Harper's Letter on Justice and Open Debate
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:58:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Harper's Letter on Justice and Open Debate
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Poll
Question: Do you agree with the letter?
#1
Yes
#2
No
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Harper's Letter on Justice and Open Debate  (Read 2233 times)
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: July 09, 2020, 12:22:21 PM »
« edited: July 09, 2020, 12:25:25 PM by Cosmopolitanism Will Win »

"Canceling" itself is a bullsh*t notion that encompasses everything from targeted harassment and stalking to any criticism of a bigoted opinion (because, you know, apparently it's now anti-free speech to criticize opinions). This is part of what's so insidious about it, since it allows the harassers to obfuscate what they are doing, but it is quite telling that the self-appointed guardians of free speech would embrace this framing and use it to obfuscate in the other direction.
Logged
Horus
Sheliak5
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,550
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2020, 01:03:50 PM »

What should happen to a person like this who is openly racist to an Asian family simply trying to enjoy a meal?

 


 I'm fine with canceling this person.

I'm fine with cancelling that person as well.

I am not fine with cancelling Rowling and Rushdie.
Logged
GeneralMacArthur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2020, 01:58:02 PM »

So what you're saying is that they had agency to sign the letter but don't have agency to disavow it?  It has to be a 'mob'.

There's no actual reason for them to disavow it.

It's not like anything has happened in the last two days to change their opinion of the contents of the letter.

It's not like the contents of the letter changed since they read it and signed it.

They're not disavowing it because their beliefs changed, or because they actually disagree with what they earlier agreed with.

They are disavowing it because the aggressive Twitter mob is bullying them into it.  Plain and simple.

Right now the Twitter mob is trying to label everyone who signed onto it as an ally of that monstrously hateful nazi bigot, JK Rowling, and therefore also permanently an enemy of marginalized communities (especially LGBT).  That's the strategy.

A lot of the people who signed it have fragile careers, or careers based on seeming "woke" or like they're a voice for some marginalized community.  They can't afford to have that label slapped on them and suffer the consequences on social media for the rest of their careers.  They don't want to have every article they write or tweet they send about LGBT issues get swarmed with hateful comments saying "I can't believe people still listen to this bigoted bitch who defends transphobia."  So they are backing out.

That is what's happening.  And it's deeply ironic because it's proving the letter correct 100 times over.

Do you think those who haven't signed because it's nothing more than a puff piece are against free speech? Do you think those who pointed to those who signed it having a recent history of trying to get people silenced or fired and thought; no, I'd rather not keep company with hypocrites for the sake of a vague letter perhaps not more concerned with free speech? Especially when defenders of the letter are brigading those who critiqued it?

Why are you talking about people who haven't signed it?  My post, and your post that I was replying to, were both about the people who did sign it but are now backpedaling and disowning it.

There are plenty of people who didn't sign it, probably because they weren't asked.  The list of signatories is an impressively extensive and diverse list of prominent intellectuals, artists, writers, thinkers, celebrities, and other high-profile individuals.  I don't think the letter is lacking for more signatures.

Other than that you're just making things up.  Who's "brigading those who critiqued it"?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: July 09, 2020, 02:57:39 PM »

So what you're saying is that they had agency to sign the letter but don't have agency to disavow it?  It has to be a 'mob'.

There's no actual reason for them to disavow it.

It's not like anything has happened in the last two days to change their opinion of the contents of the letter.

It's not like the contents of the letter changed since they read it and signed it.

They're not disavowing it because their beliefs changed, or because they actually disagree with what they earlier agreed with.

They are disavowing it because the aggressive Twitter mob is bullying them into it.  Plain and simple.

Right now the Twitter mob is trying to label everyone who signed onto it as an ally of that monstrously hateful nazi bigot, JK Rowling, and therefore also permanently an enemy of marginalized communities (especially LGBT).  That's the strategy.

A lot of the people who signed it have fragile careers, or careers based on seeming "woke" or like they're a voice for some marginalized community.  They can't afford to have that label slapped on them and suffer the consequences on social media for the rest of their careers.  They don't want to have every article they write or tweet they send about LGBT issues get swarmed with hateful comments saying "I can't believe people still listen to this bigoted bitch who defends transphobia."  So they are backing out.

That is what's happening.  And it's deeply ironic because it's proving the letter correct 100 times over.

Do you think those who haven't signed because it's nothing more than a puff piece are against free speech? Do you think those who pointed to those who signed it having a recent history of trying to get people silenced or fired and thought; no, I'd rather not keep company with hypocrites for the sake of a vague letter perhaps not more concerned with free speech? Especially when defenders of the letter are brigading those who critiqued it?

Why are you talking about people who haven't signed it?  My post, and your post that I was replying to, were both about the people who did sign it but are now backpedaling and disowning it.

There are plenty of people who didn't sign it, probably because they weren't asked.  The list of signatories is an impressively extensive and diverse list of prominent intellectuals, artists, writers, thinkers, celebrities, and other high-profile individuals.  I don't think the letter is lacking for more signatures.

Other than that you're just making things up.  Who's "brigading those who critiqued it"?

I mean, I posted two examples above.

Here's another;



I was also going to share The Nation and Hong Kong activism specialist Wilfred Chan who critiqued the letter but he's also had to protect his tweets because he's been brigaded.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: July 09, 2020, 03:06:05 PM »
« Edited: July 09, 2020, 03:11:04 PM by afleitch »



Another signatory begging the 'free speech' activists to stop harassing another critic of the letter.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,500
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: July 09, 2020, 03:08:48 PM »


So because white men have been doing it for millennia the solution is to mimic their wrongdoings?

Koharu's memory is selective.  I'm old enough to remember young men coming home from the Vietnam War experience the Cancel Culture up close and personal, being called War Criminals (often by cowards who deliberately avoided the draft), and being viewed with skepticism by potential employers.

I was a young peacenik back then, with a McGovern t-shirt fit for a 15 year old.  But I NEVER criticized people for going to war, and I never viewed American Soldiers as War Criminals.  (And they're not and they weren't.)

I'll agree with the letter by the OP.  I just hope the OP believes it. as well as the rest of the forum.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: July 09, 2020, 03:43:53 PM »

I love how one of the critiques of the letter is that the signatories are complaining that they have no platform, but the letter itself shows they have a platform.

Isn't this circular logic? By the standard of the critics, the only way such a letter could legitimately make a point against de-platforming is if it itself had no platform, e.g. none of us would probably have heard about it. In other words, the only legitimate critique of de-platforming is one that makes no impact. This is a bit like the old test of drowing the woman to see if she is a witch. You lose either way! In reality, the Letter would have many, many times more signatures if people could sign anonymously without fear of reprecussions.
Logged
GP270watch
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,557


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: July 09, 2020, 04:23:30 PM »

 I always find it funny that the same people who want a space for radical hate speech turn around and warn us that radical empathy is the real danger. I think people are being very defiant in their demands for equal justice and inclusion, their methods or tactics can be off putting but the idea that those people are more dangerous than actual bigots is crazy. These actual bigots are constantly defended by the free speech absolutists, the Intelligentsia, and corporate America when they forgive or overlook that these bigots are not meeting even the minimum requirements for participating in the public discourse.
 
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: July 09, 2020, 04:26:34 PM »

The letter itself is fine, but it's so vague that it can be interpreted in any number of different ways.

Can we stop pretending that Rowling is some kind of victim though? She's a billionaire who used her platform to spread awful views, and she rightly got slammed for it.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: July 09, 2020, 04:27:25 PM »

I'll agree with the letter by the OP.  I just hope the OP believes it. as well as the rest of the forum.

No you don't, you cry to the mods to cancel any post or poster that hurts your feelings, and then when they do it, you still whine about how they're biased against you.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: July 09, 2020, 04:46:58 PM »

I'll agree with the letter by the OP.  I just hope the OP believes it. as well as the rest of the forum.

No you don't, you cry to the mods to cancel any post or poster that hurts your feelings, and then when they do it, you still whine about how they're biased against you.

And just like that, my reported post count increases by 1. Looks like someone wants to #cancel me...
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: July 09, 2020, 04:53:05 PM »

In the nearly one year which has passed since I returned from my hiatus, I've come to appreciate, more than ever, the need for free and open debate online and in the real world. Freedom of speech is one of the most essential liberties which we have; it underpins many of our other rights, and is vital to the successful and fair operation of civil society. Hence, I would agree with the underlying sentiments expressed in this letter.

At the same time, however, freedom of speech does not mean that one should be shielded from the consequences of what they say. As we've interpreted it in our jurisprudence, freedom of speech has meant that one cannot be restrained or harassed by government; it does not mean that one cannot be punished by their employer, or criticized (and even scorned) by other members of civil society. This is particularly true when someone engages in hate speech or the like. The Supreme Court has recognized that hate speech is constitutionally protected, but such recognition does not extend to the actions of private actors, with regards to whether or not they will employ or interact with someone who utilizes such speech. That is the distinction which I think hasn't been fully recognized here.
Logged
Horus
Sheliak5
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,550
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: July 09, 2020, 04:55:25 PM »
« Edited: July 09, 2020, 05:02:11 PM by Horus »

The letter itself is fine, but it's so vague that it can be interpreted in any number of different ways.

Can we stop pretending that Rowling is some kind of victim though? She's a billionaire who used her platform to spread awful views, and she rightly got slammed for it.

She's not a victim but her views aren't awful. Cis born women are going to have a different life experience than trans women, and at some points might be less privileged than trans women. That is not an awful view.

Trans people are literally like 0.2% of the population, and the left is collectively losing it over whether we should treat them as equals or as gods.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: July 09, 2020, 05:20:50 PM »

(Whoops, I accidentally responded to this thread twice with differently-worded statements. Didn't mean to do that.)

The letter itself is fine, but it's so vague that it can be interpreted in any number of different ways.

Can we stop pretending that Rowling is some kind of victim though? She's a billionaire who used her platform to spread awful views, and she rightly got slammed for it.

She's not a victim but her views aren't awful. Cis born women are going to have a different life experience than trans women, and at some points might be less privileged than trans women. That is not an awful view.

Trans people are literally like 0.2% of the population, and the left is collectively losing it over whether we should treat them as equals or as gods.

She said a lot more than that. It's telling that everyone's defense of Rowling is "What!? How is (insert single out-of-context opinion from Rowling) transphobic!?"
Logged
T'Chenka
King TChenka
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,041
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: July 09, 2020, 10:20:17 PM »

Cancel culture is real, and it can be a serious problem (watch Contrapoints' video on it, it's the best examination of the topic I've seen anywhere) but these people are not victims and their entitled whining and sophomoric appeals to empty platitudes bring nothing of value to the conversation.
You just said yourself that it can be a serious problem. Of you or I say it, the average person isn't going to read our critiques of it. If these people say it, average people will see the critiques. If there is a problem in society, even if it's only a problem sometimes, SOMEBODY has to say SOMETHING or nothing is ever going to change.

Bad-faith critiques based on misrepresentations, faulty logic and platitudes are not helpful to solving the problem, and if anything are more likely to make it worse.
What are you referring to here exactly? The letter in the OP? I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: July 09, 2020, 11:33:51 PM »

Cancel culture is real, and it can be a serious problem (watch Contrapoints' video on it, it's the best examination of the topic I've seen anywhere) but these people are not victims and their entitled whining and sophomoric appeals to empty platitudes bring nothing of value to the conversation.
You just said yourself that it can be a serious problem. Of you or I say it, the average person isn't going to read our critiques of it. If these people say it, average people will see the critiques. If there is a problem in society, even if it's only a problem sometimes, SOMEBODY has to say SOMETHING or nothing is ever going to change.

Bad-faith critiques based on misrepresentations, faulty logic and platitudes are not helpful to solving the problem, and if anything are more likely to make it worse.
What are you referring to here exactly? The letter in the OP? I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically.

Yeah, I'm talking about rich, powerful, socially influential people who suffer no meaningful impediment to spreading their ideas (and indeed have been doing so for years) whining that they are being silenced and that the lofty principles of free speech are under threat whenever their views are being challenged. These people are not the real victims (indeed, in some cases they themselves are encouraging harassment) and their criticism only reinforces the underlying logic of these sterile culture wars and therefore provide cover for the continued harassment and dogpiling that does happen in progressive spaces.

I'm not in the mood to go through the letter and point out why this criticism falls flat, but you see where I'm going with this, right? If not, let's pick up this conversation later.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: July 09, 2020, 11:50:37 PM »

No, I'm not going to agree with the letter due to its obviously left-wing opinion; however, I am very concerned about 'cancel culture' and as a result intend to considerably scale back the degree to which I publicly express my opinions. I would like to see political views and their expression added to the list of things people cannot be fired for, with some obvious exceptions (ie. things like trashing your employer or for people who work in politics). We seem to be entering this strange kind of state where peoples' actual views are increasingly diverging from their public ones.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,319
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: July 09, 2020, 11:51:07 PM »

The assumption that this letter is "anti-trans" when it doesn't even mention gender issues is pretty telling. It seems like a lot of the criticism is operating off of the assumption that if we let people say what they're actually thinking, they'll be transphobic.
Logged
T'Chenka
King TChenka
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,041
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: July 09, 2020, 11:51:14 PM »

Cancel culture is real, and it can be a serious problem (watch Contrapoints' video on it, it's the best examination of the topic I've seen anywhere) but these people are not victims and their entitled whining and sophomoric appeals to empty platitudes bring nothing of value to the conversation.
You just said yourself that it can be a serious problem. Of you or I say it, the average person isn't going to read our critiques of it. If these people say it, average people will see the critiques. If there is a problem in society, even if it's only a problem sometimes, SOMEBODY has to say SOMETHING or nothing is ever going to change.

Bad-faith critiques based on misrepresentations, faulty logic and platitudes are not helpful to solving the problem, and if anything are more likely to make it worse.
What are you referring to here exactly? The letter in the OP? I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically.

Yeah, I'm talking about rich, powerful, socially influential people who suffer no meaningful impediment to spreading their ideas (and indeed have been doing so for years) whining that they are being silenced and that the lofty principles of free speech are under threat whenever their views are being challenged. These people are not the real victims (indeed, in some cases they themselves are encouraging harassment) and their criticism only reinforces the underlying logic of these sterile culture wars and therefore provide cover for the continued harassment and dogpiling that does happen in progressive spaces.

I'm not in the mood to go through the letter and point out why this criticism falls flat, but you see where I'm going with this, right? If not, let's pick up this conversation later.
Oh okay. Yeah, in the context of WHO wrote / signed the letter, I can see your point for sure. I just think the letter in and of itself, as it's own seperate entity, is a good thing, at least in theory. Somebody needs to advocate for this. It's a shame if the messengers are hypocrites, as the message us IMO important.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: July 09, 2020, 11:57:46 PM »

Cancel culture is real, and it can be a serious problem (watch Contrapoints' video on it, it's the best examination of the topic I've seen anywhere) but these people are not victims and their entitled whining and sophomoric appeals to empty platitudes bring nothing of value to the conversation.
You just said yourself that it can be a serious problem. Of you or I say it, the average person isn't going to read our critiques of it. If these people say it, average people will see the critiques. If there is a problem in society, even if it's only a problem sometimes, SOMEBODY has to say SOMETHING or nothing is ever going to change.

Bad-faith critiques based on misrepresentations, faulty logic and platitudes are not helpful to solving the problem, and if anything are more likely to make it worse.
What are you referring to here exactly? The letter in the OP? I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically.

Yeah, I'm talking about rich, powerful, socially influential people who suffer no meaningful impediment to spreading their ideas (and indeed have been doing so for years) whining that they are being silenced and that the lofty principles of free speech are under threat whenever their views are being challenged. These people are not the real victims (indeed, in some cases they themselves are encouraging harassment) and their criticism only reinforces the underlying logic of these sterile culture wars and therefore provide cover for the continued harassment and dogpiling that does happen in progressive spaces.

I'm not in the mood to go through the letter and point out why this criticism falls flat, but you see where I'm going with this, right? If not, let's pick up this conversation later.
Oh okay. Yeah, in the context of WHO wrote / signed the letter, I can see your point for sure. I just think the letter in and of itself, as it's own seperate entity, is a good thing, at least in theory. Somebody needs to advocate for this. It's a shame if the messengers are hypocrites, as the message us IMO important.

In cases like this, the messenger is the message. Do you genuinely see anyone's minds being changed by this? Just look at this thread. People who were already hand-wringing about cancel culture are latching onto it saying "see? I was right!" and people who reflexively reject any criticism of online left-wing culture will just take it as entitled rich people being entitled rich people.

It also doesn't help, though, that this letter display no substantive understanding of the way in which "cancel culture" actually operates, or the underlying psychology that explains it. Again, for that, I highly recommend Contrapoints' video (or some of Peter Coffin and Angie Speaks's earlier videos, which relate it to an even broader structural/sociological analysis). This is very surface-level and designed to preach to the choir.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: July 10, 2020, 03:24:53 AM »

Cancel culture is real, and it can be a serious problem (watch Contrapoints' video on it, it's the best examination of the topic I've seen anywhere) but these people are not victims and their entitled whining and sophomoric appeals to empty platitudes bring nothing of value to the conversation.
You just said yourself that it can be a serious problem. Of you or I say it, the average person isn't going to read our critiques of it. If these people say it, average people will see the critiques. If there is a problem in society, even if it's only a problem sometimes, SOMEBODY has to say SOMETHING or nothing is ever going to change.

Bad-faith critiques based on misrepresentations, faulty logic and platitudes are not helpful to solving the problem, and if anything are more likely to make it worse.
What are you referring to here exactly? The letter in the OP? I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically.

Yeah, I'm talking about rich, powerful, socially influential people who suffer no meaningful impediment to spreading their ideas (and indeed have been doing so for years) whining that they are being silenced and that the lofty principles of free speech are under threat whenever their views are being challenged. These people are not the real victims (indeed, in some cases they themselves are encouraging harassment) and their criticism only reinforces the underlying logic of these sterile culture wars and therefore provide cover for the continued harassment and dogpiling that does happen in progressive spaces.

I'm not in the mood to go through the letter and point out why this criticism falls flat, but you see where I'm going with this, right? If not, let's pick up this conversation later.
Oh okay. Yeah, in the context of WHO wrote / signed the letter, I can see your point for sure. I just think the letter in and of itself, as it's own seperate entity, is a good thing, at least in theory. Somebody needs to advocate for this. It's a shame if the messengers are hypocrites, as the message us IMO important.

In cases like this, the messenger is the message. Do you genuinely see anyone's minds being changed by this? Just look at this thread. People who were already hand-wringing about cancel culture are latching onto it saying "see? I was right!" and people who reflexively reject any criticism of online left-wing culture will just take it as entitled rich people being entitled rich people.

It also doesn't help, though, that this letter display no substantive understanding of the way in which "cancel culture" actually operates, or the underlying psychology that explains it. Again, for that, I highly recommend Contrapoints' video (or some of Peter Coffin and Angie Speaks's earlier videos, which relate it to an even broader structural/sociological analysis). This is very surface-level and designed to preach to the choir.

I think in short, because the letter doesn't define cancel culture the signatories to it define it by proxy. And the main issue isn't the political or culture war slant (Rowling signed it but so too did Atwood) but the hypocrisy of many of those who have signed it who have actively silenced critics or used corporate influence to do so. Which for those who see that, makes the letter hollow.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: July 10, 2020, 07:00:54 AM »

The assumption that this letter is "anti-trans" when it doesn't even mention gender issues is pretty telling. It seems like a lot of the criticism is operating off of the assumption that if we let people say what they're actually thinking, they'll be transphobic.

I disagree with the people saying that the letter is anti-trans, but the assumption that it's anti-trans comes from the fact that some known anti-trans people signed it (J.K. Rowling and Jesse Singal, not sure if there were any others). I wouldn't be surprised if, in their minds, the letter was about trans people, but I doubt that many other people were thinking that way.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: July 10, 2020, 08:06:57 PM »
« Edited: July 10, 2020, 08:31:55 PM by lfromnj »

Literally no one thinks that Jk Rowling will get permanently cancelled for her opinions as we all know she is a bit too poweful

However sh**t like this can happen.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18564550.scots-author-gillian-philip-dumped-backing-jk-rowling-transgender-row/



Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: July 11, 2020, 04:59:51 PM »

In the nearly one year which has passed since I returned from my hiatus, I've come to appreciate, more than ever, the need for free and open debate online and in the real world. Freedom of speech is one of the most essential liberties which we have; it underpins many of our other rights, and is vital to the successful and fair operation of civil society. Hence, I would agree with the underlying sentiments expressed in this letter.

At the same time, however, freedom of speech does not mean that one should be shielded from the consequences of what they say. As we've interpreted it in our jurisprudence, freedom of speech has meant that one cannot be restrained or harassed by government; it does not mean that one cannot be punished by their employer, or criticized (and even scorned) by other members of civil society. This is particularly true when someone engages in hate speech or the like. The Supreme Court has recognized that hate speech is constitutionally protected, but such recognition does not extend to the actions of private actors, with regards to whether or not they will employ or interact with someone who utilizes such speech. That is the distinction which I think hasn't been fully recognized here.

The Constitution focuses on government not punishing speech since it is a document dealing with the role and limits of government.  That doesn't mean it's not an important principle elsewhere.
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: July 11, 2020, 05:52:09 PM »

In the nearly one year which has passed since I returned from my hiatus, I've come to appreciate, more than ever, the need for free and open debate online and in the real world. Freedom of speech is one of the most essential liberties which we have; it underpins many of our other rights, and is vital to the successful and fair operation of civil society. Hence, I would agree with the underlying sentiments expressed in this letter.

At the same time, however, freedom of speech does not mean that one should be shielded from the consequences of what they say. As we've interpreted it in our jurisprudence, freedom of speech has meant that one cannot be restrained or harassed by government; it does not mean that one cannot be punished by their employer, or criticized (and even scorned) by other members of civil society. This is particularly true when someone engages in hate speech or the like. The Supreme Court has recognized that hate speech is constitutionally protected, but such recognition does not extend to the actions of private actors, with regards to whether or not they will employ or interact with someone who utilizes such speech. That is the distinction which I think hasn't been fully recognized here.

The Constitution focuses on government not punishing speech since it is a document dealing with the role and limits of government.  That doesn't mean it's not an important principle elsewhere.

I don't disagree with this, and if you look at my first paragraph, you'll see that I've expressed my strong support for freedom of speech. What I'm trying to say is that not all speech is without consequences, and private platforms (like Twitter and Facebook) do have the right to govern what content appears on their websites. Employers, likewise, can punish or fire employees who violate their codes of conduct.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 13 queries.