A philosopher makes the case against free speech

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Space_Time, Jul 9, 2020.

  1. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    12,421
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was afraid this would be where liberals completely abandon the defense of free speech. This is actually a surprisingly interesting debate about the current state of free speech especially in the internet era. Read the whole thing at the link:
     
    HonestJoe likes this.
  2. SkullKrusher

    SkullKrusher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    5,032
    Likes Received:
    2,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This philosophers speech should be banned because it could be perceived by others as being not inherently Good. Therefore, application of the philosophers own axiom of negative consequence for pretending it was good, is a logical justification for the entire thesis being rejected
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
    HockeyDad, Reality, drluggit and 2 others like this.
  3. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He makes some interesting points, but if we were to implement is idea of regulating speech ( noting that it is regulated so some degree ) then the question becomes "who decides what speech is acceptable and what it is not" .

    It's similar to the argument about Democracy, which goes something like 'democracy is a terrible system, but it's better than all the others'.

    What I think he is basically saying is, given the incredible amount of worthless speech in the public sphere ( according to him ) currently, free speech is overrated.

    Free speech is overrated, but not having it is worse.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2020
    LoneStarGal and garyd like this.
  4. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm sure he'd say the same thing about your comment.
     
  5. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Well, if I may reference one of my favorite philosophers, whom I know you like as well, Nietzsche said, “Sometimes the truth is terrible.” And I think there’s value in recognizing the truth of our situation, even if it’s terrible.

    We have massive amounts of worthless, dangerous speech in the public sphere right now, and at the same time I can’t see any legal remedy that isn’t likely to be used for even more pernicious ends. But the situation we’re currently in is quite dire, and the fact that we have a monster child as our president is proof of that fact"

    There is always going to be tension between opposing imperatives. Nature of the beast, we need freedom, and we need order.

    One thing we could do is make a real effort to go after Russian interference in our politics. I suspect President Biden will address the issue.

    But beyond regulating egregious extremes, we're in for it.

    Think of it as vultures coming home to roost. Do we have corruption, or are we simply too corrupt to reform?
     
  6. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This guy is an idiot but if speech is going to be regulated then I should be the one regulating it. This is the only way it can be done correctly....well, that is the lefties point of view so why shouldn't I take the same one?

    It is like saying the government should run society as long as I run the government.

    That argument alone is why we need free speech. Because we do not need tyranny.

    Why does society do all it can to free itself from tyranny only to move towards it again? Do humans have such a short memory?
     
    drluggit and LoneStarGal like this.
  7. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,560
    Likes Received:
    16,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Doesn't make his comment inaccurate He merely points out that attempting to regulate speech simply means that the one doing the regulating can ban anything basically on a whim.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  8. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Skullkrusher wrote:

    This philosophers speech should be banned because it could be perceived by others as being not inherently Good. Therefore, application of the philosophers own axiom of negative consequence for pretending it was good, is a logical justification for the entire thesis being rejected

    He wasn't pointing out the inherent problem of regulating speech, he was proposing to ban the philosopher's speech based on the logic the philosopher introduced and thus exposing the false logic of the philosopher.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2020
  9. nra37922

    nra37922 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    13,118
    Likes Received:
    8,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobodies speech should ever be banned NO matter how repulsive YOU may find it, and take flamebait out of it. You don't like what is being said then refute it or ignore it and consider the source. Sticks and stones y'all sticks and stones.
     
    LoneStarGal likes this.
  10. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,560
    Likes Received:
    16,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You read it as verbatim, I read a bit of sarcasm into it.
     
  11. LoneStarGal

    LoneStarGal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    15,050
    Likes Received:
    18,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I want the idiot to speak his opinion as clearly and as loudly as the wise man. How else does a civil society judge the content of a person's character?
     
    garyd likes this.
  12. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is the slope. Simply add more water to it, and left leaning intellectuals will justify any ability to restrict speech. And down the slope we go. This is the first step in the process for authoritarian tyranny in our land.
     
    garyd and LoneStarGal like this.
  13. LoneStarGal

    LoneStarGal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    15,050
    Likes Received:
    18,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep. In a nutshell, Leiter suggests that if "we" get rid of capitalism, then "we" can regulate "bad" speech. That's his point.

    upload_2020-7-10_11-43-47.png

    upload_2020-7-10_11-44-57.png
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2020
    drluggit likes this.
  14. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd have to read what the philosopher actually wrote, so I'll look it up. Meanwhile, I'm a lot less concerned with someone writing an article attacking free speech than with the fact that we've elected a man who has tried to abuse our legal system to ACTUALLY attack the First Amendment. Don't worry, if this is really what the philosopher is saying, I promise not to vote for him either.
     
  15. LoneStarGal

    LoneStarGal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    15,050
    Likes Received:
    18,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Leiter is a Marxist. If you click from the article to the actual 35 page paper he wrote, published by the Sydney Law Review, you get a better idea where he's coming from. Going from Capitalism to Marxism, then decided what people are allowed to say.

    From the paper:

    "I conclude that the central issue in free speech jurisprudence is not about speech, but about institutional competence. I offer some reasons — from the Marxist ‘left’ and the public choice ‘right’ — for being sceptical that capitalist democracies have the requisite competence and make some suggestive remarks about how these defects might be remedied."
     
  16. Gdawg007

    Gdawg007 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I actually read your link.

    His arguments make sense. The notion that every words that comes from everyone's mouth is bogus. The idea that you can have values or policy decisions without a factual basis is also correct and the opposite conclusion is absolutely wrong. The idea that regulation equals oppression is also based on a false equivalency argument made by folks typically on the right.

    That said, our speech is already limited. I can't use my right to free speech in any way that violates your rights. That's a limitation right off the bat. I can't coerce any communications platform to promote my speech, and they can choose to not allow my speech on there. This forum has rules and I must follow them or I can't speak here.

    This isn't really a radical anything. What this guy is saying is that free speech comes with responsibilities and accountability. And it's something many people dismiss simply because they overvalue their own opinions WAAYYYY too much.
     
  17. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's right. Shut the philosopher up. :roflol:
     
  18. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,560
    Likes Received:
    16,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah but he's no longer in office.
     
  19. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When did he leave? He was still there earlier today.
     
  20. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,560
    Likes Received:
    16,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It'll be four years ago next January twentieth. Trump has done nothing other than complain like every President since Washington on the other hand oba spied on the AP, tried to have Rosen jailed and other things immensely worse than anything any president since Wilson dud.
     
  21. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except for, you know, the frivolous lawsuits against First Amendment rights that I previously mentioned. For **** sake, the man sued because someone called his building plan ugly.
     
  22. LoneStarGal

    LoneStarGal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    15,050
    Likes Received:
    18,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cool. This thread made it through 13 on-topic posts about a Marxist-leaning philosopher's attitudes about free speech before Post #14 made it "Trump's fault".

    Not bad.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2020
  23. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If that is what you think Post #14 said, then you didn't comprehend Post #14.
     
  24. LoneStarGal

    LoneStarGal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    15,050
    Likes Received:
    18,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I am able to comprehend your post, where you didn't read the link to the actual topic of the thread. That's okay. Free speech and all.
     
  25. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The paper isn't Trump's fault. All I pointed out was that I'm more concerned with concrete attacks on free speech (such as Trump's) than theoretical talk.

    By the away, having read the article, it appears that the author advocates "libertarian" free speech in practice, but argues that the justification for free speech rights is not that all speech is valuable -- that, in fact, it isn't. That's what the interview seems to indicate, anyway.
     

Share This Page