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.
Fascist Liberals Break Cover
In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong. Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.
Wow. In The Atlantic, no less, argued by a Harvard Law Professor and one in Arizona. I think this whole quarantine thing is making people more willing to say what they really think. This article, and snippet, should be captured and wheeled out every time a liberal opens their mouth.
I don’t believe in speech control – but I would that those who do believe in shutting down dissenting voices should learn what it feels like to be suppressed.
Published in General
The two excerpts from the same authors speak for themselves. There is no misreading here, the words are plain and devoid of any subtlety. Having pleased Xi in the Atlantic they are now scrambling to avoid the inevitable approbation of an angry America. I hope Xi paid them well. I hope the hard questions are asked in their Lawfare event.
Just to be clear, America’s norms and values are the First Amendment and freedom of expression. China’s norms and values are that you live at the pleasure of the almighty Xi. Most would be chastened by being so broadly “misread” to consider how they have misspoken.
They are what they are. Even two months ago the piece might have been better received. The scales have fallen from the eyes of free men.
Lord, forgive them and turn them toward the truth.
@iWe One last stab and then, you will be glad to know, I will shut up. When the authors said that China was right and we were wrong, what did they mean? And what were they right and wrong about? They were right and wrong about the effects of an unfettered internet on the norms each upholds, China’s being authoritarian and ours being free intercourse. Just as we mistakenly thought that free trade would free authoritarian regimes, a free internet was going to spread the idea of freedom, and destroy a lot of bad ideas in the process. John Stuart Mill in action. Only the Chinese quickly figured out that they couldn’t let that happen, so they put on strict controls. Meanwhile we have been abused via the internet by some very bad actors, including especially Russia (we can think of others, like ISIS), to say nothing of domestic abusers who enjoy destroying people’s lives, etc. We know now that our intelligence agencies are using the internet to surveil and private companies have stepped in to limit free speech, all now exacerbated by the virus. This is an important time to have a discussion about how we can support our own constitutional norms in a digital world that presents new dangers.
Really not. Their words are very simple. I highlight the key pieces:
It is not at all what you wrote!
You DO realize that your example is PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE, right? The Chinese filter the internet because they rightly fear the spread of the idea of freedom and the destruction of their regime!!! If they did not fear those things, then they would open the net up!
I do not support suppressing speech, even (and especially) hate speech. I know full well that I would be among the first suppressed.
@iWe, Thanks, but no, I do not think my example is precisely the opposite, and you don’t need to yell. ;0)
I believe I accurately explained the writers’ intention, which is far from “liberal fascism.” It is a position that supports free speech, but not absolute free speech (as in, for example, Russian disinformation, or jihadism) and worries a lot about suppression from the private sector, too. But I promised to shut up, and the writers do a better job defending themselves, so again I refer you to their defense on the Hoover website.
Wrong link to their defense. I think this will work better.
Nobody wants to support absolute free speech but if they want to suppress Russian disinformation, that is far from supporting free speech.
Certain things about this conversation have my suspicion-meter about pegged. So, while everyone else has moved on, I broke down and burned 14 sheets of paper for hard copies of the two documents of interest and made a slow deliberate pass through them with my highlighter. Quite interesting.
I recommend this to those with the time and inclination. I will stress the use of a critical eye in the exercise…as in watching/tracking carefully what is within quotations marks vs. what is written as if being only “reported” vs. what has the flavor of the opinion/position of the author’s. The (deliberate) mix of all of that…and, at times, the strange omissions of opinion/position where one would appear to be called for…is all very strange.
I could (and may) rant on this but will hold back for now…
(SPOILER: Still very suspicious of the characters involved and I don’t at all regret my characterization of the author’s as busy bodies in comment #59.)
Why would I NOT support absolute free speech?
Speech has consequences, of course – I am not advocating that people should not be held accountable for what they say. But people should be free to say what they believe.
There are usually restrictions on inciting immediate violence. I suppose you can say that you are free to do it but have to accept the consequences, such as a spell in jail. Not everyone would call that free speech, though.
There are restrictions on inciting violence, as you say. But I am an absolutist when it comes to liberty. The consequences I have are not within the legal system: if someone threatens to kill me and I believe they mean to do it in the heat of that moment, then I will pre-emptively act to ensure they cannot do so. That is what I mean by consequences.
Similarly, people can say things I disagree with. And they are free to do so, just as I am free to disagree with them.
Well, it turns out the weather is beautiful and my give-a-$&!#-meter is too low to write this up into a coherent post so I will just leave it with a couple of wisdom-packed passages from Gertrude Himmelfarb:
I admit that I originally thought the post title was a bit harsh (for shock value, of course). But now, not so much.