[bllguo]

Reductive. You seem to be searching for a reason to disagree. He/she stated his point crudely, granted, but he/she did have one: There are certain forms of speech that are outlawed in certain places in the interest of preventing harm to people. For instance, countries with anti-Holocaust-denial laws. Yet they remain reasonably free and tolerant societies. CP is another example. Many governments and people operate without the idea (delusion?) that all speech should be allowed. Fetishization of free speech is a uniquely US-centric phenomenon.

Your faux outrage is irritating. You're really going to debate that fake news on FB and elsewhere has had a real impact shaping beliefs and attitudes?

[kbutler]

I agree with what you said, but going from, "societies sometimes forbid types of speech" to "let Facebook decide what speech to forbid" is a step I cannot justify.

[peoplewindow]

People who believe women can't be programmers or that it's impossible to be racist against white people also have points, and often put them crudely. Having a point is fine. Putting it crudely and then not backing up your position with anything is not fine - it's pretty much the definition of unconstructive criticism.

If quoquoquo had supported their viewpoint with something other than his own enormous contempt, perhaps studies or statistics on the extent to which people are sheep like I'd have let it be or maybe even voted it up. But they didn't.

You're really going to debate that fake news on FB and elsewhere has had a real impact shaping beliefs and attitudes?

"Real impact" is meaningless beyond meaning "an impact more than zero". It's surely had more than zero. Is it significant in scale compared to other sources of manipulation, like what ordinary newspapers routinely engage in? Does it have huge impact on individuals or trivial impact? That's absolutely debatable and worth debating.

[Frondo]

Thank you. Fetishization of free speech is a good way to put it--and it's a position that I would say comes from people who lack perspective; the people who are going to be the last ones targeted by the actual violence that's already happening.

Again I'd like to ask, what's the free speech answer to nazis and white supremacists raising their fists to my friends and loved ones? How do we free-speech our way out of the violence that's already coming?

I'd love to be a free-speech absolutist but, right now, I can't square it with the suffering and violence being brought down on the most vulnerable.

[peoplewindow]

So, seeing as you brought them up. Nazis.

You realise - I hope! - that seeing large populations of other people as weak, inferior, morally defective, mentally limited and generally in need of being controlled or removed from public life is exactly the attitude that led to the Nazi horrors, don't you? It wasn't an excess of free speech that led to the concentration camps, which were secret inside Germany and their existence did not leak to the allies until troops actually found them. It was a set of beliefs that de-humanized entire chunks of the population. Those considered immoral or stupid by the Nazis were sent to the gas chambers ... but only after years of much lighter harassment and suppression.

Especially note that a key part of Hitler's rise was the belief that Germany's defeat in WW1 was somehow partly the result of some sort of conspiracy by people with Jewish beliefs.

So now what do we see? A strong conviction by some parts of society that other parts are mentally weak, that their belief systems are morally defective, yet that people with these beliefs are organised and dangerous and thus they must be suppressed.

The risk here is NOT coming from "free speech absolutists", as you put it, but rather people like yourself who look around and see a world full of people who cannot ever be persuaded or redeemed because they're just too stupid or evil, and thus must be prevented from organising. In the exceptionally rare case that genuine, actual Nazis do "raise their fists" the solution is the same as when anyone does: arrest them and send them to trial.

[hsod]

Wow. So you're comparing the OP of this subthread to the Nazis because they think the electorate is susceptible to manipulation. That's some shameful sophistry.

[peoplewindow]

Sigh, no. Look. I don't think bringing up "but Nazis" is really helpful to any debate but Frondo did so. His position is - quite literally - I'd love to support free speech but I can't because of Nazis. Also he thinks I lack perspective and am some sort of fetishist, which isn't very nice, but I can put that to one side.

It's impossible to respond to such a rebuttal without using the N-word and I specifically said at the start I was doing so only because of that argument.

I understand why people bring up Hitler in discussions about free speech. Some people do believe that Nazis are some sort of harmful side effect of free speech and if only people with views tending in that direction are prevented from speaking, there will never be a re-occurrence. That's a reasonable view to hold, but one that many people believe to be wrong (I didn't see Congress delete the first amendment post-WW2 after all).

Now if someone is going to take a position of "I'd love to support X but it leads to Hitler", a rebuttal of the form "actually it's not X that led to these bad things, it's the opposite of X" is a completely reasonable response. If you really believe that's sophistry I'd be interested to know how you'd argue that free speech is the solution to and not the cause of Nazi evil, if you genuinely did believe that, without it being sophistry?

[hsod]

The sophistry is in the un-earned reversal.

OP: People are susceptible to manipulation. We should think carefully about the ways our institutions allow violent and intolerant ideologies to spread.

You: You know who else thought people were susceptible to manipulation? The Nazis.

A hypothetical non-sophist: Our institutions are indeed helping to spread violent and intolerant ideologies, but any attempt to prevent their spread will only make things worse, because #{reasons}.

[gozur88]

>Again I'd like to ask, what's the free speech answer to nazis and white supremacists raising their fists to my friends and loved ones? How do we free-speech our way out of the violence that's already coming?

One, you respond to violence with violence, but that's not what we're talking about. And two, the best way to hurry along the violence you think is coming is to close down other people's free speech. Speech is the substitute for violence - what do you think will happen when you take speech away from people who feel marginalized?

>I'd love to be a free-speech absolutist but, right now, I can't square it with the suffering and violence being brought down on the most vulnerable.

Sure, "I support free speech but...". You'd love to be a free speech absolutist, as long as the people talking agree with you.

[Frondo]

"You'd love to be a free speech absolutist, as long as the people talking agree with you."

I'd love to be a free speech absolutist but where that's been taking us, my friends and loved ones are at the receiving end of fists, guns, and cars.

So... just to clarify, you're telling me I should be a free speech absolutist and say, "yes, let's just talk that car out of plowing into us"?

Serious, honest question. The violence is already here. Is that--more talking in the face of violence against vulnerable communities--where you see free speech absolutism leading us? Is that the place we, as a society, want to be headed?

(If it's easy for you to say, "yes," then I'm assuming you feel safe knowing you'd never be at the receiving end of a car plowing through a crowd.)

[gozur88]

>So... just to clarify, you're telling me I should be a free speech absolutist and say, "yes, let's just talk that car out of plowing into us"?

Is a moving car "speech"? You seem to keep trying to blur the line between speech and violence. Why is that? Is it that you don't recognize the difference, or is it that you realize there hasn't actually been much violence, and most of it's coming from your "friends and loved ones" on the left?

>Serious, honest question. The violence is already here. Is that--more talking in the face of violence against vulnerable communities--where you see free speech absolutism leading us? Is that the place we, as a society, want to be headed?

Who are you talking about when you say "vulnerable communities"? The communities with all the institutional protection, from colleges to employers to the state?

And it's not free speech that's turning up the antagonism, but rather the opposite, as more and more pressure is put on people to refrain from, you know, speaking their mind.

>(If it's easy for you to say, "yes," then I'm assuming you feel safe knowing you'd never be at the receiving end of a car plowing through a crowd.)

Again, that was one incident. One. By a guy who'd most likely just been assaulted by communists. To make policy based on what one person does is idiotic.

But if that's what we're going to do, shouldn't we look into yanking MSNBC's broadcast license? I mean, the guy who shot Scalise was a big Maddow fan.