Imran Ahmed of the CCDH is a modern day Anthony Comstock, and I have no respect for him whatsoever. By pushing years-long deplatforming campaigns, he has helped normalize censorial attitudes and ironically set the stage for his own persecution.
It would be helpful to review the methodology for differentiating hate and defamatory speech from constitutionally protected speech, and discuss how European countries and the US have historically drawn the line differently. And therefore have the right to regulate online speech differently. This is how to elucidate how the Trump administration is violating those principles.
Agreed insofar as what this Administration is doing. But you sure do gloss over what has happened to free speech in Europe and elsewhere. That’s not bothsidesism. What’s happening here is wrong. What’s happening over there is also wrong. The existence of either does not make the other okay. If one believes that the right of free expression is a human right, one should be dismayed by global impairment of it.
I don't think it takes a genius to work out that Trump is more concerned with trying to dictate speech (or, at least make it difficult to be critical of him) than with actually defending Free Speech. But this also needs to be said:
The EU / UK through various "misinformation" legal acts are openly hostile to Free Speech. This: "As with any regulatory framework, some individuals may try to exploit this law to censor or oppose ideological viewpoints they dislike" is a massive, massive understatement of the power governments wield outside of the US and makes it appear that it is not something that needs proper scrutiny (and criticism). News etc is being censored and individuals are being arrested, indicted and thrown in jail for non-violent posts and statements. There are many valid reasons for the US to be critical and vocal about these laws. And, yes, the US should stand up for Americans when abroad.
(It is also worth pointing out that under the previous administration, the underhandedness of trying to control social media etc as well as the outright and explicit attacks on the First Amendment didn't get anywhere near the level of coverage and condemnation that it should have. Is it only because it is Trump that governments trying to control things that makes you aware of issues with Free Speech?)
We need to stop with the euphemisms and speak clearly about these issues.
Terms like fascist / racist or uses of the “inclusive or” and the more recent “inclusive and” as in “misinformation and/or hate” are not helpful. This article is similarly not helpful, referencing deeply flawed partisan sources as if they were consensus facts.
What is happening is that we’ve all figured out that people are deeply suggestive, and feelings towards individuals or groups can swiftly change as a result of bad publicity, especially through social media. One, we should be discussing this phenomenon (SCOTUS Roberts brought this up once as did Finland (?) in their efforts to counter Russian propaganda), But leave this aside for now.
It’s also been discovered that nipping it in the bud or “pre-bunking” is extremely important if you want to control public opinion and protect certain groups from general ill will. Sounds like indoctrination if you ask me.
But what about the case where it is true information that creates the ill will? This is the point of contention. I suspect that Katherine Stewart and many others will say that yes, suppressing true speech or information in order to prevent or limit hate is not just allowable but obligatory. In fact this is what “countering hate” is about: The test is not whether the original speech was itself hateful but whether it creates or increases hate. Many of us will disagree that this is a reasonable or even allowable test.
We should be discussing this boundary point directly instead of all the hysterics around feelings and harm. The truth can be harmful as well and we need to face harmful truths head on and reject our therapy laden culture.
A friend of mine recently said he doesn’t care if climate activists, including scientists, exaggerate or even lie about the potential consequences as long as the right decisions are made. He is clearly a consequentialist. Many of us are not and believe that truth and honesty are important in science and journalism and public communications regardless of the outcomes.
Imran Ahmed of the CCDH is a modern day Anthony Comstock, and I have no respect for him whatsoever. By pushing years-long deplatforming campaigns, he has helped normalize censorial attitudes and ironically set the stage for his own persecution.
It would be helpful to review the methodology for differentiating hate and defamatory speech from constitutionally protected speech, and discuss how European countries and the US have historically drawn the line differently. And therefore have the right to regulate online speech differently. This is how to elucidate how the Trump administration is violating those principles.
Agreed insofar as what this Administration is doing. But you sure do gloss over what has happened to free speech in Europe and elsewhere. That’s not bothsidesism. What’s happening here is wrong. What’s happening over there is also wrong. The existence of either does not make the other okay. If one believes that the right of free expression is a human right, one should be dismayed by global impairment of it.
I agree.
I don't think it takes a genius to work out that Trump is more concerned with trying to dictate speech (or, at least make it difficult to be critical of him) than with actually defending Free Speech. But this also needs to be said:
The EU / UK through various "misinformation" legal acts are openly hostile to Free Speech. This: "As with any regulatory framework, some individuals may try to exploit this law to censor or oppose ideological viewpoints they dislike" is a massive, massive understatement of the power governments wield outside of the US and makes it appear that it is not something that needs proper scrutiny (and criticism). News etc is being censored and individuals are being arrested, indicted and thrown in jail for non-violent posts and statements. There are many valid reasons for the US to be critical and vocal about these laws. And, yes, the US should stand up for Americans when abroad.
(It is also worth pointing out that under the previous administration, the underhandedness of trying to control social media etc as well as the outright and explicit attacks on the First Amendment didn't get anywhere near the level of coverage and condemnation that it should have. Is it only because it is Trump that governments trying to control things that makes you aware of issues with Free Speech?)
We need to stop with the euphemisms and speak clearly about these issues.
Terms like fascist / racist or uses of the “inclusive or” and the more recent “inclusive and” as in “misinformation and/or hate” are not helpful. This article is similarly not helpful, referencing deeply flawed partisan sources as if they were consensus facts.
What is happening is that we’ve all figured out that people are deeply suggestive, and feelings towards individuals or groups can swiftly change as a result of bad publicity, especially through social media. One, we should be discussing this phenomenon (SCOTUS Roberts brought this up once as did Finland (?) in their efforts to counter Russian propaganda), But leave this aside for now.
It’s also been discovered that nipping it in the bud or “pre-bunking” is extremely important if you want to control public opinion and protect certain groups from general ill will. Sounds like indoctrination if you ask me.
But what about the case where it is true information that creates the ill will? This is the point of contention. I suspect that Katherine Stewart and many others will say that yes, suppressing true speech or information in order to prevent or limit hate is not just allowable but obligatory. In fact this is what “countering hate” is about: The test is not whether the original speech was itself hateful but whether it creates or increases hate. Many of us will disagree that this is a reasonable or even allowable test.
We should be discussing this boundary point directly instead of all the hysterics around feelings and harm. The truth can be harmful as well and we need to face harmful truths head on and reject our therapy laden culture.
A friend of mine recently said he doesn’t care if climate activists, including scientists, exaggerate or even lie about the potential consequences as long as the right decisions are made. He is clearly a consequentialist. Many of us are not and believe that truth and honesty are important in science and journalism and public communications regardless of the outcomes.