12 votes

Is the traditional ACLU view of free speech still viable? Ira Glasser speaks out.

21 comments

  1. [18]
    AugustusFerdinand
    Link
    As is expected, the groups that believe that free speech should be limited are the same groups that are too young to have ever experienced or witnessed the censorship they are suggesting. I'm not...
    • Exemplary

    Pew found in 2015 that “American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups.” A 2017 University of Chicago survey similarly demonstrated that ”nearly half of the millennials say that colleges should limit freedom of speech ‘in extreme cases.’” A 2019 poll found that large percentages of Americans, in some cases majorities, believe the First Amendment goes too far in protecting free speech and its understanding should be “updated” to reflect contemporary cultural views.

    As is expected, the groups that believe that free speech should be limited are the same groups that are too young to have ever experienced or witnessed the censorship they are suggesting. I'm not sure if it is ignorance of the past, immaturity, or simply intolerance of any views not their own. There is a nasty habit for groups with views like this to believe that it'll magically only favor them and silence those they are against when the reverse is just as likely, if not more so. They believe themselves oppressed, well they ain't seen nothing yet.

    Now, the willful spread of misinformation should be punishable just as you would be for causing panic by yelling fire in a crowded theater. The Fairness Doctrine needs to be reinstated as it has led to the mass division of the parties, politics, and horrifically biased news reporting.

    1. I am fully in support of free speech/the First Amendment
      1b. However, I believe in complete pursuit of the First Amendment in the zero-interpretation-necessary, Thomas Jefferson penned and explained, true division of church and state as the First Amendment declares.
    2. I wholeheartedly believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion
      2b. Yet, while you have full right to be entitled to your own opinion, I believe you have have zero right said opinion go unchallenged.
    3. And while I agree everyone should have the ability to express their opinion freely....
      3b. ...one shall not guaranteed a platform. In fact, as I have stated prior, I believe the prevalence of freely available, anonymous platforms of unlimited reach with zero consequence is simply wrong.
    8 votes
    1. [6]
      cfabbro
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      We have had hate speech laws in Canada since 1970, as has a good portion of the Western World even before that, and in the 50-60 years since those laws were passed they haven't devolved into...
      • Exemplary

      We have had hate speech laws in Canada since 1970, as has a good portion of the Western World even before that, and in the 50-60 years since those laws were passed they haven't devolved into anything more nefarious, so you might want to rethink that slippery slope argument. Just because many of the younger generation in America have come to realize that your free speech absolutism has been utterly disastrous for your society, and the rest of the Western World might have had the right idea about reasonable limits to free speech, does not mean that younger generation are naive or uninformed... which is an especially ironic accusation when you consider the fact that most of the world's hate speech laws were created in direct response to the lessons learned from the virulent rise of antisemitism leading to WWII and the holocaust. So perhaps it's actually you who hasn't learned from history, not these younger folks?

      12 votes
      1. [5]
        AugustusFerdinand
        Link Parent
        The argument of "it works in XYZ so it'll work in the US" is no more valid than the slippery slope you're accusing me of. You're also specifically pointing out western world countries policies...

        We have had hate speech laws in Canada since 1970, as has a good portion of the Western World even before that, and in the 50-60 years since those laws were passed they haven't devolved into anything more nefarious, so you might want to rethink that slippery slope argument.

        The argument of "it works in XYZ so it'll work in the US" is no more valid than the slippery slope you're accusing me of. You're also specifically pointing out western world countries policies while the limits to speech in the US are being discussed while a much more eastern bloc-style government is in power. The free speech absolutism isn't the cause for the problems, it's the fear of it that has caused the utter lack of prosecution against those calling for and perpetuating violence. Both of which are not protected and go woefully unpunished.

        4 votes
        1. [4]
          Akir
          Link Parent
          I want to know who came up with the idea that the US and it's people are so special that no known fixes for it's problems will ever work so I can publicly shame them. American exceptionalism is a...

          I want to know who came up with the idea that the US and it's people are so special that no known fixes for it's problems will ever work so I can publicly shame them. American exceptionalism is a scourge on society and has only caused bad things to happen.

          Yes, there are legitimate reasons why a solution may not work in the US, but if you want to get anywhere you need to actually name them. Once that happens perhaps both sides of the issue can adapt whatever proposal is on board so that it will work.

          I also think that you have the cause and effect of the prosecution of speech issues backwards. The reason why there aren't more court cases regarding the restriction of speech is simply because most lawyers who are familliar with the law already know that the limitations are so small and narrow that it's basically impossible to succeed on a conviction.

          6 votes
          1. [3]
            AugustusFerdinand
            Link Parent
            Gross mischaracterization and completely ignored the point I made. I didn't state they weren't to be discussed, I'm just a realist as absolutely none of the suggested changes take into account the...

            I want to know who came up with the idea that the US and it's people are so special that no known fixes for it's problems will ever work so I can publicly shame them. American exceptionalism is a scourge on society and has only caused bad things to happen.

            Gross mischaracterization and completely ignored the point I made.

            Yes, there are legitimate reasons why a solution may not work in the US, but if you want to get anywhere you need to actually name them. Once that happens perhaps both sides of the issue can adapt whatever proposal is on board so that it will work.

            I didn't state they weren't to be discussed, I'm just a realist as absolutely none of the suggested changes take into account the sheer robustness of the 1st Amendment in this country. Idealism is fantasy and a waste of time. Any suggested law will be immediately challenged to the Supreme Court and, in it's current state, will lose. I welcome discussion of actual solutions, but ignoring how the US works is a pointless exercise.

            I also think that you have the cause and effect of the prosecution of speech issues backwards. The reason why there aren't more court cases regarding the restriction of speech is simply because most lawyers who are familliar with the law already know that the limitations are so small and narrow that it's basically impossible to succeed on a conviction.

            Or it's a matter of the prosecutors being part of the oppressors and refusing to punish their own.

            4 votes
            1. [2]
              Akir
              Link Parent
              I'm sorry for assuming you were pulling the exceptionalism card; it's one I see far too often so perhaps I'm a bit too quick to react as a result. But in my defense I thought you were considering...

              I'm sorry for assuming you were pulling the exceptionalism card; it's one I see far too often so perhaps I'm a bit too quick to react as a result. But in my defense I thought you were considering things from an idealistic/philisophical point of view instead of a practical one, since that was the direction the conversation was leaning so far.

              3 votes
              1. AugustusFerdinand
                Link Parent
                A fair take and one that is all too often correct to have. No worries.

                A fair take and one that is all too often correct to have. No worries.

                3 votes
    2. Akir
      Link Parent
      @cfabbro already said what I was going to, but I just wanted to double down that this is an extremely unfair characterization. Frankly, it reads more as a character assassination. There are valid...

      I'm not sure if it is ignorance of the past, immaturity, or simply intolerance of any views not their own.

      @cfabbro already said what I was going to, but I just wanted to double down that this is an extremely unfair characterization. Frankly, it reads more as a character assassination. There are valid reasons to limit speech, weather you agree with them or not.

      7 votes
    3. [6]
      vord
      Link Parent
      I agree with the rest of your post, however...this one is kind of tricky. In attempting to prevent them from forming, you're violating freedom of association. No good solutions and all that, but I...

      I believe the prevalence of freely available, anonymous platforms of unlimited reach with zero consequence is simply wrong.

      I agree with the rest of your post, however...this one is kind of tricky. In attempting to prevent them from forming, you're violating freedom of association.

      No good solutions and all that, but I think part of the problem is there's little way to verify that it's 1000 people saying something and not 1 person with 1000 bots saying something.

      2 votes
      1. [5]
        AugustusFerdinand
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        I disagree. Nothing is stopping them from creating their own website or making their own protest sign or standing on their own soapbox. Just as FB and Twitter ban users that violate their policies...

        I agree with the rest of your post, however...this one is kind of tricky. In attempting to prevent them from forming, you're violating freedom of association.

        I disagree. Nothing is stopping them from creating their own website or making their own protest sign or standing on their own soapbox. Just as FB and Twitter ban users that violate their policies isn't violating their freedom of association, they are publicly viewable platforms, but not public property. No different than a protest forming in a town square vs your front lawn, you have the right to say "not on my property" just as social media do.

        3 votes
        1. [4]
          vord
          Link Parent
          But what I'm saying, is that you can't ban someone from creating an anonymous platform, and you can't ban people from using it.

          But what I'm saying, is that you can't ban someone from creating an anonymous platform, and you can't ban people from using it.

          1 vote
          1. [3]
            AugustusFerdinand
            Link Parent
            No, you can't ban them from creating a platform, but creating your own platform has about the equivalence of standing on a soapbox in a town square. Your reach is severely limited, it is not the...

            But what I'm saying, is that you can't ban someone from creating an anonymous platform, and you can't ban people from using it.

            No, you can't ban them from creating a platform, but creating your own platform has about the equivalence of standing on a soapbox in a town square. Your reach is severely limited, it is not the near-unlimited reach of Twitter.

            3 votes
            1. [2]
              vord
              Link Parent
              Twitter didn't magically poof into existence. It hardly has a monopoly on pseudo-anonomous communication platforms (we're on one right now). And they are free to kick people or not at their...

              Twitter didn't magically poof into existence. It hardly has a monopoly on pseudo-anonomous communication platforms (we're on one right now).

              And they are free to kick people or not at their discression. But if they don't want to, nothing can (should) force them to.

              1. AugustusFerdinand
                Link Parent
                I'm not sure your point here. Nothing poofs into existence, just ask Google+, it's an example of an exception to the rule that sites have a near zero chance of having any impact in the world at...

                Twitter didn't magically poof into existence. It hardly has a monopoly on pseudo-anonomous communication platforms (we're on one right now).

                I'm not sure your point here. Nothing poofs into existence, just ask Google+, it's an example of an exception to the rule that sites have a near zero chance of having any impact in the world at all. Twitter is just being used as the example in lieu of me listing every single website.

                And they are free to kick people or not at their discression. But if they don't want to, nothing can (should) force them to.

                We'll have to agree to disagree. Even here the philosophy is "if your website's full of assholes, it's your fault".

                1 vote
    4. [4]
      ohyran
      Link Parent
      See this is the scary bit I disagree with. Or rather, I don't think control over platforms should be handed over to anyone but those handling the platform. It's bound to mess up, hell it already...

      And while I agree everyone should have the ability to express their opinion freely....
      3b. ...one shall not guaranteed a platform. In fact, as I have stated prior, I believe the prevalence of freely available, anonymous platforms of unlimited reach with zero consequence is simply wrong.

      See this is the scary bit I disagree with. Or rather, I don't think control over platforms should be handed over to anyone but those handling the platform. It's bound to mess up, hell it already has, but the alternative is too complex and easily abused. That availability rests on the idea that you and I can set up an anonymous platform with the potential for unlimited speech with zero consequences if we wish and others can be a part if they wish. Each of those chunks are impossible to remove without serious infringements on our right to anonymity if we wish to have it.

      2 votes
      1. [3]
        AugustusFerdinand
        Link Parent
        My comment and the link I provided to when I discussed it previously are specific that it should not be handed over to anyone. The onus of policing a platform is on those that own it. Which is why...

        See this is the scary bit I disagree with. Or rather, I don't think control over platforms should be handed over to anyone but those handling the platform.

        My comment and the link I provided to when I discussed it previously are specific that it should not be handed over to anyone. The onus of policing a platform is on those that own it.

        That availability rests on the idea that you and I can set up an anonymous platform with the potential for unlimited speech with zero consequences if we wish and others can be a part if they wish. Each of those chunks are impossible to remove without serious infringements on our right to anonymity if we wish to have it.

        Which is why my comment stated "anonymous platforms of unlimited reach". A website you or I create has unlimited potential, but near-zero actual reach or chance to achieve anything but. No one cares if you're screaming racial epitaphs alone in the dark corner of your room, they do care if you buy a Superbowl commercial to say the same. More and more sites are being held responsible for the actions of their users and even here the philosophy is "if your website's full of assholes, it's your fault".

        1 vote
        1. [2]
          vord
          Link Parent
          But how does that work in practice? If a site has unlimited potential to gain unlimited reach, how does it get handled if it does hit that reach threshold and isn't just shouting in an empty...

          Which is why my comment stated "anonymous platforms of unlimited reach". A website you or I create has unlimited potential, but near-zero actual reach or chance to achieve anything but.

          But how does that work in practice? If a site has unlimited potential to gain unlimited reach, how does it get handled if it does hit that reach threshold and isn't just shouting in an empty corner? Who gets to decide what that threshold is? And how do you assure that the definition of hate speech doesn't get twisted into including 'cricizing the state?'. Could theocracies that murder homosexuals and atheists be trusted to properly decide what is appropriate hate speech?

          Everyone seems to detest China's Great Firewall, but that's ultimately just them deciding what acceptable speech and platforms are.

          If a platform becomes full of racists and other undesirables, the answer isn't to force the site owner to kick them off (presuming they have no desire to do so for whatever reason) or shut down the site. The users who don't want to be around that need to pick up and leave to a different platform.

          1 vote
          1. AugustusFerdinand
            Link Parent
            The answer to your first two questions is the same "the court of public opinion". Twitter would see a mass exodus if it suddenly reversed its stance on banning misinformation and hatespeech. I'm...

            But how does that work in practice? If a site has unlimited potential to gain unlimited reach, how does it get handled if it does hit that reach threshold and isn't just shouting in an empty corner? Who gets to decide what that threshold is? And how do you assure that the definition of hate speech doesn't get twisted into including 'cricizing the state?'. Could theocracies that murder homosexuals and atheists be trusted to properly decide what is appropriate hate speech?

            The answer to your first two questions is the same "the court of public opinion". Twitter would see a mass exodus if it suddenly reversed its stance on banning misinformation and hatespeech. I'm not sure your point on the last two considering I've made zero mention or implications that laws should be in place to allow governments to determine what can and cannot be said.

            If a platform becomes full of racists and other undesirables, the answer isn't to force the site owner to kick them off (presuming they have no desire to do so for whatever reason) or shut down the site. The users who don't want to be around that need to pick up and leave to a different platform.

            If the platform becomes full of racists and undesirables that then take their bigotry and put it into practice via violence and/or misinformation campaigns why shouldn't the platform be forced to do something about it? If you decide to allow KKK rally in your basement and know they used said rally to plan the burning of the "black part of town" should you not be held somewhat responsible for it?

  2. vord
    Link
    Yes. Or, at least it should be. Suppression of speech can and will be turned against the oppressed at the first opportunity. https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie

    Yes. Or, at least it should be. Suppression of speech can and will be turned against the oppressed at the first opportunity.

    In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause.

    https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie

    8 votes
  3. WendigoTulpa
    Link
    I think preventing organizations from publishing willfully misleading information would be a better step that infringes on fewer rights. The FDA controls what kind of statements a company can make...

    I think preventing organizations from publishing willfully misleading information would be a better step that infringes on fewer rights. The FDA controls what kind of statements a company can make on their product, so this would be in a similar vein.

    Of course a law like this can be curtailed by turning news organizations into talk shows where individuals present their opinions, and social media posts would still exist.

    If everything is a lie, then the truth either doesn't exist or it becomes mixed with personal/convenient truth, and the meaningfulness of news organizations becomes nil. Maybe in the future we'll all be so bombarded with information that our eyes will collectively gloss over and we wont even care what's happening in the world and just focus on the moments of our lives.

    Probably, focusing on the SPREAD of misinformation is more important than specific individuals espousing hate.

    5 votes
  4. ohyran
    Link
    I don't think this is a good idea... I mean what is suggested goes beyond what we have where I live where its almost impossible to define something that is said not to any one individual as hate...

    I don't think this is a good idea... I mean what is suggested goes beyond what we have where I live where its almost impossible to define something that is said not to any one individual as hate speech. Nazis still demonstrate in the streets no matter what because like most places we here have freedom of speech laws and even though hate speech laws exist they will always have to contend with one of the safeguards against an eventual oppressive government.

    As for the US and the First Amendment, its already infringed but by states and companies instead of hate speech laws... So doable, sure.

    Its a damn jar of snakes no matter how you look at it. Defining the truth is painfully complex, so laws that prohibit lies is close to impossible. You can narrow down the wording that can be used to avoid classic hate speech phrases, but then you have to make excuses for times it CAN be used (or get stuck with the German "no swastikas anywhere!" laws). You can claim if its said with malicious intent, suddenly you have to prove intent... Or sarcasm.

    The possibility for abuse is absurdly high (also sidenote I just had the worst deja vu ever, as if I know the replies coming - creepy) - while allowing for private spheres in control by an person or group to define its own set of guidelines and never infringe them is way safer.

    That said time trundles on - maybe I am missing something being an old fart? It just doesn't feel like a step forward...

    1 vote