
> there are fairly good examples of the needle being in other places in other nations and it being, generally speaking, fine.
It sounds like you have a particular idea about what should be changed, yet you are reluctant to say which one, and you simultaneously want everyone replying to you to address all of those possibilities ("you aren't even engaging with them").
In other words, you are placing all responsibility upon your interlocutors to anticipate your thinking and none upon yourself.
> It sounds like you have a particular idea about what should be changed
Not at all.
I mean yes I have opinions, but I'm not advocating for any particular opinion here. I'm asking for you to justify yours with something better than the ACLU president having said "trust me". Why is the line where it is in the US better than the line a little to the left or the right of that? What makes the choice to ban the speech we do and allow the speech we do, as opposed to more or less socially optimal?
Fundamentally, I'm not asking you to anticipate my thinking, I'm asking you to catch up and engage with the questions I've already engaged with (some of which I asked upthread!). Because it is unsatisfying that the only answer you can provide to "why should we do things this way" is "trust us, the alternatives would be worse".
> I'm asking for you to justify yours with something better than the ACLU president having said "trust me".
This article is from FIRE, not the ACLU. The ACLU now interprets civil liberties and rights to be potentially in conflict with each other, which is part of why FIRE got started and grew so much.
> I'm not asking you to anticipate my thinking, I'm asking you to catch up and engage with the questions I've already engaged with (some of which I asked upthread!)
The questions you asked were already answered before you asked them. You did not absorb the discussion above before you started asking questions, and are now asking to be spoon fed answers. Take some time to read the other comments above in this chain, check out the sources, listen to FIRE speakers on why current jurisprudence is where it is. Nobody is saying "trust us", they're saying, "this is what I think, and here are the sources that inform my thinking. You can check them out and decide for yourself whether you agree or disagree."
You've ignored all of this and insist that someone must tell you why they are right. Nobody can decide for you what's right. Opinions are subjective. Make up your own mind, nobody can do it for you.
One example, where it was pointed out there are already limitations on free speech quite strictly defined under law.
Your second point is impossible to argue, because you request that someone argue against a subjective and infinitely definable 'optimal' that you projected.
The refrain "I believe in free speech, BUT" is so common that first amendment lawyers regularly joke about it [0] [1] [2].
"Free speech for me— but not for thee" is also the title of an excellent book by Nat Hentoff [3]
Personally I like how ACLU founder Roger Baldwin put it to historian Arthur Schlesigner, Jr.:
> Arthur: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?"
> Roger: "That's a classic argument, you know. That's what they said about the Nazis and the Communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us. Therefore, we'd suppress ‘em first. We're going to use their method before they can use it.
> Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it." [4]
[0] https://youtu.be/0ZpsiLX9_HY?t=419
[1] https://youtu.be/J1iZffRFs8s?t=736
[2] https://youtu.be/-ByRjHwknbc?t=1210
[3] https://archive.org/details/freespeechformeb0000hent/page/n9...
[4] https://youtu.be/ND_uY_KXGgY?t=1225