Incitement to violence isn't necessarily protected speech in the US.
The boundary is of necessity vague. IMNSHO: arguing that free speech should be absolute is almost tantamount to arguing it is irrelevant. Isn't the point that messages matter, and being able to exchange them is powerful? Then clearly that power can be used - and abused. Thus to argue that it is right to never constrain speech implies you either believe it is of no consequence; or believe harm is good (i.e. are malicious or insane); or believe enforcement is impossible or counter-productive.
A dose of rationality in the free speech debate would be appreciated. Heck, it's not like this is the only exception... libel, fraud, and a variety of IP laws all suggest a long history of consistently democratically-backed infringements to free speech. Were our ancestors all crazy?
Yep. And a whole host of other speech is illegal too. And the world isn't failing quite yet. And I have no doubt that the precise details of exactly where you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not isn't always going to make a huge difference; nor do I have any evidence that whatever happens to be the law in the US is likely to be optimal if indeed these difficult tradeoffs must be made.
In short: merely yelling "free speech!" doesn't really resolve anything. Might as well yell "free noise!", at least that way there's truth in advertising.
The standard set by SCOTUS in Obergefell v. Hodges was "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.". This itself comes from the "compelling government interest" standard which is related to the ideal of "strict scrutiny". I would say that the problematic suggestions coming from the American left have related to crossing out the word "imminent" in that standard.
The problem is that when the standard is so expanded it stifles the expression of emotions and values. Ideas are not powerful, at least in my telling; "ideas are powerful" is usually a statement by someone selling ideas, by which I mean selling magazines. What is powerful are the emotional connections that bind people to ideas and through ideas bind people together into groups and movements. These are not so easily banned and must be exposed in order to be dealt with.
I'm sorry I called you a fascist earlier. Today has been stressful.
In the case here, the lawless actions have repeatedly been demonstrated; and the speech promoting them isn't vague in the least.
I agree that there should be some limits on what can be censored (although really, I'm not sure this is even traditional censorship, since it's after-the-fact and doesn't extend to all channels the message is posted on). It's more like tearing down a gang stronghold - it's not necessarily going to prevent any individual gang member from doing what they did before, but it might disrupt the negative feedback loop that encourages "lawless action". Notably the government's court argument rests critically on this being an association; so there is some check on this power. It cannot with the same argument prevent the individuals from making the same suggestions.
Regardless: I definitely value free speech. I just think we should be open to consider exactly which limits are useful, and which are not.
I for one believe the chilling effects of this kind of action are much smaller and less dangerous than the chilling effects caused by libel, fraud and copyright laws, especially as they pertain to corporations - a concept that didn't even exist (in its modern form) when the US constitution was drafted.
If you will: any organisation can hold power; not just government. The point of freedom of speech should not be to protect us (and ironically itself!) from government; but from its power - and if so, why limit that to governmental power?
I see free speech and democracy as a kind of way or protecting society from local minima: a reality check to ensure we break out of nasty patterns. I'm not sure it's working very well with respect to large "private" entities. I'm not saying it's failed either; I'm just a little worried ;-). Liberal democracy has had a long time to rest on its laurels. Perhaps we take it for granted a little too much, and thus aren't vigilant enough to competitors and internal weaknesses.
In any case: thanks for the unexpectedly gracious reply in the face of my somewhat peeved response ;-).
>I see free speech and democracy as a kind of way or protecting society from local minima: a reality check to ensure we break out of nasty patterns. I'm not sure it's working very well with respect to large "private" entities.
It's interesting to me that you would say that, because if you look at the US in the late 19th and early 20th century when the country had significantly more powerful private entities than we do today, it was the press that helped to change public opinion and decrease their direct power and control.
I believe free speech is necessary so that speech advocating lawless action doesn't become necessary. By that I mean that advocating for a change in policy or type of government should be allowed and be open as the alternative is significantly greater violence. The revolutions in France and the US began with open words and attempts to change policy. When that started to be punished, the eventual result was not people changing their minds, but instead others going underground and violence increasing at a dramatic pace. Many other revolutions and rebellions, failed and successful, began the same way.
That's why people advocating the overthrow of government need to be allowed to speak openly and be heard. They can then be reasoned with and if necessary placated.
> Isn't the point that messages matter, and being able to exchange them is powerful?
No, the point is that people matter, and being able to understand them is crucial. If ideas are suppressed (rather than merely problematic expressions) people become dishonest and you can't criticize their real beliefs because you don't know what they are. For example another person noted that neo-Nazi organizations survive in Germany by simply pretending to be something else. That's not success by any reasonable metric.
>A dose of rationality in the free speech debate would be appreciated.
If there's one thing that's truly ridiculous it's that fascistic positions like yours are considered "rational".
The boundary is of necessity vague. IMNSHO: arguing that free speech should be absolute is almost tantamount to arguing it is irrelevant. Isn't the point that messages matter, and being able to exchange them is powerful? Then clearly that power can be used - and abused. Thus to argue that it is right to never constrain speech implies you either believe it is of no consequence; or believe harm is good (i.e. are malicious or insane); or believe enforcement is impossible or counter-productive.
A dose of rationality in the free speech debate would be appreciated. Heck, it's not like this is the only exception... libel, fraud, and a variety of IP laws all suggest a long history of consistently democratically-backed infringements to free speech. Were our ancestors all crazy?
reply