https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Hitler will be defeated in the marketplace of ideas.
"The Marketplace of Ideas" is such a scam, all that phrase accomplished was getting Bill Nye to debate creationists, who then gained followings because "The TV Box said that the Creationism and Evolution are equal ideas worth debating and considering the merits of!"
Don't let them make you think that Piss belongs on the shelf with Pepsi.
Surely, as he was in reality. I'll be paraphrasing this, thanks.
Chicken and the egg, he would have been defeated in the marketplace of ideas, if he didn't seize power and destroy the marketplace of ideas. If the German population held freedom of expression, equality for all under the law, etc., as sacrosanct, and Hitler wasn't able to manufacture a legal mechanism to seize power, nothing would have happened. But, they were missing that kind of unity, the idea of what a better society should look like and why it's worth defending, so that enough psychopaths organized around Hitler that he was able to enforce his mandates.
Ultimately the question is about whether or not a political paradigm can gain enough traction to have its followers come out on top of everyone else. The prevailing wind of society has to be justice instead of injustice. And not always "domestically", either, war and colonialism take a very similar shape. just as a projection from one region into another. This gets to Chomsky's description of "power structures". A fascist power structure could defeat, or be defeated by, the organization of the people, but it all depends on their collective cultural mindset - strength in numbers, arms, organization, etc. That is why ultimately the fight against fascism is about the necessity of education, and why fascists attack all forms of education.
Okay, so then do you really want the Trump administration deciding on what speech to ban? Freedom of speech isn't just about defending monsters. It also can save us from them.
Defending the right to unpopular and offensive speech is not the same as compromising with the speech. You can truly abhor what someone's saying and not try to some them.
Insistence on classic freedom of speech doesn't mean centrist, moderate, or apolitical. It means supporting civil liberties without being an ignorant hypocrite that takes those hard-fought liberties for granted. There was a whole movement that was pivotal to the civil liberties movement.
The comic is actually self contradictory, because the top-left panel satirizes being tolerant with Hitler, while the bottom left satirizes accepting some wars. No wars would mean letting Hitler just go around annexing countries and creating concentration camps wherever he wants.
There's a big difference between defending your country within your borders and crossing a border to fight in another country.
Within reason.
The line is very clear: You have those rights ... so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others.
If someone wants to say there is a master race, the earth is the center of the universe, Elvis is still alive, etc... Sure: they're free to say it. But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong. Like it or not we are better for it having the discussion. Recall that at some point people were put to death for expressing beliefs that opposed the norm in science and religion. It is important to debate and not silence people - repression breeds hate and promotes an us vs them mentality. It results in echo chambers.
Are there people that simply cannot be reasoned with? Yes. But it's important to engage with them and be a dissenting voice. It's important to demonstrate clearly that someone opposes their viewpoint. Important to the unreasonable person? Probably not. Important to those who are listening? Yes. If you do not engage- all those who are listening hear is the viewpoint of the ignorant and the apparent silence of the indifferent.
Moderates fuck this up frequently... and I'm saying this as someone who, in many cases, considers myself a moderate.
Edit:
It's been a busy day but I finally have time to sit and read through the rest of the comments in this thread. What an interesting result.... genuinely. Lots of people expressing their own beliefs and their interpretation of things I said. Not everything lined up and not everyone agreed... but this right here is what we need more of. Good stuff 🍻
Nice comment that ignores the fact that hate speech actively harms people.
It also ignores that there are recognized limits to free speech everywhere - try to discuss the best way to murder someone in public and see what happens.
Human rights are supposed to protect human dignity, so free speech, like any other right, needs to be interpreted in that light.
@Ajen@sh.itjust.works correctly identifies this. Any ideals can be interpreted in bad faith to infer something that was not intended. If I said I prefer tea - someone would be more than happy to infer that I hate coffee.
My statement was a profession of what I believe to be correct. It is a brief summary of what I was taught and what I determined to be correct based on my experiences... and I stand by them. Admittedly I did bait a hook for a particular kind of person and am not displeased with the result. It appears to have yielded several great examples of what I was talking about.
Addressing your post despite the rather "loaded" opening which I imagine you know shouldn't warrant a response:
Hate speech doesn't exist until it is uttered. The damage is immediately done. It isn't - then it is. How do you propose stopping that? I'm genuinely curious. You appear to be holding my beliefs accountable for not employing precrime or espers... which admittedly, I don't factor in. They do, however, propose the solution: support the victim and admonish the person who was out of line. There are demonstrations of this, in action, in this thread.
People are social creatures: standing with someone is more powerful than simply removing an undesirable statement after the fact. It removes the isolation from the victim and provides support. It says: we, this group, will not stand for your actions. It isolates the perpetrator and makes them, consciously or not, aware that something is wrong. As I stated before: this may not change everyone but the net result is positive.
I'm happy to continue this discussion but it only seems fair that you expand on how you / your views would solve hate speech as it seems to be something you are passionate about... right?
A-are you actually comparing Elvis conspiracies with racial supremacy? Sounds like your logic doesn't go further than "freedom of speech = good"
You say rights exist until they encroach on others' freedoms. But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others' basic freedoms and safety. By your own logic, those views forfeit their protection.
You argue it's important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views. That's exactly what content moderation is - society collectively demonstrating opposition to ideas that threaten democratic values and human dignity.
You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers. But platforming hate speech (by claiming they're something to be "debated") creates echo chambers of hatred and drives away the very people you claim should be engaging in debate. Your approach actually reduces genuine dialogue.
You reference people being killed for scientific beliefs. But you're comparing the persecution of evidence-based scientific inquiry to the restriction of propaganda designed to harm others. These aren't remotely equivalent - you're actually trivializing historical persecution.
You're basically saying "we must protect Alice's right to a safe home by platforming Bob's right to debate burning it down."
Also your whole "But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong" - completely disregards the physical reality of the burden of proof - it takes 0 effort to say "yggstyle hates people of color and that's why they argue for people to have the freedom to say anything" - and now it's on you to prove me wrong - but every time you spend time trying I'll just claim a new ridiculous thing - absolute "freedom of speech" is a godsend for bad faith actors.
I hope you can see why this rhetoric is bullshit and why people should not support anybody's "freedom of speech" to debate people's rights to exist.
I once saw a guy on Twitter who edited the second panels compromise sign to say "You're both fucking stupid". He used it as his profile banner.
People like this actually exist in real life.
People that are in favor of legal censorship of political speech make the mistake of assuming that the laws will always be applied to censor the speech that they find objectionable or harmful.. As soon as you start allowing the gov't to determine what speech is and is not acceptable, that power will be used to oppress whatever the currently disfavored group is. The words themselves are not the harm; it's the actions that can arise from the words.
You cannot apply the paradox of tolerance without understanding the outcome. If you tolerate everything, the extreme takes over. You are also making it an either:or choice - don’t censor vs lose control of all free speech.
This is false, and stems from the assumption that there is a victory only one way or the other.
There is no victory in any form of governance seeking to hold a middle ground for any aspect of society. You don’t get to set up some rules, dust off your hands, say “That should do it…” and think you’re done.
It is a constant battle that must be fought every single time an issue becomes a problem. No, not all speech is acceptable. But we should also aggressively protect the speech that is acceptable even if we don’t like it. If we can’t do that, then we’ve lost for different reasons.
The paradox of tolerance is a concept, not a unique conclusion. Philosophers drew all kinds of conclusions. I favor John Rawls':
Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
Sacrificing freedom of speech is unnecessary for self-preservation in extraordinary circumstances as speaking one's mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty.
"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
This is the entire thrust of the argument I am making. My position is that you cannot tolerate extremes that pose a legitimate threat as posited by the quote you selected.
You are arguing that freedom of speech should be tolerated as long as possible. I already clearly stated that.
I don’t know why you felt the need to reiterate what I said.
Your definitions of unacceptable speech & legitimate threat are unclear, and people nowadays make claims loosely. If it means demonstrable harm, then they're fine & I apologize for the excessive caution.
From context
Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties
and key words
only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe
and my direct statement
speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty
I'm stating reasons of demonstrable harm are largely absent in speech. Speaking one's mind doesn't cause harm. Harm requires an act.
Tolerance is the allowance of objectionable (expression of) ideas & acts. That objectionable acts directly & demonstrably harm/threaten security or liberty is an easier claim that fits Rawl's conclusion consistently. That speech alone can do so is a more difficult claim: maybe only false warnings or malicious instructions that lead to injuries or loss of rights, coercive threats, or defamation.
Ah, arguing semantics. Way to waste time.
By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes? It’s not too late until it’s too late?
It's your inability to differentiate between political speech and hate speech that's the problem
In modern societies, we're happy with the government banning the latter and not the former
In undeveloped countries like the US, their toddler-level reading skills prevent them from knowing which one's which
There is no 'hate speech' exception to the 1st amendment of the US constitution. That's a well-established legal precedent that no succeeding court has been willing to overturn.
If you decided to make hateful speech illegal, then it would be perfectly reasonable for Christians to claim that my advocacy for my religion--Satanism--was hate speech.
Government censorship isn't just a ban on speech currently deemed to be hateful. It is also an endorsement of speech they currently believe to be political.
The problem should be wildly apparent when we realize that governments around the world have a long and colorful history of making "political speech" that is only later determined to be hateful.
Even "Good" presidents in our recent past have held positions that, in hindsight, are dehumanizing, abhorrent and vile. Our entire "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for example.
Our incoming president has indicated his intention to treat immigrants as enemy combatants. He plans to deport adults who were born and have lived their entire lives in the US if he determines their parents did not adequately prove their legal presence. He has determined that this racist position is "political speech".
Government has no fucking business deciding what is and is not protected speech.
One important caveat: there is a difference between "speech" and "violence". Threats may be spoken, but threats are not speech. Threats should be criminally prosecuted, not arbitrarily censored by the government.
I also would like a reasonable amount of wars.
The reasonable amount of wars just happens to be 0.
War on terror ?
I agree that pureexpression is a horrible idea in combination with the internet. You can't allow people to just rile up eachother with misinformation and become terrorists over issues that don't exist. Be it Jewish space lasers, Mexican rapist immigrants or dumb conspiracy theories like vaccines causing autism.
Especially if you have a following, or echo chambers, content just has to be stopped.
Humanity is not ready for full free flow of information, not as long as dumb idiots believe anything they reas
Imagine if Hitler’s crimes stopped at speaking
Well, he didn't personally kill people, so all his crimes were actually speaking. Well, sometimes writing.
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links