My worry - and it's already happening - is that to be in favor of free speech is somehow code or an alliance with the right, Alt-Right and neo-nazism.
That guy is a typical white nationalist douche. I believe in free speech and think he should be allowed to speak but tend to have a more optimistic view about people - which isn't always the case - that if you let people air bad ideas and expose their illogical that reason and the ethical perspective will win out, but unfortunately you have more people embracing white nationalist ideas because they are coupled together with other issues.
it's also happening now with Jordan Peterson where he is being labeled as Alt-Right.
1. No one is disallowing him the right from spouting whatever he wants. I'm struggling to see the merit in providing a platform for someone say the Holocaust was a hoax used for blackmail by communist Jews, though.
2. The problem usually is that people make the equivocation that free speech is the right to say whatever you want without repercussion, which has never been the case.
3. This dude is a pretty garden variety Murray Futterman.
Last edited by D.o.S. on Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think the problem with using terms like "Freedom of Speech" (TM, C, USA#1) is that people using it are often using some vague idealistic concept of it and not the legal/Constitutional definition. Usually in the vein of "I'm allowed to say anything I want, all points of view are equal and valid, to visit any reaction or consequence on me is censorship". None of which is true, literally or legally.
Here's example of the different views of freedom of speech, in the political context it's getting argued over most these days, using the Holocaust as a focal point.
*****NOT MY BELIEFS, ONLY EXAMPLES*****
A) The Holocaust was a huge event in world history, that harmed a lot of people in ways that they could never get over, but in the not too distant future everyone directly associated with it will be dead. So it's not really that impactful on a personal basis for people these days. So we really shouldn't worry about legislation or lawsuits over it or what people say about it, it's just a historical event, it doesn't really affect the present.
B) The Holocaust never happened or at the very least, it was greatly exaggerated. The Nazis were bad, but the Jews are milking the events of WWII in order to manipulate and control world media, government and economy.
**********
A is an opinion. Not a very well informed or realistic one, one that could have terrible effects if translated from personal opinion into public policy, but an opinion none the less. B is an assertion that matters of historical fact, experienced directly by people still living, are a lie, by a person who did not experience those events. Beyond claiming something that happened really didn't, it ascribes sinister motivations to the people who claim it did.
It's the difference between having the right to express an opinion that isn't popular and having the right to claim facts are opinions. If someone expressed A in public as a political candidate, people might not vote for them. If someone said it in a job interview, people might not hire them. If a CEO said it in an interview, people might boycott their business. If a celebrity said it on Twitter, sponsors might drop their advertising from their show and the network might cancel it. None of those things are censorship, no one in the government (or anywhere else) prevented them from expressing that opinion. They can't be legally punished for expressing it.
I think it goes beyond people thinking "Freedom of Speech" is B, it's also that idea that it means their immune from consequence, reprisal or lawsuit. They're not, they're only guaranteed the right to not be criminally prosecuted for their unpopular opinion or prevented from expressing it. The truth is, they're even allowed things like B (not in every country, but this one). Unfortunately, the fact that B is viewed as central to freedom of speech by certain groups of people now means the popularization of the idea that all facts are political opinions and if 99% of people believe one side and 1% believe the other, they both deserve equal time and consideration. Which is legal...but intellectually and ethically toxic to our society, in my opinion.
In other words, it might not be ILLEGAL to say this horrendous shit, but no one is obliged to give these people a wide public platform. So why the hell do they??
If you don't let them expose themselves by saying their evil shit and have people actually have to look at it and see people are for what they are vs not talking about it, then would we have anything change?
Blackened Soul wrote:If you don't let them expose themselves by saying their evil shit and have people actually have to look at it and see people are for what they are vs not talking about it, then would we have anything change?
That's not really what happens today (if ever) - the idea of letting the cockroaches into the light doesn't mean people recognize them as cockroaches.
Human beings are gullible and still wrapping their heads around anyone being able to publish anything they want to without the mediation of prior eras (where your local paper had a staff that usually tried to at least fake maintaining some factual standards), if it's printed on their screen they believe it, debating and fact-checking just lend credence to their misinformation.
It's more useful to make the Holocaust deniers or Westboro assholes look like fools than just shout them down, though. Turn their events into political theater, the more absurd the better.
