Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day – Freedom of Speech
Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. – Justice Robert H. Jackson writing for the 6-3 majority in West Virginia v. Barnette, 1943.
Freedom of speech exists to protect the opinions and the speech we disagree with. It is not needed for things for which a broad consensus exists. There is no “hate speech” exception, because “hate speech” soon becomes equivalent to “speech with which I disagree.”
Published in General
Bingo.
It’s become so noisy – since people started turning words that mean one thing into another – social media has become the modern Tower of Babel. Going back to the real meaning of Freedom of Speech, as you point out, would solve a good bit of it. Excellent choice – given the hearings today on Judge Kavanaugh.
Or doesn’t it really begin there? And the examples of such expand with time.
My opposition to ‘hate speech’ legislation has always been that it punishes thought not action. Thought control is the goal and that’s much more dangerous that being exposed to expressions of thought that I find disagreeable.
Don’t confuse “hate speech” with “hate crimes.”
Except for verbal threats and shouting “Fire!” in a theater, you can replace speech with the word music. “Music with which I disagree” is equivalent to “I hate Opera” and “I hate Rap.”
This entry is part of our Quote of the Day series. We have many openings on the September Schedule for your wisdom. We’ve even include tips for finding great quotes. It’s the easiest way to start a Ricochet conversation, so why not sign up today?
“Hate speech” is a scary concept. Twenty years ago (my town is always ahead of everyone else :-) ) we passed a resolution at one of our town meetings in favor of making “hate speech” a crime. The people putting it forward meant well, and the people who voted for it meant well.
The “hate speech” and “hate crime” topics came up many times on the Democrats’ television show, The West Wing. There are cracks within the upper echelons of the Democratic Party on the idea of punishing people for “hate” speech and crimes. Many characters expressed the fear that we would be punishing people for their thoughts. We should find a way for Republicans and Democrats to sit down together and work on this. I believe we can fix this. It was my impression that the Democrats are as nervous about this concept and these laws as we are. And rightfully so.
What needs to happen is for the principle to be discussed in the abstract.
We can fix this.
I think part of the problem is that we have an inflated view of our ability to judge human motivation anyway. Perhaps that’s what needs to come down a notch. In other words, this “hate” bug got into the works through that doorway.
At times like these I like to point out that the Left is disturbingly opposed to religious liberty for Muslims.
“Hate crimes”? As opposed to “I really, really like you” crimes?
As far as I know, the only prohibited forms of speech are defamation (which must go to trial), and calling for/threatening imminent violence. All else is fair game.
Really wish people understood this.
Which captures the essential contradiction of hate crimes. But this thread is about speech, not crime.
True. But almost all public organizations – schools, companies, clubs, online forums – have codes of conduct. And violations can get you reprimanded, punished, and even expelled. It may be legal for you to exercise your fair game speech, but you may be doing it alone.
“Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much”
Where was it said “the fighting was so fierce because the stakes were so low”?
In Academia.
Makes sense.
It really makes sense. They are busy with the safe spaces and speech codes.
There are exceptions.
Too few. And academics find ways to weed those exceptions out.
Yes, too few. And they are weeded out, yes. But there are exceptions to that rule as well.
I may hammer out a new post on the subject. If you don’t see it in 12 hours, ask me to mention my employer’s convocation yesterday!