Yes, that was a special kind of stupid, to be sure. To combine bad logic, bad ethics, and bad history into a single thought is a gold medal performance in the Stupid Olympiad.
it's sad and infuriating we have to defend the concept and sanctity of free speech. I remember a paediatrician telling me, 'your free speech ends at my offence.'
I hope he has a perfect batting average of never having to offend anyone - wittingly or otherwise. In fact, when I check out his RateMD profile, a patient did just that commenting he made inappropriate comments. Maybe we should cancel his right to speech, right?
As for LinkedIn. Lol. The psychology behind people's hypnotic and dogmatic beliefs in vaccines isn't just a social problem. It's a dangerous one that's threatening our medical health. For example, people literally injured by the vaccines are being told it's in their heads.
What medical product has the power to destroy free speech and the right to medical autonomy?
There has never been a time when it was not necessary to defend freedom on a daily basis...not from some evil foreign power, but from our neighbors and those who would rule over us.
There has never been a time when government was anything but a necessary evil, and far more evil than necessary.
"I don’t want the government censorship. But, it’s not true that the best ideas win in the free marketplace of ideas. Most people are not capable of doing their own research and coming to the correct conclusion. We need voluntary societies to protect people from dangerous ideas."
To people actually stop to think about what they write?
What paternalistic, elitist tripe. 'Correct conclusion'. /Lionel Hutz shudder.
All I can say is I stop to think about what I write ... most of the time (there are times when my inner smartass takes over and there's no telling what impolitic snark will issue forth then!)
This being a government of cowardly ideologues and morons, they wrote the bill cleverly in that it will be up to the CRTC to 'enforce' anything they see fit. It remains to be seen if the CRTC would dare go as far as the Bill potentially allows for. The CRTC does hold public consultations so the fight is not finished. We can always fight them. The only think I don't like is the CRTC is an unelected body.
The Liberals, NDP and Bloc all supported this unnecessary and atrocious bill. The Bloc, being the most parochial of all the parties, did so because they see it as 'protecting' Quebec culture. /rolls eyes. Sighs. smh.
Here in the United States, the censorship law already on the books is before the Supreme Court. (Reynaldo Gonzalez, et al., v. Google LLC (Docket 21–1333))
We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” — Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis. And as fascism is, as originally defined in Mussolini's eponymous 1932 The Doctrine of Fascism, the merger of the SOCIALIST state with crony, co-opted big biz, that's what we have now. But it is now paired with its socialist cousin, communism as here https://blaisevanne.substack.com/p/introducing-fasco-marxism
Oh yeah. Of course, Nazi = National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party for a reason
A great war leaves a country with three armies: an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves.” — An anonymous German saying
There is little doubt but that this country has been descending into authoritarianism for quite some time, and even Donald Trump's presidency did little to halt the slide.
Nor is it a coincidence that as our government has become more authoritarian its embrace of censorship has increased--and that is the greatest threat we face to our liberty.
Having been banned from LinkedIn as well as having had multiple Twitter accounts suspended, it would appear social media is rife with "Card Carrying Democratic Socialist Marxists".
I am hopeful such will not gain positions of authority here at Substack. It would suck to get kicked off this platform as well!
"There is something else the would-be censors do not say—and quite possibly would deny if challenged: They are afraid. Yet it is clear from their own words that they are afraid of the ideas they would see suppressed.":
Perhaps. Or perhaps the censors are criminals, with their successful criminal enterprises (private or governmental), some of which enterprises present as social media companies, dealing in censorship, surveillance, blackmail, and whatever else "works" for their purposes, and what they say is according to what they want the public to think, not necessarily having anything to do with how they feel.
I can't tell you the "real truth" behind these matters, but I think it is worthwhile noting that the truth can be very different from what is presented, supposed and said.
By its very nature, censorship is the avoidance of words, speech, and ideas.
When we describe anything as "dangerous", we endow it with a certain power over the choices we make. It is not too unreasonable an extrapolation to presume that which people call "dangerous" is something they fear to some degree.
While the particular agenda the would-be censor might have in seeking to avoid certain words and ideas is not always apparent, we may be certain just from the call for censorship that they wish to avoid those words and ideas. We may also be certain from their depiction of those words and ideas as "dangerous" that they perceive a measure of risk in them--that they "fear" them.
If in truth they do not fear the ideas they wish to suppress, it is a simple and straightforward matter to challenge them on that point. They can either acknowledge the fear (and risk looking weak and powerless) or they can deny the fear (and risk reducing their agenda to one of utter absurdity).
Side Q - have you read the book "how to listen to kids so they talk to you...and how to talk..." - very on point to your stance. there is a skill to how to talk listen and debate and I do struggle, it too takes patience and Grace.
I have not read that particular book, but I have read similar materials--particularly on the topic of "active listening".
Effective debate is not at all easy. It takes time and effort to listen and then to speak intentionally, to stay focused on an idea and not veer off into counterproductive ad hominems. When faced with something we find offensive, it's just easier to shoot the messenger rather than engaging with the message. It's easier, and, in the moment, it's more viscerally satisfying.
I have a rule on this Substack that people should be respectful, that we can disagree without being disagreeable. And I enforce that rule principally by reminding people of it when necessary, asking them to be respectful of others in their comments. For the most part, those who simply do not wish to refrain from vulgar ethnic slurs or other offensive language just drift away. If I do not give their comments traction, if I do not reward their obnoxious behavior, they seem to move on.
And that ultimately is the thing to remember....words and ideas only have the power we give them.
What is the articulable standard for speech that should be banned, ie obscenities or ???
Similar to conduct that can be banned when decided/viewed as harmful to society?
Should substack (or any similar marketplace) post its guiding principle?
Point being there is considerable thought on this point already and likely we can point to where on that spectrum we fall. And have substack and other similar forums state where they fall.
Ultimately truth like light is a disinfectant and it does liberate. From my experience personally, and believe also socially
Sometimes it takes God's grace to reveal these truths to people who cannot or choose not to see it.
The principle of free speech in this country goes back almost 250 years, so all of the ‘what if’ and ‘what about’ issues have already been addressed, many times by the US Supreme Court. I’m no lawyer, but I remember that the Supreme Court ruled that no, you cannot maliciously and falsely yell “fire!” In a crowded theater, because people would be trampled to death trying to get out.
However, you absolutely have the right to say things that might offend someone else. Why? Because different people are offended by different things, and how are you able to know in advance what is going to offend someone? Believe me, every day when I read the news, someone is saying something that offends *me* and yet, they have the right to say it in this country, and hurray for that!
There was a big parade in the 1970s, I believe it was in Chicago, and a small group of neo-Nazis wanted to march in it. Millions of Americans - who had fought against the Nazis, or were the widows and orphans of soldiers who had died fighting against the Nazi creed - were outraged and offended at the idea. But the American Civil Liberties Union defended it, winning that yes, even this was entitled to free speech. It was a case of ‘I despise your belief, but I will defend to the death your right to have it’. That’s what freedom is!
If I say something you don’t like, you know what? You don’t have to invite me over for dinner. That is your right, and your freedom! You can just walk away. You aren’t required to like me. But in this country I have the *right* to my opinion!
As for something like the ‘N’ word, if you use it, you’re going to find that you have very few friends. There was a time in the 1990s when some hip, young, black people were addressing each other by the ‘N’ word - just to be edgy and rebellious. It didn’t go over very well; I believe their elders convinced them that this was not cool. People will naturally, eventually gravitate to behavior that wins them more friends. Let people be free to follow their own paths and they will learn what speech earns them acceptance!
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" phrasing is from Oliver Wendell Holmes' opinion in Schenck v United States (1919, 249 US 47). As you correctly noted, it pertains to someone falsely shouting "fire" with a view towards starting a riot; a good many who comment on Free Speech overlook the false nature of the speech in question.
There are two key Supreme Court cases that address notional proscriptions of free speech, Schenk v United States and Brandenburg v Ohio. Ultimately, both do the debate a disservice by framing the issue as one of speech when the logic that is used is one of action and consequence--i.e., neither standard is arguably a regulation of speech, but of action.
I try to be tolerant of most opinions. But one thing I absolutely cannot abide is the idea that free speech should be ‘moderated’, or even suppressed. Without free speech we are not free! The First Amendment is one of the bedrocks of the entire American experiment. You try to take away my freedom of speech and you’ll royally tick me off!
Check out Patrick Woods’ Citizens for Free Speech. He has programs for training people how to stand up for free speech at local government meetings, and similar events.
Donate what money you can to organizations that are filing - and winning - lawsuits regarding Constitutional issues such as freedom of speech and medical freedoms.
Go ahead and speak up when the ‘woke’ try to say that certain viewpoints must be ‘cancelled’. Explain to these (usually young) people that if other people aren’t allowed to voice their opinions, eventually *you* won’t be allowed to either!
Vote.
Voice your objections to every effort to curtail our freedom of speech. Yes, my congressional representatives are deaf to this, but I write to them anyways.
Hope that our country will eventually find its way back to the Constitutional principles that made America the hope of the world. Societies have a way of learning, eventually, the supreme importance of freedom of speech!
I’ve been kicking around the notion of not voting at all but your idea definitely is attractive to me. I’m tired to my last humming nerve of voting for the “lesser of 2 evils. It’s the same dance with the 2 faced devil--they just take turns “leading” (us off the cliff).
The guy arguing too much speech led to Hitler.
I can't.
Yes, that was a special kind of stupid, to be sure. To combine bad logic, bad ethics, and bad history into a single thought is a gold medal performance in the Stupid Olympiad.
it's sad and infuriating we have to defend the concept and sanctity of free speech. I remember a paediatrician telling me, 'your free speech ends at my offence.'
I hope he has a perfect batting average of never having to offend anyone - wittingly or otherwise. In fact, when I check out his RateMD profile, a patient did just that commenting he made inappropriate comments. Maybe we should cancel his right to speech, right?
As for LinkedIn. Lol. The psychology behind people's hypnotic and dogmatic beliefs in vaccines isn't just a social problem. It's a dangerous one that's threatening our medical health. For example, people literally injured by the vaccines are being told it's in their heads.
What medical product has the power to destroy free speech and the right to medical autonomy?
It's insane and irrational at this point.
It's sad, but it is always necessary.
There has never been a time when it was not necessary to defend freedom on a daily basis...not from some evil foreign power, but from our neighbors and those who would rule over us.
There has never been a time when government was anything but a necessary evil, and far more evil than necessary.
"I don’t want the government censorship. But, it’s not true that the best ideas win in the free marketplace of ideas. Most people are not capable of doing their own research and coming to the correct conclusion. We need voluntary societies to protect people from dangerous ideas."
To people actually stop to think about what they write?
What paternalistic, elitist tripe. 'Correct conclusion'. /Lionel Hutz shudder.
All I can say is I stop to think about what I write ... most of the time (there are times when my inner smartass takes over and there's no telling what impolitic snark will issue forth then!)
BREAKING: Trudeau gov’t internet censorship Bill C-11 becomes law.....
The bill passed via a motion with 52 votes for, 16 against, and 1 abstention, with one Conservative senator who voted against the bill saying its passage is a 'sad day' for Canada. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-trudeau-govt-internet-censorship-bill-c-11-passes-senate-will-become-law/?utm_source=daily-canada-2023-04-28&utm_medium=email
This being a government of cowardly ideologues and morons, they wrote the bill cleverly in that it will be up to the CRTC to 'enforce' anything they see fit. It remains to be seen if the CRTC would dare go as far as the Bill potentially allows for. The CRTC does hold public consultations so the fight is not finished. We can always fight them. The only think I don't like is the CRTC is an unelected body.
The Liberals, NDP and Bloc all supported this unnecessary and atrocious bill. The Bloc, being the most parochial of all the parties, did so because they see it as 'protecting' Quebec culture. /rolls eyes. Sighs. smh.
Thank you.... :)
Not good news.
Other countries will follow, I am sure..... :(
It’s now 1-3-24. Ireland has passed something similar, as it is being deliberately overrun by migrants.
Certainly they will try.
Here in the United States, the censorship law already on the books is before the Supreme Court. (Reynaldo Gonzalez, et al., v. Google LLC (Docket 21–1333))
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/big-tech-and-free-speech-go-before
I wish you all the best.... :)
We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” — Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis. And as fascism is, as originally defined in Mussolini's eponymous 1932 The Doctrine of Fascism, the merger of the SOCIALIST state with crony, co-opted big biz, that's what we have now. But it is now paired with its socialist cousin, communism as here https://blaisevanne.substack.com/p/introducing-fasco-marxism
Oh yeah. Of course, Nazi = National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party for a reason
A great war leaves a country with three armies: an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves.” — An anonymous German saying
There is little doubt but that this country has been descending into authoritarianism for quite some time, and even Donald Trump's presidency did little to halt the slide.
Nor is it a coincidence that as our government has become more authoritarian its embrace of censorship has increased--and that is the greatest threat we face to our liberty.
"Thus far, I do not appear to be on the list of those some demand be silenced here. Will that change? Only time will tell."
Anyone that would censor you is a "Card Carrying Democratic Socialist Marxist."
Having been banned from LinkedIn as well as having had multiple Twitter accounts suspended, it would appear social media is rife with "Card Carrying Democratic Socialist Marxists".
I am hopeful such will not gain positions of authority here at Substack. It would suck to get kicked off this platform as well!
"There is something else the would-be censors do not say—and quite possibly would deny if challenged: They are afraid. Yet it is clear from their own words that they are afraid of the ideas they would see suppressed.":
Perhaps. Or perhaps the censors are criminals, with their successful criminal enterprises (private or governmental), some of which enterprises present as social media companies, dealing in censorship, surveillance, blackmail, and whatever else "works" for their purposes, and what they say is according to what they want the public to think, not necessarily having anything to do with how they feel.
I can't tell you the "real truth" behind these matters, but I think it is worthwhile noting that the truth can be very different from what is presented, supposed and said.
By its very nature, censorship is the avoidance of words, speech, and ideas.
When we describe anything as "dangerous", we endow it with a certain power over the choices we make. It is not too unreasonable an extrapolation to presume that which people call "dangerous" is something they fear to some degree.
While the particular agenda the would-be censor might have in seeking to avoid certain words and ideas is not always apparent, we may be certain just from the call for censorship that they wish to avoid those words and ideas. We may also be certain from their depiction of those words and ideas as "dangerous" that they perceive a measure of risk in them--that they "fear" them.
If in truth they do not fear the ideas they wish to suppress, it is a simple and straightforward matter to challenge them on that point. They can either acknowledge the fear (and risk looking weak and powerless) or they can deny the fear (and risk reducing their agenda to one of utter absurdity).
Side Q - have you read the book "how to listen to kids so they talk to you...and how to talk..." - very on point to your stance. there is a skill to how to talk listen and debate and I do struggle, it too takes patience and Grace.
I have not read that particular book, but I have read similar materials--particularly on the topic of "active listening".
Effective debate is not at all easy. It takes time and effort to listen and then to speak intentionally, to stay focused on an idea and not veer off into counterproductive ad hominems. When faced with something we find offensive, it's just easier to shoot the messenger rather than engaging with the message. It's easier, and, in the moment, it's more viscerally satisfying.
I have a rule on this Substack that people should be respectful, that we can disagree without being disagreeable. And I enforce that rule principally by reminding people of it when necessary, asking them to be respectful of others in their comments. For the most part, those who simply do not wish to refrain from vulgar ethnic slurs or other offensive language just drift away. If I do not give their comments traction, if I do not reward their obnoxious behavior, they seem to move on.
And that ultimately is the thing to remember....words and ideas only have the power we give them.
What is the articulable standard for speech that should be banned, ie obscenities or ???
Similar to conduct that can be banned when decided/viewed as harmful to society?
Should substack (or any similar marketplace) post its guiding principle?
Point being there is considerable thought on this point already and likely we can point to where on that spectrum we fall. And have substack and other similar forums state where they fall.
Ultimately truth like light is a disinfectant and it does liberate. From my experience personally, and believe also socially
Sometimes it takes God's grace to reveal these truths to people who cannot or choose not to see it.
Great topic.
The principle of free speech in this country goes back almost 250 years, so all of the ‘what if’ and ‘what about’ issues have already been addressed, many times by the US Supreme Court. I’m no lawyer, but I remember that the Supreme Court ruled that no, you cannot maliciously and falsely yell “fire!” In a crowded theater, because people would be trampled to death trying to get out.
However, you absolutely have the right to say things that might offend someone else. Why? Because different people are offended by different things, and how are you able to know in advance what is going to offend someone? Believe me, every day when I read the news, someone is saying something that offends *me* and yet, they have the right to say it in this country, and hurray for that!
There was a big parade in the 1970s, I believe it was in Chicago, and a small group of neo-Nazis wanted to march in it. Millions of Americans - who had fought against the Nazis, or were the widows and orphans of soldiers who had died fighting against the Nazi creed - were outraged and offended at the idea. But the American Civil Liberties Union defended it, winning that yes, even this was entitled to free speech. It was a case of ‘I despise your belief, but I will defend to the death your right to have it’. That’s what freedom is!
If I say something you don’t like, you know what? You don’t have to invite me over for dinner. That is your right, and your freedom! You can just walk away. You aren’t required to like me. But in this country I have the *right* to my opinion!
As for something like the ‘N’ word, if you use it, you’re going to find that you have very few friends. There was a time in the 1990s when some hip, young, black people were addressing each other by the ‘N’ word - just to be edgy and rebellious. It didn’t go over very well; I believe their elders convinced them that this was not cool. People will naturally, eventually gravitate to behavior that wins them more friends. Let people be free to follow their own paths and they will learn what speech earns them acceptance!
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" phrasing is from Oliver Wendell Holmes' opinion in Schenck v United States (1919, 249 US 47). As you correctly noted, it pertains to someone falsely shouting "fire" with a view towards starting a riot; a good many who comment on Free Speech overlook the false nature of the speech in question.
There are two key Supreme Court cases that address notional proscriptions of free speech, Schenk v United States and Brandenburg v Ohio. Ultimately, both do the debate a disservice by framing the issue as one of speech when the logic that is used is one of action and consequence--i.e., neither standard is arguably a regulation of speech, but of action.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater
As usual, Mr. Kust, you impress me!
You aren't alone!
Thank you both for your kind words.
I try to be tolerant of most opinions. But one thing I absolutely cannot abide is the idea that free speech should be ‘moderated’, or even suppressed. Without free speech we are not free! The First Amendment is one of the bedrocks of the entire American experiment. You try to take away my freedom of speech and you’ll royally tick me off!
Well then I assume you must be in a state of permanently being ticked off. Many of us are. What shall we do about it?
Check out Patrick Woods’ Citizens for Free Speech. He has programs for training people how to stand up for free speech at local government meetings, and similar events.
Donate what money you can to organizations that are filing - and winning - lawsuits regarding Constitutional issues such as freedom of speech and medical freedoms.
Go ahead and speak up when the ‘woke’ try to say that certain viewpoints must be ‘cancelled’. Explain to these (usually young) people that if other people aren’t allowed to voice their opinions, eventually *you* won’t be allowed to either!
Vote.
Voice your objections to every effort to curtail our freedom of speech. Yes, my congressional representatives are deaf to this, but I write to them anyways.
Hope that our country will eventually find its way back to the Constitutional principles that made America the hope of the world. Societies have a way of learning, eventually, the supreme importance of freedom of speech!
Here's a thought. Vote against any and all politicians who don't reverence the Constitution.
In 2024, everyone should cast a write in vote for "none of the above". Fire every damn politician and start over
I’ve been kicking around the notion of not voting at all but your idea definitely is attractive to me. I’m tired to my last humming nerve of voting for the “lesser of 2 evils. It’s the same dance with the 2 faced devil--they just take turns “leading” (us off the cliff).