So after a bit of thought, I am going to try one last time to be specific and make the point I was trying to imply earlier. Which, I am sure, will go swimmingly....
@Bedrockgames - this is my position. First, I am as big of a defender and absolutist when it comes to free speech and the First Amendment as you will find. When it comes to the principles of free speech as embodied by the First Amendment, I can look at the ACLU and say, "Hold my beer."*
But I also think that we must maintain a strict line between protection from the government interfering with free speech (either a priori, aka censorship, or post hoc, aka punishment) and issues we have with cultural problems related to the "principles of free speech." I'm going to detail this a little more, because while I mostly agree with @Steampunkette my opinion is slightly different than hers.**
Most people are familiar with the saying that has been (incorrectly) attributed to Voltaire- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I think it's important to remember that, because otherwise we end up with the censorious words of those who have always sought to deprive minorities of speech before, twisted around yet again. "Speech I like is good, speech I don't like is bad; therefore speech I like is allowed and promoted, and speech I don't like should be censored." This is something that, for my own reasons, I cannot condone and I abhor. I would rather a million bigots speak out against me and my life than allow any other person to dictate who gets to speak. If you look at history you will see a common cause between those who want control speech is as old as time- for example, the Meese/Dworkin pact. The only thing those two could ever agree on is that they didn't want people to make decisions about their own speech- they would make it for them.
I believe that this is true because I have seen these principles play out over time. I have seen the positive impact that these principles of free speech have had in my life, and the life of others. I don't want anyone deciding what is, and isn't, appropriate or "good for me," because that is a weapon that is always used for ill, if not at the beginning, then certainly by the end.
And for that reason, I am an absolutist when it comes to speech and the state. When I hear people demanding that certain speech should be banned or censored because it's offense, that's foreign to my experience. Is there ever a case for it? .... I mean .... it might be that a certain, specific issue needs to be addressed; after WW2, for example, I can understand why (West) Germany put in the ban regarding Nazi imagery.
The thing is, principles (such as free speech) are something you either adhere to, or you don't. For a very long time, issues such as LGBTQI+ rights were defended in America by the principles of free speech; I cannot tell you how many times people who disagreed with those rights (because of their religion, or. moral qualms, or upbringing, or ignorance, or whatever) would nonetheless still defend the principles of free speech. They didn't agree with the speech, but they were allies of the principle. And over time, because the cause itself was good, it won out. Because the speech was heard, because people were convinced. And the reason the speech was heard was because there were a great number of people who defended that right, even when they didn't agree with the message.
On the other hand, I have repeatedly seen people who try to tell us what speech is good and what speech isn't in order to arrogate to themselves the sole authority to decide what we should and shouldn't hear. And they will always claim a justification- except instead of tarring people as bigots they would make arguments about "the children" and "just think, they'll try and get married, or adopt kids" or "what if we have to see men kissing on TV?"
It was terrible then, and it is terrible now.
BUT ... I would defend the rights of Illinois fans of the Austrian Painter to march and speak, but like Jake Blues .... I hate those people. I will defend their right to speak, because I believe in the principle, but there is no way in heck that I would ever associate with one of them. I defend the rights of people to speak and participate in the marketplace of ideas, but the whole point of speech is that it does have power- and people can agree or disagree with your speech, and there can be consequences for your speech. If you go around using the "N" word, for example, there are a lot of people that will rightfully judge you and not want to associate with you. Or if you call the women in your office "Sugar T***s" there will also be ... consequences. Which is good!
Okay, getting to the point finally. Here's the thing- in the past the vast majority of people didn't have much of a platform, did they? Maybe get a letter to the editor published? Maybe hold court in a bar? But getting your words to any kind of audience? Nope. Now we have all of these ways to speak ... to the whole world. But people be people. So when you're tweeting or gramin' or posting a message on facebook or posting a video on yuotube or tiktok all by yourself on your computer or phone ... it's there for the whole world to see. It's not that the consequences for speech are any different; instead, it's that people be stupid. Our little lizard brains aren't used to the fact that these communications go out to everyone, and are forever. And unlike the past mass media ... we don't have a whole process of revisions and fact checking and editors. I mean... think about what would history would be like if the New York Times printed articles from people who were drunk at 2am? Feel me?
So when complain about the "mobs" it's just ... people on social media. It's not a "free speech" issue- it's a cultural one. Until people internalize that it is to the world and forever, and maybe be a little more careful, it will keep happening. If you drunkenly say something stupid in a bar, you will probably be okay. Say the same thing on twitter or facebook? Good luck with that!
And as for corporations? I will reiterate the point I made before- corporations gonna corporate. Most corporations are just looking to latch on to popular speech and not make waves; same as it ever was. The only difference is that what is popular just changes. That happens.
Final point. I do think we need to start doing a better job instilling the virtue of the principles of free speech, because I do think that there has been a shift. But in the end, that's a social / education issue, not a First Amendment issue. Most of what people are lumping into "Free Speech" is just terrible tribalism conducted a different way.
Okay, that's it. I tried my best to be non-specific and not bring any current issues into this. That's my final post on the topic.
*I would say, however, that I am somewhat equivocal to negative about the very recent habit of trying to make all cases "free speech" cases. If you went to my recent legal brain teaser thread that I told you about you will see it starts with a quote I am fond of from Dallas v. Stranglin. More and more I see every type of case brought as a free speech case. Not every single act by every entity is speech, and doing so devalues core political speech and expressive conduct.
**I didn't see a preferred pronoun for you, so please correct me if I am not using the appropriate one.
@Bedrockgames - this is my position. First, I am as big of a defender and absolutist when it comes to free speech and the First Amendment as you will find. When it comes to the principles of free speech as embodied by the First Amendment, I can look at the ACLU and say, "Hold my beer."*
But I also think that we must maintain a strict line between protection from the government interfering with free speech (either a priori, aka censorship, or post hoc, aka punishment) and issues we have with cultural problems related to the "principles of free speech." I'm going to detail this a little more, because while I mostly agree with @Steampunkette my opinion is slightly different than hers.**
Most people are familiar with the saying that has been (incorrectly) attributed to Voltaire- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I think it's important to remember that, because otherwise we end up with the censorious words of those who have always sought to deprive minorities of speech before, twisted around yet again. "Speech I like is good, speech I don't like is bad; therefore speech I like is allowed and promoted, and speech I don't like should be censored." This is something that, for my own reasons, I cannot condone and I abhor. I would rather a million bigots speak out against me and my life than allow any other person to dictate who gets to speak. If you look at history you will see a common cause between those who want control speech is as old as time- for example, the Meese/Dworkin pact. The only thing those two could ever agree on is that they didn't want people to make decisions about their own speech- they would make it for them.
I believe that this is true because I have seen these principles play out over time. I have seen the positive impact that these principles of free speech have had in my life, and the life of others. I don't want anyone deciding what is, and isn't, appropriate or "good for me," because that is a weapon that is always used for ill, if not at the beginning, then certainly by the end.
And for that reason, I am an absolutist when it comes to speech and the state. When I hear people demanding that certain speech should be banned or censored because it's offense, that's foreign to my experience. Is there ever a case for it? .... I mean .... it might be that a certain, specific issue needs to be addressed; after WW2, for example, I can understand why (West) Germany put in the ban regarding Nazi imagery.
The thing is, principles (such as free speech) are something you either adhere to, or you don't. For a very long time, issues such as LGBTQI+ rights were defended in America by the principles of free speech; I cannot tell you how many times people who disagreed with those rights (because of their religion, or. moral qualms, or upbringing, or ignorance, or whatever) would nonetheless still defend the principles of free speech. They didn't agree with the speech, but they were allies of the principle. And over time, because the cause itself was good, it won out. Because the speech was heard, because people were convinced. And the reason the speech was heard was because there were a great number of people who defended that right, even when they didn't agree with the message.
On the other hand, I have repeatedly seen people who try to tell us what speech is good and what speech isn't in order to arrogate to themselves the sole authority to decide what we should and shouldn't hear. And they will always claim a justification- except instead of tarring people as bigots they would make arguments about "the children" and "just think, they'll try and get married, or adopt kids" or "what if we have to see men kissing on TV?"
It was terrible then, and it is terrible now.
BUT ... I would defend the rights of Illinois fans of the Austrian Painter to march and speak, but like Jake Blues .... I hate those people. I will defend their right to speak, because I believe in the principle, but there is no way in heck that I would ever associate with one of them. I defend the rights of people to speak and participate in the marketplace of ideas, but the whole point of speech is that it does have power- and people can agree or disagree with your speech, and there can be consequences for your speech. If you go around using the "N" word, for example, there are a lot of people that will rightfully judge you and not want to associate with you. Or if you call the women in your office "Sugar T***s" there will also be ... consequences. Which is good!
Okay, getting to the point finally. Here's the thing- in the past the vast majority of people didn't have much of a platform, did they? Maybe get a letter to the editor published? Maybe hold court in a bar? But getting your words to any kind of audience? Nope. Now we have all of these ways to speak ... to the whole world. But people be people. So when you're tweeting or gramin' or posting a message on facebook or posting a video on yuotube or tiktok all by yourself on your computer or phone ... it's there for the whole world to see. It's not that the consequences for speech are any different; instead, it's that people be stupid. Our little lizard brains aren't used to the fact that these communications go out to everyone, and are forever. And unlike the past mass media ... we don't have a whole process of revisions and fact checking and editors. I mean... think about what would history would be like if the New York Times printed articles from people who were drunk at 2am? Feel me?
So when complain about the "mobs" it's just ... people on social media. It's not a "free speech" issue- it's a cultural one. Until people internalize that it is to the world and forever, and maybe be a little more careful, it will keep happening. If you drunkenly say something stupid in a bar, you will probably be okay. Say the same thing on twitter or facebook? Good luck with that!
And as for corporations? I will reiterate the point I made before- corporations gonna corporate. Most corporations are just looking to latch on to popular speech and not make waves; same as it ever was. The only difference is that what is popular just changes. That happens.
Final point. I do think we need to start doing a better job instilling the virtue of the principles of free speech, because I do think that there has been a shift. But in the end, that's a social / education issue, not a First Amendment issue. Most of what people are lumping into "Free Speech" is just terrible tribalism conducted a different way.
Okay, that's it. I tried my best to be non-specific and not bring any current issues into this. That's my final post on the topic.
*I would say, however, that I am somewhat equivocal to negative about the very recent habit of trying to make all cases "free speech" cases. If you went to my recent legal brain teaser thread that I told you about you will see it starts with a quote I am fond of from Dallas v. Stranglin. More and more I see every type of case brought as a free speech case. Not every single act by every entity is speech, and doing so devalues core political speech and expressive conduct.
**I didn't see a preferred pronoun for you, so please correct me if I am not using the appropriate one.
