[shockeychap]

> Anti-1A sentiment is growing on the political left

That statement, if you stop to think about what it means for all other freedoms, should genuinely scare you. Freedom only matters if it includes the right to offend others. Anything less isn't freedom at all.

If you genuinely believe in the principles of freedom, you will trust that the free exchange of all ideas - good and bad, right and wrong - is the best and only way to bring out the truth.

All of this hearkens back to dark ideas in which one class of people exercise power over another. Remember what they say about power.

[fighterpilot]

"Free exchange of ideas... best and only way to bring out the truth."

I don't believe this to be true. I only think the 1A is a good idea because it's too easy for an authoritarian government to co-opt speech restrictions. The free exchange in itself isn't what I care about.

People on the whole are pretty stupid, tribal and irrational creatures. I see no reason why a free exchange of ideas can't sometimes lead to a fascist or communist state if certain ideas get enough social contagion.

[shockeychap]

> I see no reason why a free exchange of ideas can't sometimes lead to a fascist or communist state if certain ideas get enough social contagion.

That's a fair observation, and making freedom a right comes with a host of risk and peril. But isn't that where the criticality of learning from history comes into play? Furthermore, name one dictator or authoritarian regime whose rise to power wasn't predicated on the necessity of government intervention and rule to protect the people. Everyone from Nero to Boneparte to Hitler to Chavez all claimed the mantle of necessity and greater good, and look where they all led.

The back-and-forth balance between freedom and containment of bad ideas can be tricky, but if you think you'll solve the problem of future authoritarianism through present-day authoritarianism, I don't know what to say.

[fighterpilot]

Restrictions on speech aren't about a utilitarian greater good, which is the logic of giving to person A by taking from person B because that results in a perceived net utility benefit. They're in the same category of things as drunk driving laws and assault laws, in that they're designed to protect person A from person B by limiting what person B can do, which according to right-libertarianism is the just role of the state.

You probably already agree that person A shouldn't be allowed to incite direct violence against person B. The thing is, hate speech laws for example aren't categorically different, since hate speech by A can lead to violence against B downstream. It's purely a difference in degree, difficulty to get right, and slippery slope risk.

I've thought about the case of Hitler and am unsold either way. On the one hand, the Weimar Republic had hate speech laws, and so in this N=1 they weren't effective at preventing the outcome they were supposed to prevent. On the other hand, it could be argued that such laws were merely too lenient. Hitler was genuinely popular and got 43 percent of the vote through mostly unfettered speech. He convinced people that his regime was a good idea. So this is a demonstration to me that unfettered speech can actually lead to the kind of outcomes that anti-1A people fear. Overall I just don't know enough about that history to say.

[belltaco]

The right is anti-free speech too, for example I did not see anyone defending the govt take down of Jihadist and anti-American websites, even though they were just words.

They are only pro speech when it comes to misinformation and fake news that their side falls victim too, much more than the left.

[umvi]

> I did not see anyone defending the govt take down

If no one was defending the takedowns, then that means people generally weren't in favor of them

[belltaco]

Exactly. But if you read the GP's interpretation they're all about free speech. Where were the free speech absolutists where people's speech other than "their side" was affected? This makes me doubt if they really believe their own principles.

[chrismcb]

What govt takedown? Why would a for free speech person defend the takedown? As long as they aren't calling for violence I would defend an antiamerican website to say something. I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it.

[shockeychap]

I'm not aware of which incidents you're referencing. Could you please cite examples of "government takedown of Jihadist and anti-american websites"?

I'll readily agree that we often argue about principles when it's our own content or people involved, and I see hypocrisy on both the left and the right.

But I have to give it to libertarians when it comes to consistent application of principles, even and especially when the specifics of a situation make them unpopular among the left or right. Conservatives find offense in the libertarian position on drug policy and media censorship of sex and violence. Leftists find offense in the libertarian position on economic policy, welfare, and immigration. Both sides find things to be offended about in their views on foreign policy. You know you're doing something right when you offend both ends of the political spectrum at the same time.

[belltaco]

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg61516/html/C...

[vorpalhex]

Actual calls to violence are a clear line in free speech. Telling someone to blow up markets and commit terrorism is something everyone should be opposed to.

[belltaco]

There was a lot of speech other than direct and immediate calls to violence that were/are censored.

Regardless, if you read the GP's post, they're saying 'words' should never be banned. So I don't see the making an exception for even the kind of violent speech that you stated. Where were these free speech absolutists back then when their personal misinformation and racist speech wasn't being affected, but others' was?

Makes me doubt their principles.

[chrismcb]

Most free speech proponents agree that calling for violence is wrong. To ask extent encouraging others to break the law is wrong (to an extent, because I've way to get rid of an unjust last is to break it)