orangeschmorange:

teachmetothink: People now are like, “Your right to free speech doesn’t mean you can express an offensive opinion”

Like what the fuck does right to free speech mean, then?

okay, so it is true that morons in the US commonly and infuriatingly misinterpret the “right to free speech” as the right to unilaterally declare their bullshit opinions across every medium without any criticism or pressure to defend their views. this has never been what “the right to free speech” means and is literally unintelligible and indefensible as an interpretation.

however, i’m disappointed in xkcd for this lack of nuance because the right to free speech, though correctly interpreted as a guarantee between the people and the government, doesn’t only relate to being arrested for something you say after the fact. prior restraint (censorship) is also prohibited except in certain specific cases. government censors cannot decide that your book is lewd and has no value and therefore put pressure on the relevant organizations not to publish or distribute your book. if you did have your show canceled due to pressure from the government, this would be a gross violation of the 1st amendment.

moreover, the spirit of the 1st amendment’s guarantee of the right to free speech is that unpopular views will not be suppressed by those with power. any time you are appealing to channels of power to silence a viewpoint, ex: banning certain classes of speakers or not giving them permits to assemble, free speech is being suppressed. naturally, private institutions have far more legal leeway to decide which views they will suppress. however, what we are seeing is more and more calls for complete and unquestioning suppression from activist groups that are against certain views and have decided that those views should be prohibited across the board. this type of culture, while not violating the first amendment as it generally involves private orgs, is extremely chilling to free speech, the exchange of ideas, engagement with real issues, and critical thinking.

in an environment where free speech thrives and is not subject to prior restraint, whether from the government or from other private institutions, the sort of criticism that is crucial for evaluating certain ideas as harmful or bigoted will flourish. in an environment where certain classes of speech and certain ideas are banned outright, nothing can be evaluated at all. intellectual discussion is impossible, and bigoted ideas will still spread in secrecy.

the current strange appeal for the left of what i guess i would call “private prior restraint,” censorship, and a related bizarre mob justice that shames and bullies anyone professing unorthodox views instead of actually and rightly criticizing the ideas in question, as well as the left’s eagerness to appeal to channels of power to silence not only unorthodox views but all views of anyone who can remotely be connected to some alleged instance of unorthodoxy, is frankly disturbing in the most authoritarian and dystopian sense.

there is a reason that the ACLU has defended the right of the KKK to assemble. anyone who does not understand the slippery slope of banning certain unpopular classes of speech without having concrete delimiting factors for what can actually be banned (i.e. direct incitement to violence, not an abstract bigoted view, see brandenburg v. ohio) risks carrying forward an agenda that culminates in totalitarianism, whether explicitly enforced by the state or by other nominally neutral entities wielding various types of power.

expecting an offensive opinion not to garner criticism and expecting offensive opinions not to be heard in the first place are both crucial misinterpretations of the idea behind freedom of speech. of course offensive opinions will be angrily boycotted, and there will be protests and counter-protests. that’s great. that’s the sign of healthy intellectual life in a society. banning them outright is counterproductive and dangerous, and this is what we currently seem to be gleefully forgetting as social progress finally moves forward and the shoe is on the other foot.

i find it especially ironic that the people and groups who have most strongly benefited from the protections of the freedom of speech are so quick to take it away from others once their ideas become more broadly accepted. society will not function if we silence any opinion that may be controversial.

(via magdamada-blog)