> Every free speech "purist" I've ever met limits
> their opinion of control to the government.
I'm not American so don't have First Amendment rights.
There are people that have argued for free speech outside of this narrow lense. John Stuart Mill, one of the original advocates of free speech, argued against censorship by private parties.
He discussed the "the moral coercion of public opinion" and wrote that "the chief mischief of the legal penalties is that they strengthen the social stigma" and added that "It is that stigma which is really effective".
> But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in or opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
> [some pages later:] For a long time past, the chief mischief of the legal penalties is that they strengthen the social stigma. It is that stigma which is really effective, and so effective is it that the profession of opinions which are under the ban of society is much less common in England, than is, in many other countries, the avowal of those which incur risk of judicial punishment.
My understanding of Mill is quite against this claim, and especially your claim upthread 'There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions".' He was arguing directly this idea that it's enough for free speech that the state not suppress it.
This is also dangerous for clear reasons. If speech deemed bad is censored we may have no examples with which to contrast good ideas. Think of free speech as natural selection for ideas.
John Stuart Mill thought free speech should extend into the private world:
Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. (1978, 16)
Such liberty should exist with every subject matter so that we have “absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological” (1978, 11). Mill claims that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push our arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. Such liberty of expression is necessary, he suggests, for the dignity of persons. If liberty of expression is stifled, the price paid is “a sort of intellectual pacification” that sacrifices “ the entire moral courage of the human mind” (1978, 31).
Also, throughout all your comments, it is more than critical analysis of Thiel, Altman, et al. You seem to be calling for social or economic punishments for a political view. I doubt Mill would agree that ba[c]king a major political party's candidate is grounds for the kind of societal justice you claim is warranted.
Mill wasn’t talking about rights; he was talking about the propensity to suppress unpopular speech, why that’s dangerous, and accordingly, and the moral necessity (and implications) of open discourse.
"The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech"
There's a mirror image problem though: people in favor of regulations on speech have little reason to fear that their speech will be limited, at least in the short term. Regulators are politically-correct, so if you are politically-correct, what's the problem? (Obviously: bad things can become politically-correct, too.)
As I write my reply, this comment is currently grayed-out from downvotes. I find this absurd. Anyone who has read Mill knows Mill was a utilitarian. He didn't support freedom of speech for dogmatic reasons but for practical ones. Mill didn't really care about the rights of the speaker to speak or write. He cared about the right of others to hear and read. From chapter 2 of On Liberty[1]:
> But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
Mill's point is this: Every time you silence someone, you are preventing others from hearing what that person has to say. Maybe those people want to listen so they can entertain an idea and become convinced. Maybe they want to listen so they can better understand and refute the speaker. Maybe they just find the rantings of a crazy person amusing. Whatever their reasons, the "cure" of censorship is worse than the "disease" caused by letting people communicate. (Note that this formulation also makes it easy to distinguish speech from "speech" such as air horns designed to disrupt a speaker from spreading their ideas to those who want to listen.)
Moreover, censorship requires designating a censor. Is there any person or group who you would grant the power of deciding what you're allowed to read or hear? I certainly can't think of one. I'm an adult and I can decide for myself what is acceptable for me to consume, thank you very much.
Of course YouTube is not a government and they shouldn't be forced to host things that they don't want to host, but following the free speech norm is almost certainly more beneficial to society. Every once in a while, one of those crazy ideas that must be censored— one of those ideas turns out to be true. Just like slavery and the subjugation of women in the past, there are moral errors we are committing that future societies will condemn us for. Censorship prevents those ideas from coming to light sooner and impedes moral progress.
Warning messages before viewing something? Sure. Add links to rebuttals? Fine. Demonetize? OK. But deletion? I'd prefer you didn't.
Hmm you're right, I suppose you're correct it would be more free speech purist to simply not have an opinion on censorship whatsoever, but to still not engage in it themselves. Censorship can ironically itself be a form of free speech.
However I will mention that the "paradox of tolerance" posits that if you don't censor those who would censor others, society will end up with more censorship. So there is an argument that somebody who is totally in favor of free speech, EXCEPT the free speech of those who censor others, is a more advocate of free speech than somebody who is for free speech in all situations. This is arguably game theoretically better than the former strategy.
Exactly. This is something that a lot of comments seem to be missing about this article and Mill's larger point.
Free speech, as Mill views it, always helps individuals better understand why they hold views in the first place as well as why others hold seemingly unsavory views as well. If you want to successfully combat those unsavory views in the political sphere, it is necessary to understand the other side; censoring them pre-emptively is ineffective both for your own understanding and in terms of politically opposing them (see also from the other side: bans on teaching anything related to CRT).
Especially in a democratic country like the US that is highly polarized and divided into very different political geographies, supporting free speech is necessary if you want to understand where the other side is coming from better. (See this article about how both sides, but liberals in particular, misunderstand the other: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...)
It's pretty obvious that people who have their own speech being suppressed would be advocating for freedom of speech. That's almost tautological, and not a particularly interesting argument.
Certainly societal segregation is part of freedom of speech. John stuart mill is a key refefence to this. His general principle is that government should only step in to prevent harm but sometimes segregation based on belief can be that harm (his 'tyranny of the majority')
Now nobody we are talking about is struggling to survive based on their beliefs but whether its right to start segregating people for their views is definitely a freedom of speech issue.
Just how expansive a concept are your advocating? If you're only saying that aside from not throwing you in jail, government shouldn't coerce (or even incentivize) private parties to censor in ways the government would be prohibited from censoring, then I think you're right. But it's still not clear to me what concept of "free speech" you're actually advocating for.
I agree, but many people recognize a freedom of speech that is broader than just the prohibition on its infringement by government, and many here are arguing from that school of thought. I believe that if you recognize that broader definition of free speech, that it must also include free association, otherwise you force people to associate with speech they abhor and the whole thing falls apart.
This viewpoint confuses the legal meaning of the First Amendment, which indeed only applies to the government, with its rationale.
The rationale is the theory that having a diversity of viewpoints, including some that are dangerous or repugnant, is the best approach towards a robust civil society and intellectual growth. If you disagree with something you hear or read, you can ignore it, or you can criticize it, but banning speech causes two undesirable outcomes:
1) The speech will continue anyway, but not in the public eye, where it can be criticized
2) The popularity of an idea is different from the correctness of an idea. It has happened many times that an unpopular or even heretical idea has turned out to be right.
Almost certainly these people are no Galileo. But this approach to free speech is intended to protect the Galileos of the world. It should be kept in mind that talk of revolution in the U.S. during the late 1700s would have been considered extremely dangerous and repugnant by many as well.
Instead of Violating Everyone's Inalienable Rights to Free Speech and the First Amendment, Tell People That All They Have to Do Is to Not Listen
Freedom of speech is one of the most important inalienable rights that we have. It is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." This means that the government cannot censor or punish us for expressing our views, even if those views are unpopular or offensive.
There are many good reasons to protect freedom of speech. For one, it is essential for a healthy democracy. When people are free to express their views, we can have open and honest debates about important issues. This helps us to make informed decisions about our government and our society.
Freedom of speech is also important for individual self-expression and development. We all have unique thoughts and experiences, and we should be free to share them with others. This helps us to connect with other people, to build relationships, and to grow as individuals.
Of course, freedom of speech is not absolute. There are some types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as incitement to violence or child pornography. However, the Supreme Court has held that even hateful and offensive speech is generally protected by the First Amendment.
This may be frustrating for people who are offended by hate speech. However, it is important to remember that freedom of speech is not just about protecting the speech that we like. It is also about protecting the speech that we dislike. If we start censoring speech because we find it offensive, then we are on a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? What kind of speech is offensive enough to be censored?
Instead of trying to violate everyone's inalienable rights to free speech, we should tell people that all they have to do is to not listen. If someone is saying something hateful or offensive, we can simply walk away or change the channel. We can also engage in respectful dialogue with the person, if we feel comfortable doing so.
It is important to remember that the best way to counter bad speech is with good speech. When we express our own views openly and honestly, we can help to create a more tolerant and inclusive society.
Here are some specific examples of how we can tell people to not listen instead of trying to violate their freedom of speech:
If you see someone posting offensive content on social media, you can unfollow them or mute them.
If you are in a conversation with someone who is saying hateful things, you can politely change the subject or walk away.
If you are attending a public event where a speaker is saying things that you find offensive, you can leave the event.
You can also support organizations that are working to promote free speech and tolerance.
By telling people to not listen instead of trying to violate their freedom of speech, we can protect our own rights and create a more tolerant and inclusive society.
The argument is that people’s individual freedom to speak anything should be held in higher regard than the welfare of society, regardless of what harmful outcomes may come from that speech.
It’s a core tenet of American racists and fascists (and, I suspect, conspiracy theorists), because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to convert others to their cause without being silenced by their platforms.
It's more fundamental than that. Some forms of speech can indirectly or directly limit the speech of others. Free speech absolutism in an unachievable panacea; it is a logical fallacy.
There are conditions in which I would consider limits. If you look to the origins of the concept of free speech, and in particular the false equivalence, "the marketplace of ideas", you'll find that those who proposed free speech didn't (for the most part) consider it utterly unlimited.
Jill Nelson's essay is particularly good as concerns Mill:
There are people that have argued for free speech outside of this narrow lense. John Stuart Mill, one of the original advocates of free speech, argued against censorship by private parties.
He discussed the "the moral coercion of public opinion" and wrote that "the chief mischief of the legal penalties is that they strengthen the social stigma" and added that "It is that stigma which is really effective".
reply