What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Alzrius]

So those “loud voices on the Internet” are not also free speech somehow?

The heckler's veto isn't the same thing, no.

(And before anyone argues that "loud voices on the Internet" don't fall under that designation because they aren't actively interrupting a speaker, that characterization is the closest equivalent of what said loud voices are clearly attempting to invoke.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The Egyptians made Octavian look like a traditional pharaoh so phenotypic accuracy was not really important in depicting their rulers.

That was kind of my point. Just like Greek or Roman artisans would make the people on their coinage in a Greek or Roman style, Egyptian artisans would make Egyptian rulers look Egyptian. She wad depicted by both, contemporaneously. Hence my “”.

 

[mythago]

The heckler's veto isn't the same thing, no.

(And before anyone argues that "loud voices on the Internet" don't fall under that designation because they aren't actively interrupting a speaker, that characterization is the closest equivalent of what said loud voices are clearly attempting to invoke.)

Ah. So we’re back to the Preferred First Speaker Doctrine, which as is typical we arrive at by a series of “it’s kinda like that”.

I’m old enough to remember when self-professed free speech advocates used the rallying cry “the antidote for bad speech is more speech”. Now it seems to be “feeling offended is thoughtcrime”.

 

[Alzrius]

Ah. So we’re back to the Preferred First Speaker Doctrine, which as is typical we arrive at by a series of “it’s kinda like that”.

No, that's a pretty gross mischaracterization your part.

The heckler's veto has nothing to do with any "preferred first speaker" nonsense. It correctly points out the fact that if your answer to someone else's speech is to try and prevent that speaker from speaking, rather than engaging with the substance of what they've said, then you're in the wrong. That includes not only shouting them down, but also trying to make them afraid to speak via making attacks on their character, getting them removed from platforms of engagement, encouraging people to dissociate from them, get them fired, etc.

I’m old enough to remember when self-professed free speech advocates used the rallying cry “the antidote for bad speech is more speech”. Now it seems to be “feeling offended is thoughtcrime”.

See above. I don't think you're disagreeing with me, here.

 

[mythago]

No, that's a pretty gross mischaracterization your part.

Is it? Because that 'nonsense' seems to be exactly what you're describing:

The heckler's veto has nothing to do with any "preferred first speaker" nonsense. It correctly points out the fact that if your answer to someone else's speech is to try and prevent that speaker from speaking, rather than engaging with the substance of what they've said, then you're in the wrong. That includes not only shouting them down, but also trying to make them afraid to speak via making attacks on their character, getting them removed from platforms of engagement, encouraging people to dissociate from them, get them fired, etc.

"Attacks on their character"? So if someone is making cracks about how greedy Jews are, and I tell them they're being anti-Semitic, in your view I, unlike that person, am not exercising my right to free speech: what I am doing is exactly like getting out a megaphone and shouting over a speaker so nobody could hear their speech. (Or, since we are apparently treating suppression of speech as having transitive properties, it's just like I was the government and literally arrested them.) Being afraid that somebody is going to call you a bigot is exactly the moral injury as being afraid that someone is going to run you out of your home?

The 'preferred first speaker doctrine' is exactly what you're lumping in with suppression of free speech: "when Person A speaks, listeners B, C, and D should refrain from their full range of constitutionally protected expression to preserve the ability of Person A to speak without fear of non-governmental consequences that Person A doesn't like."

 

[Alzrius]

Is it? Because that 'nonsense' seems to be exactly what you're describing:

No, once again, that's a misunderstanding on your part.

"Attacks on their character"? So if someone is making cracks about how greedy Jews are, and I tell them they're being anti-Semitic, in your view I, unlike that person, am not exercising my right to free speech: what I am doing is exactly like getting out a megaphone and shouting over a speaker so nobody could hear their speech.

If you're engaging in name-calling, rather than pointing out the flaws in their argument, then you're not actually refuting anything they've said. All you're doing is saying that they're a bad person, with the implication that what they're saying should be disregarded on that basis alone. So you're essentially letting their points go unchallenged and calling it a win, which is fairly irresponsible on your part.

What you don't seem to understand is that a person's conduct (i.e. what they do) is more important than what they say or what they believe. If your response to someone saying something you don't like, however offended you may be by whatever it is they're saying, is to attack them personally rather than to refute your points, then you've displayed less moral virtue than the person you're opposing. (Which remains true regardless of however much some people try to torture Popper's paradox to suggest that their suppression of speech is a defensive action on their part.)

(Or, since we are apparently treating suppression of speech as having transitive properties, it's just like I was the government and literally arrested them.) Being afraid that somebody is going to call you a bigot is exactly the moral injury as being afraid that someone is going to run you out of your home?

You've moved the goalposts here, in that you're now equating "saying something you don't like" with "being run out of your home." That's a far greater transitive property than you're (wrongfully) attributing to what I said.

The 'preferred first speaker doctrine' is exactly what you're lumping in with suppression of free speech: "when Person A speaks, listeners B, C, and D should refrain from their full range of constitutionally protected expression to preserve the ability of Person A to speak without fear of non-governmental consequences that Person A doesn't like."

Again, you're wrong. The order of who says what is immaterial. What's material is the conduct on display. Engaging with the points someone else raises by raising counterpoints of your own is a more virtuous action than attacking someone else because you feel offended that they believe/are saying something you disagree with. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, but trying to impose social or economic consequences on them does not rise to the level of being speech at all. It's silencing, and it's not a good thing to do.

 

[mythago]

If you're engaging in name-calling, rather than pointing out the flaws in their argument, then you're not actually refuting anything they've said. All you're doing is saying that they're a bad person, with the implication that what they're saying should be disregarded on that alone. So you're basically letting their points go unchallenged and calling it a win, which is fairly irresponsible on your part.

"Not following Debate Club rules" isn't the same as suppressing free speech, though? And is it irresponsible to point out, correctly, that somebody is a bad person and is saying bad things?

What you don't seem to understand

Gonna jump in here to note that for somebody who is strongly advocating avoiding attacks on character and non-substantive refutation, you are taking a lot of personal swipes and assumptions of bad faith.

is that a person's conduct (i.e. what they do), is more important than what they say or what they believe. If your response to someone saying something you don't like, however offended you may be by whatever it is they're saying, is to attack them personally rather than to refute your points, then you've displayed less moral virtue than the person you're opposing. (Which remains true regardless of however much some people try to torture Popper's paradox to suggest that their suppression of speech is a defensive action on their part.)

You've moved the goalposts here, in that you're now equating "saying something you don't like" with "being run out of your home." That's a far greater transitive property than you're (wrongfully) attributing to what I said.

Not at all. You posted a list of things that might make a person "afraid" to speak and which were therefore outside the realm of free speech - the equivalent of an actual heckler's veto - ranging from attacking their character (regardless of whether such attacks are accurate) to getting them fired from their job to, well, "etc." covers a lot of ground.

Again, you're wrong. The order of who says what is immaterial. What's material is the conduct on display. Engaging with the points someone else raises by raising counterpoints of your own is a more virtuous action than attacking someone else because you feel offended that they believe/are saying something you disagree with. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, but trying to impose social or economic consequences on them does not rise to the level of being speech at all. It's silencing, and it's not a good thing to do.

So we're right back to the Preferred First Speaker Doctrine: once A has spoken, B, C and D must refrain from any speech that would make A have sadfeels and be less inclined to speak ("social consequences"). They are required, morally, to liimit the range of their free speech to politely countering A's points and must not attack A's character in any way (even if A attacked theirs), and certainly may not impose any social consequences like blocking A or choosing to refrain from being in A's company. To do so would be to "silence" A, which is the worst sin imaginable.

 

[Irlo]

The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, but trying to impose social or economic consequences on them does not rise to the level of being speech at all. It's silencing, and it's not a good thing to do.

Speaking as someone who has fired people for things they have said, I disagree. I'm not free to share details, but I would defend the decisions that I've made to impose both social and economic conqeuences. It would have been irresponsible at best and reprehensible at worse for me to engage. Raising counterpoints would NOT have been virtuous.

 

[Alzrius]

"Not following Debate Club rules" isn't the same as suppressing free speech, though? And is it irresponsible to point out, correctly, that somebody is a bad person and is saying bad things?

I can't help but look askance at the idea that engaging in virtuous conduct could be equated to "debate club rules," if only because it seems to mock the idea of holding yourself to a higher standard. Similarly, your objective declaration that things you don't like are "bad things" and that makes anyone saying them a bad person is, in fact, irresponsible.

Gonna jump in here to note that for somebody who is strongly advocating avoiding attacks on character and non-substantive refutation, you are taking a lot of personal swipes and assumptions of bad faith.

Pointing out that you've misunderstood something is in no way a suggestion that you're a bad person. Likewise, there's no assumption going on; you've misstated my position more than once. Hence, the faith on my part is entirely good.

Not at all. You posted a list of things that might make a person "afraid" to speak and which were therefore outside the realm of free speech - the equivalent of an actual heckler's veto - ranging from attacking their character (regardless of whether such attacks are accurate) to getting them fired from their job to, well, "etc." covers a lot of ground.

I'm not sure what sort of rebuttal you're putting forward here, unless it's to state that someone who feels like they can't safely remain in their home in response to what someone else has said is somehow also a part of the list of things I noted before. In that case, however, you're introducing a key difference, which is that you're referencing how the listener interprets what was said, rather than what the speaker actually said.

So we're right back to the Preferred First Speaker Doctrine: once A has spoken, B, C and D must refrain from any speech that would make A have sadfeels and be less inclined to speak ("social consequences").

That's not the "preferred first speaker doctrine," though. Everyone is operating under the same guidelines of conduct, regardless of the order in which they speak. Persons B, C, and D are entirely free to engage in counterspeech of their own. How A feels about their counterspeech is A's problem, and not something B, C, or D should be concerned with. However, they have a moral duty to make their case with regards to the substance about what person A said, rather than about person A themselves (or trying to prevent A from speaking at all). Attacking ideas is fine, attacking people is not.

They are required, morally, to liimit the range of their free speech to politely countering A's points and must not attack A's character in any way (even if A attacked theirs)

Yes.

and certainly may not impose any social consequences like blocking A or choosing to refrain from being in A's company. To do so would be to "silence" A, which is the worst sin imaginable.

They can choose not to associate with anyone they don't want to. But they have no right to make it more difficult for person A to associate with someone else who isn't them; going on a campaign to try and make it harder for A to interact with society is not virtuous in any regard. It may not be "the worst sin imaginable," but it is a sin, to use your terminology.

 

[Alzrius]

Speaking as someone who has fired people for things they have said, I disagree. I'm not free to share details, but I would defend the decisions that I've made to impose both social and economic conqeuences. It would have been irresponsible at best and reprehensible at worse for me to engage. Raising counterpoints would NOT have been virtuous.

Without having any details or particulars, this isn't really an example that's worth bringing up in terms of a debate. I'll simply say that I disagree, and while I won't say that there are never any exceptions or special circumstances to almost any set of rules or guidelines (the world being a complicated and complex place in which to live), I don't see anything in what you've put forth here that calls any of those exceptions to mind.