Are you a freedom of speech absolutist, or do you believe that some speech deserves to be censored depending on the context?

[Datboi65]

Censorship and cancel culture. We are all familiar with these terms, and have heard them used every so often. Censorship is the act of silencing certain rhetoric, and cancel culture is the boycott of a person based of what they have said.

On the political spectrum, it seems that the more conservative a person is, the more they are anti cancel culture and pro absolute freedom of speech. However, in reality there are situations that even conservatives will try to cancel someone for (Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem). Leftist on the other hand are more likely to cancel, but ironically they are less likely to cancel those who are in their side when they do wrong (Joe Biden's racist joke of "if you don't vote for me then you're not black").

Both sided can be hypocritical, which is why they both lack legitimacy in the matter. Personally, I do believe that there are certain things that cannot be forgiven, and people have the right to boycott someone over a very SEVERE offense with their speech. I prefer educating someone as to why they are wrong, but if they don't want to listen then there's no other option.

Why do you think? So you believe speech should have limits to respect people's boundaries, or fo you believe saying anything should be allowed as long as you're not engaging in physical harm? Do you believe hypocrisy should be challenged or overlooked? Should canceling someone be allowed sometimes, or should that practice disappear completely?

Let me know what you think!

Updates

1 y

So most of the people who said they are "absolutist" gave exceptions like threats or inciting violence. The term "absolutist" covers everything, including what you have omitted. If you have exceptions, you are not an absolutist.

[WhiteSteve]

I’m kind of freewheeling the thought at the moment, but it’s kind of like…. I feel like we humans make the mistake of trying to have “society as we know it.” It’s a whole long thing to describe and argue for, so I’ll skip it, but the Cliff Notes are that everything we call society today is a down-the-line point in evolution from a misstep we made many, many, many generations ago. And we’re all used to it and comfortable in it, but that doesn’t make it correct, it just makes us not question it and instead rationalize to ourselves and each other as simply “the way”, for fear of the harsh realities of the correct alternative.

So with that said, I feel like the root of so many social dilemmas originate from us trying to bring concepts from the intended true reality into the false fabricated reality we’ve created. We’re wired to want these things in such a way, but often unable to properly execute or enjoy these things within the bounds of a society. I feel like society is ultimately futile if not perfectly collectivist. Individualism lives in the woods with natural freedom, you can’t bring that with you into “fake life.”

Still, we try to, and here we are. Free speech is absolute, because “absolute” is just the nature of any and all freedoms. Things are or they aren’t. Perception has nothing to do with it, it’s as simple as “can one’s brain send signals to the various speech muscles and organs of the body to create a consistently repeatable sound that we could associate with a concept, in order to communicate it to one another?” The answer to that is of course “yes.”

Whats tricky is now you’re in society, and society isn’t about you, it’s about everyone else. Don’t worry, you’ll be accounted for too, ideally, by the rest of us, but letting your own personal desires into the equation sullies everything. So now we’re asking “can one say anything they want without repercussions of some kind?” The answer to that one is “no.” You can say what you want in the wild, but in polite society, you can’t (or it’s at least frowned upon). But the flip side is that the other guy can’t just freely beat the shit out of you for saying hateful things, or they could but they’d likely at least face some sort of consequence. It’s a give and take. Beating the shit out of people freely is one that I’d like to take inside with me from outdoors, but again, society isn’t about me, it’s about everyone else I live amongst.

[Datboi65]

OK so you made several interesting points that I would like to reply to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said that collectivism was a misstep in the evolutionary process and that humans were meant to be individualistic? Well, humans are not the only animals that are sociable, so I would actually disagree. We are all tied by the social fabric because the alternative - in my opinion - is either gonna be total social isolation (like Tigers) or its every man for himself, which basically means tyranny.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fake society" and "fake life". Is it related to the last explanation of evolution? If that's the case, then no I don't believe anything is. Humans are exactly where they're meant to be. Animals can adjust their behavior as well, it's not just an intrinsic quality that binds all of them together. What you need to know about group behavior is that it's essential for survival in a given environment, and the study of sociology takes that into account. This is why even within humans we have different diets and different cultural practices, depending on the environment.

[Datboi65]

So now we have established that, let's talk about the polite society. Well, to be fair to you society isn't polite everywhere in the world and we are just looking at it from a Western point of view. The description that you made about freedoms is that they have to be absolute, but I would actually like to disagree. If you commit a crime, you go to jail. True freedom comes in the animal world, not for humans. Animals can kill each other and not go to prison.

Speech isn't guarded by the law (maybe in some countries it is but that's besides the point) but it's guarded by public opinion. You can say whatever you want, but whether we both like it or not, people will react either positively or negatively to what we say. There are consequences to what someone says. Does that mean that there's no freedom? Not necessarily, there's freedom of speech but not freedom of evading consequences. Therefore, I believe that complaining about those consequences in the form of being anti-cancel culture is rather pointless because people are also free to boycott those they dislike and that goes against their freedoms as well, not mentioning that the person doesn't take any accountability for what they said. There's a level of nuance that needs to be taken into account for everything in the human world, which is what makes us different.

[WhiteSteve]

Loooonnnnggggg string of posts coming, apologies in advance, lmao. Wish they allowed more characters. Yeah, so to give you a little more on my view: it’s entirely based around the idea that humans ARE animals, just like all the others, we actually are not at all special. It’s frankly kind of anti-human, haha, I’m not that impressed with our species on many, many fronts. I think we fucked up as soon as we progressed past small tribes. Modern humans are the enemy of Earth and all it’s nature. Even when we supposedly “clean up” the environment…. we were the ones who polluted it in the first place🤦‍♂️ Humanity is the worst the planet has to offer, so I no longer root for positive outcomes for us, and I hope for our eventual elimination. Yes, that would include me, but c’est la vie. Nothing and no one is more important than Earth. The Industrial Revolution was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The subsequent population explosion will be the goddamned death of this place, at least as we know it. I suppose the earth will “shake us off like a bad case of fleas”, as George Carlin once said. But broadly speaking, I’m not a fan of humanity and feel incredible disdain towards us and most of our pursuits and desired goals.

[WhiteSteve]

So what I meant by collectivism vs individualism is that you have to have organized society or not. Every man for himself, or all hands in for the common cause. The biggest mistake I feel we make in our society today is trying to walk in the middle of the street on that…. kind of collectivist, but at the end of the day people revert to individualism when it comes down to it. And you just can’t have that. Pick a side and go all in. Kind of like Mr Miyagi said when Daniel LaRusso said “I guess” I’m ready to learn karate. “Two side of street: learn karate, yes; or learn karate, no. Learn karate, yes…ok. Learn karate, no…ok. Learn karate, “I guess so”…. SQUISH, just like grape.” The planet is the most beautiful and perfect system I’ve ever seen, but the one outlier is humans. I’m not of the biblical mindset that Earth is for us and everything else is just there to sustain us or to sustain that which gives us sustenance. Humans = raccoons = goldfish = bullfrogs = red tailed hawks = plankton. We’re a minor part of the puzzle but we think we’re the main character. So I just emphatically reject any claim to the contrary, because I just don’t see it. Value isn’t measured in intelligence or opposable thumbs or the ability to design and manufacture things. Like if today’s humans went extinct, I would predict that to be a net positive for the natural world. Went don’t do much good, only for ourselves, but doing shit for yourself isn’t in any way admirable, to the contrary, it shows inflated sense of self-importance. Hope I’m not coming off hostile or generally shitty, haha, I appreciate your thoughtful response, but I’m just trying to clarify where my feet are planted, and it’s probably not much like anything you typically come across. I tried to avoid the long version, but I think it’s just too unconventional to assume others will follow. Hell, I might just be a lunatic, but I’m going down with this ship either way😂

[WhiteSteve]

Oh, and the fake life thing…. so, I basically don’t believe that there’s any validity to the ideas and machinations of the human mind. Nothing we dream up is a “good idea”, from a natural, Earth-first standpoint, which is the only standpoint I can justify looking from. I don’t believe that where we are today is just the correct path of “evolution”, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean that you SHOULD. Like space exploration? We should NOT do that. We’ve already fucked up this planet. Imagine the gall to think we should do it again, and then maybe again? JFC, man, we’re fucking terrorists😂

Kind of gunning through this, but regarding tigers, tyranny…. I believe anarchy to be our correct and natural state. The mistake we make is doing things that make us unnaturally comfortable, safe, healthy, etc. We have no entitlement to any of that. We fucked up our survival rate, it’s way too much, this isn’t sustainable. Of course we WANT it for ourselves, I do too, but the point is that what we want doesn’t fucking matter a lick. I don’t believe in nations, governments, borders (other than natural ones)…. that’s all created to give us benefits we are y supposed to get. Literally every other creature lives is bound to one set of rules, and then JUST ONE species plays by another? I’m not a religious man, so that could just never make any sense to me.

[WhiteSteve]

So, I can continue on to addressing your second reply, but before I waste my time or yours, are we going to get anywhere?😂 Anyone not wearing a loincloth and carrying a spear is fucking up BIG-TIME, my own softened, selfish, self-important ass included. That’s kind of the one sentence summary of my feelings of human life. Wildly different fundamentals than you, than almost anyone, I guess, but I feel like I’m just able to take my human pants off to look at it from aerial camera, without worrying about how it affects me and everyone else. Like I’m all about the process, not the result. Rigid all-natural unbiased-towards-human-outcomes process, and the result is just what “normal” is, whether we love it or hate it.

[Datboi65]

OK so first off, I appreciate the long thoughtful response. I now have a better perspective of where you come from, so thank you for that.

Having said this, I would like to give a bit of push back on a few things. I believe you're against the artificial world we have made for ourselves, correct? This is more of a nature vs nurture argument.

Let me put it this way. If we followed animals, then morals would disappear. There wouldn't be "right" and "wrong" we would be governored by our desires. The strong eats the weak and the poor doesn't survive. We do have some of that in our society, but it's controlled. In the animal world if you can't fight for yourself, you die. Humans are the most prolific of all animals, because we have mastered the art of hunting and moved on from it a loooooonnnggg time ago. We have tamed our environment and used it to our advantage to progress science and use what we know to benefit us. I would actually argue that has a net positive effect on the world. How? Human activities gave us global warming correct, but we were also able to detect it and are working to eradicate it. It's thought trial and error that we learn and progress.

[Datboi65]

Next point, the intelligence argument. You say humans should be equal to other animals in terms of importance despite the fact that we are superior to them in terms of intelligence, correct? What's the first thing people usually do to dehumanize a different group of people? They claim that that group is intellectually inferior, correct? Regardless of whether or not the claim is true, it's a strategy that's used to justify horrible treatment. The difference between what I described in the previous example and what happens with animals is that we not only know that we are more intelligent based off our accomplishments, but just like other animals do we also do what's best for us. I'm actually of the belief that if Lions for example had the same capability as we do, they would've done the exact same thing in our situation. It doesn't make us bad, it just means we're the apex predator of the ecosystem.

And by the way, I am religious but I wanted to use a logical argument instead since you don't believe in religion. Hopefully it all makes sense.

[God_of_Thunder]

I believe in free speech, as it is written. That is, that no government entity can infringe upon a person's right to free speech.

This whole social media, news, and cancel culture crap that's everywhere these days, does not apply. Private corporations can, and should be allowed to, restrict whatever they want, based upon their TOS.

Publically, people should be able to say whatever the hell tbey want; so long as they also accept that there may be repercussions for doing so

Such as your examples of boycotts, and such; I believe those reactions are perfectly acceptable, and up to the individual in question. If a person doesn't like what someone has to say, then they're well within their rights not to support that person/business.

This whole "free speech" thing is just completely out of control, because the term "free speech" does not, in any way, apply to 95% of the things that people are accusing of free speech violations.

[Datboi65]

Perfectly said. The first ammendment protects you from the government, not the people. This is also why you can sue someone for defamation of character is in the civil court. If free speech was with no limits, then you can say something about someone's wife and kids with absolutely no consequences, and I don't want to live in a world where that's the case.

[Anonymous]

Freedom of speech and cancel culture are two rather unrelated topics seeing as how freedom of speech ONLY relates to governmental regulation while cancel culture is something that for the most part grows from a general disdain by the populous for a person or thing... It's not new either, conservatives used to call it "voting with your dollar" encouraging their people to avoid certain brands to punish those companies for not agreeing with them... No value statements on the concept, just is what it is, and what it is is a several thousand year old way of keeping those who have the most harmful or extreme views from getting traction... Another term is "shunning"

As for the initial question. There have to be reasonable lines drawn. Obvious places to draw a line are things like yelling fire in a crowded building, it can cause people to get hurt in the chaos. Similarly, it is reasonable to impose a limitation on ones ability to call for emergency services when there is no emergency as a) the funds that provide for those services come from a public trust and b) those services may be needed elsewhere at same time causing increased negative outcomes in the instance of a real situation due to scarcity of resources.

So I would say that no, I am not a free speech absolutist, as it seems impractical in my opinion if we are to maintain a functioning society. While I am liberal in a definitional sense, meaning I think personal rights should be defined as broadly as possible, I am not quite libertarian in the purist sense as I don't think that people need to be allowed to arm themselves with nukes.

[Datboi65]

What you described is the position that I agree with. The tradition of boycotting people we dislike over an act that they did or something offensive that they said is an old tradition, and social media only made it more visible in a sense. I also in a way think it's a bit hypocritical that those who are against it can be very pro cancel culture the minute it's someone they don't agree with, like with Colin Kaepernick for example.

However, hypocrisy can also exist in the ether side of the spectrum. Liberals may fail to cancel someone on their side if they do something completely unacceptable, like Justin Treaudu with Black face, Joe Biden's "you ain't black if you don't vote for me" or Bill Clinton after the famous "I did not sleep with that woman" incident. It can also appear in a way that you only want to cancel those who disagree with your agenda.

I'm a centrist, so I don't follow either. I'm just listing my observations.

[Opinion Owner]

Well, of course liberals can be a bit hypocritical in that way, so are conservatives as well... Part of it is general human nature but I think too the other part is that when a person generally does things you like you give them more latitude while when they generally do things you dislike they tend to point at "the final straw" or at least what they hope their interlockular would agree to be crossing a line.

That being said, I think that has simply always been part of politics, from the Hellenistic period until now. Therefore, when entering into that sort of thing, it is simply expected, or the politician is naive.

The problem lies in when people weaponize it simply to cause harm or billy others who are not public figures into giving them their way without concern for the emotional or psychological damage that may occur collaterally.

I am reminded of an incident which happened to a friend of mine where they entered into a national level competition within their community. The event was moved from one of the seaboards to a more central state, happened to be where my friend lived. One of the former winners, who intended to compete again could not afford the airfare (which anyone from our state would have had to pay for to enter where it used to be held) and did everything in their power to discredit the event holding the competition because they felt they should have been consulted on the move.

These attacks included picking apart the lives of every person involved in the event, and every contestant, to defame them in the online spaces... Unfortunately this included my friend because of a single photo from a decade earlier that was found and deeply misconstrued simply to get people to boycott an event because couldn't afford a plane ticket and would lose a running title. My friend would be cleaning up that mess for years.

[Datboi65]

OK, first of all I would like to say I'm sorry for what happened to your friend.

I agree with you, it's in human nature to try to villanize those that they don't agree. However, I am usually more harsh on those who claim they are defenders of morals and then go on and do something immoral regardless of their political background. I'm sure you and I agree that claiming to be anti cancel culture and then canceling someone who isn't a conservative is unfair, just like supporting it and then not canceling someone from your party who does something worthy of cancelation is unfair.

The point I'm trying to make isn't only related to politicians, although they are usually the most highlighted since they are in the public sphere. The point I'm trying to make applies to everyone. As you know, one form of cancelation may not just be in impeachment, but also withholding your vote, which common people are completely capable of.

[Datboi65]

OK, first of all I would like to say I'm sorry for what happened to your friend.

I agree with you, it's in human nature to try to villanize those that they don't agree. However, I am usually more harsh on those who claim they are defenders of morals and then go on and do something immoral regardless of their political background. I'm sure you and I agree that claiming to be anti cancel culture and then canceling someone who isn't a conservative is unfair, just like supporting it and then not canceling someone from your party who does something worthy of cancelation is unfair.

The point I'm trying to make isn't only related to politicians, although they are usually the most highlighted since they are in the public sphere. The point I'm trying to make applies to everyone. As you know, one form of cancelation may not just be in impeachment, but also withholding your vote, which common people are completely capable of.

Far as the example you gave, two things I've noticed. There's defamation and also cancelation. Defamation is a tricky one, because you usually have to have a lot of evidence to prove it in court, but it's not included in free speech, and is definitely something worthy of being canceled. If what you're saying is correct, the irony is that whoever did this, the people will turn on them and cancel them too. Then there was the fact that your friend was cancel over a photo you said was misconstrued and happened over a long time ago. Is there any context? If it's not offensive, then that could be an example to use against the argument of cancel culture, since these are people who are wronged by misplaced public outrage and have their lives destroyed. I would need more context though. The point is, people need to ask more questions always, but cancelation isn't going anywhere. What I strongly dislike though is hypocrisy.

[Agape93]

Absolutist, but I'm also of the notion that free speech doesn't mean free of consequences. If you fuck around on here, you get in trouble. You insult a loved on offline, I knock your teeth in. I mock your sisters club foot infront of you, you knock my ass out.

Seems fair to me

[Datboi65]

Let me make something clear. The term "absolutist" means everything applies, so it makes you against consequences. It's not in the sense of support for the 1st ammendment which is anti government intervention, rather also being anti cancel culture as well, which is a natural response that people do when they get angry. People are free to boycott those they dislike as a consequence, wouldn't you agree? If that's the case, then you're not an absolutist.

[Agape93]

Nope. You are free to say whatever you want. Mock a rape victim? Say it. Threaten a politician? Say it. Talk about your vacation? Say it. Even if I don't like it I fully support your right to say it. That is being an absolutist. But that does not mean consequences cannot come from that speech.

[Tyrael]

I think short of promoting physical violence, you should be able to say whatever you want, but you have to accept the consequences of saying those things.

Censoring words in the name of free speech is one of the most ridiculous thing the liberals have come up recently though.

[Datboi65]

OK, let's talk about censorship. What qualifies as censorship? You and I know the government are not behind this censorship, or we would have another civil war. It's the people you're complaining about, right? For being too "politically correct".

Let me bring you back to reality. Consequences in the form of boycott have been practiced since forever. You started to notice it more now because we are all connected by the world of social media, but it's nothing new. I would actually argue that without it, society will collapse. There are things you cannot say and get away with, like talking about someone's family or defaming someone. Would you not agree? Then, now that we already know that there IS a threshold, the question is where should this threshold be? Low in the spectrum or high?

Having a threshold to anything, even if it's about physical violence basically omits you from being an absolutist.

[monorprise]

Banning any kind of speech (not actions), is not just a crime against the speaker but everyone one of us adults who might have learned something from him or her.

Its a reprehensible idea of arrogance to assume only you can judge a fact worthy of sharing better than any other adult. Yet that is precisely what a censor does.
It is a notion fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

[call_me_scar]

Absolutist for the most part so like screaming fire in an airport when no fire has occurred should still be punished however if a neo nazi group wants to do a peaceful March and they remain peaceful then despite me not liking what they say theirs nothing that should be done legally as that's a slippery slope

[InsecureLivesMatter]

Neither, though if I had to answer this question in a yes-vs-no bubble, then definitely on the absolutist side. I don't respect people who promote hate speech, human-targeting conspiracy theories or whatever. However I don't trust the government to determine what is "hate speech", as long as it's not promoting violence against a private individual.

[Datboi65]

Buying anti government censorship doesn't mean you are an absolutist. Being anti cancel culture makes you an absolutist. Speech comes with consequences. If you believe people shouldn't react to what you say regardless of whether it's an insult, a threat or anything along that, then you're an absolutist. It's the literal explanation from the name.

[inhua]

all speech should be allowed

and yes you're allowed to call out speech you "don't like" with your own free speech

[Datboi65]

But that's what they critisize as cancel culture.

[inhua]

cancel culture is just them trying to shut down speech through banning accounts and sending death threats.

[Datboi65]

Look, I don't agree with death threats. Having said that, by your logic that's a form of free speech. Banning accounts seems appropriate if the offense was severe and if the person has no intention on walking back their statement.

[inhua]

what is considered offensive is a matter of perspective. some people find stating there are 2 genders is offense. should these accounts be banned then?

[Datboi65]

No, that's not what I'm talking about. My criteria for offensive is very clear.

Insulting someone's family, religion, ethnicity, class as well as defamation of character and death threats. Anything else outside of that is just a "matter of perspective". However, that what I listed I can safely say that majority of the world agrees on.

[inhua]

not if there's truth to it. it's entirely different if there are lies being spread.

[Datboi65]

Truth in what? In what Iisted, or in the other stuff? Let me make something very clear, if you talk about my family you have more to worry about than you account getting banned. I think everyone can agree on that. I can care less about people getting offended over genders and pronouns, those people have nothing important to do with their lives anyway.

[inhua]

not unless your family has done some terrible things that are true. for example if your dad runs over my dad with his car, I'm gonna call that shit out.
there's real life cases too where Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden is being investigated too. is that off limits because we're talking about Joe's family here?

[jennifer_bloom]

Elon Musk describes this very well, he says he bans speech that promotes violence and bodily harm to others.

[exitseven]

I limit free speech with the old "yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.." Everything else is covered under the first amendment.

[NamerOfStars]

"Cancel culture", eh? In my day, we called it "McCarthyism".

[LiamJHayden]

Preemptive censoring, no. But saying what you want does not mean others are obligated to endorse it, support it, or even look at you.

[Datboi65]

I think all of us here are anti government censorship. What about public opinion though, do you believe that if your statements make a very LARGE group of people angry that they are justified in their boycott of you or not?

[LiamJHayden]

Yes, because that is THEIR free speech.

[Jccowen77]

Absolutist. Say whatever you want. But you also deal with the consequences tied to it. So if you like to be an asshole, then you're on your own when trouble comes.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Total free speech unless you are trying to incite violence or get someone seriously hurt or killed.

[Datboi65]

Then that comes with limitations. True total free speech includes that.

[misogynistic_pig]

Feminist discourse is the only one that should be censored.

[OddBeMe]

Obviously you can’t threaten someone horribly without consequences. So I’m not an “absolutist”. But I’m closer to libertarianism here than anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Kneeling is not speech that would be protected under the First Amendment.

[Datboi65]

Kneeling is not speech correct, but it's an expression. The first ammendment protects freedom of expression and speech is included in that genre alongside other forms like protesting (peaceful) for example. Complaining about kneeling basically makes you a hypocrite.

[Snakeyes7]

I would say only if it is incitement to violence but that can mean anything to the person who censors.

[WhiteBoyChill]

I’m not. Leftist radicals are the ones who need to be censored

[Datboi65]

Sounds really stupid and hypocritical. Remember, I'm a centrist so this "leftist bad" talk doesn't mean anything to me.

Either everything goes including defamation, threats, insulting your family and slurs, or we draw a line somewhere where these things aren't included, and the consequences would be in the form of boycott (cancelation).

[WhiteBoyChill]

Its only bad when the left does those things.

[Datboi65]

No, hypocrisy is bad.

[WhiteBoyChill]

I dont care if its hypocritical or not. Too bad. There’s no reason for me not to be if they already are

[Datboi65]

Well then you're not gonna get anywhere or solve anything if you think you are more important than them. I criticized their hypocrisy as well with Biden and Justin Treadu, and got a different response. Maybe there's a lesson in that for you to learn.

[Anonymous]

There is a big difference between free speech and hate speech.

[Datboi65]

What is hate speech?

[Anonymous]

While I don't like all speech I believe in free speech.

[gorydetails]

Absolutist.

[Datboi65]

Even defamation of character? Threats? Inciting violence? These are all forms of speech