[mattchew]

It's very upsetting how quickly the West is abandoning the ideal of free speech.

20 years ago I would not have believed it was possible that we would have a significant fraction of educated people who were opposed to free speech. But here we are, where a book defending the idea of free speech is too dangerous for a publisher to touch.

I noticed this got flagged off the front page for a while. I wonder why. Thank you to the admins for restoring it, at least. (Update: flagged again. Nevermind.)

[cannonedhamster]

Since when have we had free speech in the west? If anything we're more free than ever ever been. Being anti-Christian would get you barred during the founders time, being pro-communism during the cold war got government attention and black listing, not being patriotic enough got you in trouble in WW2, being pro-union used to put your life at risk.

[mattchew]

The ideal of free speech is a Western ideal. It is part of the individualist tradition going back at least to the Enlightenment.

Back when I was in college (early 1990s), respect for free speech was almost universal among educated people. Everyone was at least somewhat aware of the usual arguments for free speech and basically accepted them. Sure, there were people who wanted to ban books or music or video games, but they didn't have much success and they were generally viewed with contempt.

This just isn't true any more. There is a sizable fraction of educated people now who think free speech is bad and dangerous, who want an authority to control what people are allowed to say and to restrict what ideas others are allowed to come in contact with. And they're gaining power and influence.

Yes, you're correct that free speech hasn't always been respected in the West. Sometimes it gets stepped on. What I'm talking about is whether people think it SHOULD be respected. They used to, quite strongly, but less so now. If you favor free speech this should be concerning.

[eesmith]

"Back when I was in college (early 1990s), respect for free speech was almost universal among educated people."

So, I think you need to clarify what you mean by "free speech".

It wasn't until the late 1980s that flag desecration was recognized as free speech. Before 1989, 48 of the 50 states prohibited, for example, flag burning in a political protest, and with different laws than apply for burning, for example, paper at a political protest.

Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson#Subsequent_de... , "More than two decades later, the issue remained controversial, with polls suggesting that a majority of Americans still supported a ban on flag-burning." This suggests that many people in the 1990s, including "educated" ones, did not believe in free speech in the same way that the US Supreme Court did.

Is commercial speech covered under the same free speech tradition? That is, can companies lie about their products, under the protections of free speech? Does the Establishment clause ever overrule a teacher's free speech right of leading a prayer in the classroom?

Going back a generation, many people supported the anti-Communism restrictions of the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government. The Supreme Court later overturned it, but it's an example that, no, "respect for free speech" was not "almost universal among educated people" in the mid-1900s.

Going back yet another generation, and you see cases like Schenck v. United States and Debs v. United States where speaking out against the war, and encouraging resistance to the draft. This was illegal under the Espionage Act of 1917, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Was this free speech or not?

Going back yet another generation, to the 1870s, and you see the start of the Comstock Laws, which among other things banned distribution of sex education information. These laws were widespread, and widely supported. Was this free speech, or not?

So no, it does not seem to me that "respect for free speech was almost universal among educated people".