Americans agree that democracy requires freedom of speech. But a large minority also thinks it’s acceptable to bar certain subjects or speakers from public debate.
But a large minority also thinks it’s acceptable to bar certain subjects or speakers from public debate.
Yeeeah that sounds like dishonest framing.
It’s on you to make Nazis shut up, because the government won’t. That’s what the first amendment means. It doesn’t mean all opinions are equal. Your ability to shout “shut the fuck up!” is as protected, legally, as whatever would make you shout that.
But words mean things. Words impact reality. Sometimes those words come from (for example) actual fucking Nazis. You have a moral duty to oppose them, and the shit they spew. There’s some room for services and platforms to say they’re acting like the state, and being hands-off… but for some reason those platforms don’t like you telling Nazis to fuck off.
Note how many sites think it’s just the worstest thing ever to call a fellow user any kind of name. For any reason. Hint hint.
And public debate implies widespread respect. You don’t have a right to decorum - let alone a podium, or an audience. Students blocking assholes from using their college as a venue have no interacted with that asshole’s legal rights. That asshole was not arrested for being a bigot on campus. They were identified, their agenda was opposed, and students used their free expression to petition the administration to shut that shit down.
Ultimately this chin-stroking becomes ‘people think rights have limits!,’ and-- yes? Correct. That’s all people, describing all rights. This whole democracy thing is all of us hashing out a working boundary.
You want private property? Okay. Can people own dogs? Yes. Houses? Yes. Other people? No. Well maybe. Okay no.
You want the state out of religion? Okay. Can churches ignore taxes? Yes. Murder? No. Child abuse? Well no, but actually yes.
You want no gun laws? Okay. Can people own nukes? No. Machine guns? Not really. What other-- oh Jesus, that’s a lot of yeses. Good luck!
You’re not gonna find many people okay with someone walking up to a stranger and shouting “I am going to kill you.” Even if all they do is talk. Words mean things. The cops arresting that guy for the obvious crime of assault aren’t violating their rights by doing so. You do not have a right to threaten people like that. It’s not included. Even Libertarian wank fantasies would say the stranger being yelled at would be justified in shooting that guy.
So why is it okay to shout “I am going to kill everyone like you?” That’s not better. Not even as it’s further removed, like “the state should kill everyone like you.” That’s the same threat, made arguably less actionable, but infinitely harder to stop if attempted. Some countries don’t count that as free speech - they’ve seen people try.
Yeeeah that sounds like dishonest framing.
It’s on you to make Nazis shut up, because the government won’t. That’s what the first amendment means. It doesn’t mean all opinions are equal. Your ability to shout “shut the fuck up!” is as protected, legally, as whatever would make you shout that.
But words mean things. Words impact reality. Sometimes those words come from (for example) actual fucking Nazis. You have a moral duty to oppose them, and the shit they spew. There’s some room for services and platforms to say they’re acting like the state, and being hands-off… but for some reason those platforms don’t like you telling Nazis to fuck off.
Note how many sites think it’s just the worstest thing ever to call a fellow user any kind of name. For any reason. Hint hint.
And public debate implies widespread respect. You don’t have a right to decorum - let alone a podium, or an audience. Students blocking assholes from using their college as a venue have no interacted with that asshole’s legal rights. That asshole was not arrested for being a bigot on campus. They were identified, their agenda was opposed, and students used their free expression to petition the administration to shut that shit down.
Ultimately this chin-stroking becomes ‘people think rights have limits!,’ and-- yes? Correct. That’s all people, describing all rights. This whole democracy thing is all of us hashing out a working boundary.
You want private property? Okay. Can people own dogs? Yes. Houses? Yes. Other people? No. Well maybe. Okay no.
You want the state out of religion? Okay. Can churches ignore taxes? Yes. Murder? No. Child abuse? Well no, but actually yes.
You want no gun laws? Okay. Can people own nukes? No. Machine guns? Not really. What other-- oh Jesus, that’s a lot of yeses. Good luck!
You’re not gonna find many people okay with someone walking up to a stranger and shouting “I am going to kill you.” Even if all they do is talk. Words mean things. The cops arresting that guy for the obvious crime of assault aren’t violating their rights by doing so. You do not have a right to threaten people like that. It’s not included. Even Libertarian wank fantasies would say the stranger being yelled at would be justified in shooting that guy.
So why is it okay to shout “I am going to kill everyone like you?” That’s not better. Not even as it’s further removed, like “the state should kill everyone like you.” That’s the same threat, made arguably less actionable, but infinitely harder to stop if attempted. Some countries don’t count that as free speech - they’ve seen people try.