💾 Archived View for ainent.xyz › gemlog › 2022-05-02-re-free-speech.gmi captured on 2024-05-26 at 14:39:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-07-10)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This is a followup to my previous post
... and this is a long one. Perhaps grab a nice beverage before digging in?
It seems that I have (not unexpectedly) generated quite the conversation and controversy in the Geminisphere. In the interest of transparency for someone stumbling upon this post long after the drama has fizzled out, here are all the relevant posts on this topic that I have read, as of the time of publication, whether direct replies or just someone speaking generally on the topic.
In no particular order:
Thinking out loud about free speech
A Level-Headed Take on Free Speech
Some thoughts on “free speech” that’ve been rolling around my brain
Now, before I continue, I am going to clarify what I mean by free speech. But first, a quote:
But language is limited, and it would take a book (or at least a very long article) to first a) define what they mean by the label, and only then b) explain why they are for or against being a member of that new label.
Well said, and as I am not going to do that, I'll simply clarify succintly as follows (perhaps I should have started with that?): I do not mean legally, in any sense. I mean *philosophically*, which runs much deeper than the the spectrum between anarchy, the US Constitution, and the policies of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). K? Ok, let's begin.
I was going to write replies to each one by one, all in this post, but that grew to be exhausting. So I am just writing one consolidated reply, in an attempt to address the key points from each while still attempting to sound coherent, and forgoing mention of who said what so that this doesn't turn into a flame war. I'm on Gemini for real conversation and dialogue, so here we are. Though, clearly not everyone is here in good faith, based on some of the comments in the Geddit thread that links to my previous post.
The responses were a mixture of:
For those of you with thoughtful replies, thank you. I may not fully agree with you, but I am happy to have the conversation and hear you out.
That aside, there does seem to be a recurring theme here, even in the ones that did not directly quote or link to me but are still clearly participating in the conversation. And that is, in my words of summary:
I know what is right. And anything that goes against that, or any thinking that is not in line with today's establishment, is evil and should be banned.
So sayeth every single tyrant in recorded human history.
How does history look back on them? Not just their empires as political entities, but also their censorship. With reprehension, and rightly so. You will be viewed the same way as those regimes, dear reader, if you call for censorship today. You are on the wrong side of history here, no matter how many times you say otherwise. As one commenter mentioned, the power to silence, whether via political or social power, is immaterial to the bigger picture. Not to mention the fact that censorship advocates are logically self-defeating, as I illustrated in my previous article.
The below article, which is relevant to the conversation though not a direct participant it in, compares today's media censorship with that which happened at the dawn of the printing press.
The internet is a liberty wave.
500 years ago, political and cultural elites were not pleased that their monopoly on creating one narrative was uprooted. History is repeating itself. Only this time, it's the internet instead of the printing press.
In one of the responses, someone asked me:
Who hates free speech?
The woman put at the helm of this new government 'board' does, for one. For two, anyone who wants restrictions on speech. Most things in life are not black and white, but shades of gray; free speech is an exception. Any encroachment on it *whatsoever*, and it no longer exists. I'm talking the whole spectrum here, from Julian Assange- and Alexey Navalny- (I think that's his name? the Russian journalist) level persecution, to a fine or arrest for crossing the 'hate speech' laws that some countries have on the books (the UK and Canada have them, last I checked), to the policies of the CCP.
The crowded theater scenario? I very well could be mistaken here, but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has reversed its original ruling declaring that not to be protected speech, therefore it *is* protected speech. And even if they hadn't, it still falls under the free speech *philosophy*. Remember, I am not speaking of ephemerally shifting laws and court rulings here.
Other responses liken wanting to stop the government from doing something as censorious. No. Just, no. This completely misses the point. Free speech is to protect the people from the government, not the other way around. Calling for the government to stop the 'governance' board, is not infringing on anyone's free speech. Free speech applies to citizens, not the government nor its employees acting in their official duties.
Identifying 'misinformation' or 'hate'? By whose definition do you propose we go? Any factual statement based in reality is always referred to as 'misinformation' or 'hate' by the left. Even simply asking questions or casting doubt about 'The Science(TM)' are immediately hit with this label, as opposed to *actual* science (lowercase), where questioning what you think is not only encouraged but required. If you can't question it, it's not science -- it's religious dogma.
Me criticizing feelings and the inability to handle text on a screen? I am not saying those people don't have the right to express those; I am merely expressing exactly what I think of them for doing so. I encourage it -- it helps us identify the snowflakes.
A recent Florida law? That is the government, the state of Florida, telling its own employees how they cannot indoctrinate other people's children. Public school teachers work for the state, and are therefore government employees. Ergo, this also has nothing to do with free speech because those affected are not acting as private citizens, but as agents of the state. If you are a public school teacher, you necessarily signed up to toe the party line of the government when you became a state employee. Besides, parents have ultimate rights over what their children are exposed to. Same thing when it comes to educational books.
One commenter said something about Maus and mushaf? I have no clue what those are, and so can't comment there.
Denouncing reality as fake news? ... That is what the left does, not the right. See 'fact checkers', funded by the very people (often pharmaceutical companies) whose 'facts' have been debunked, which is why they so desperately want to label the truth as 'fake news', to protect their profits. The truth doesn't damage points of view that are legitimate. I have explained my stance on this in another post:
If you disagree, they eat you immediately, either through outright censorship (backed up by independent 'fact checkers' -- who are incidentally paid by the same people who cite them as 'trustworthy', kind of like a doctor speaking on behalf of a tobacco company boldly proclaiming the miraculous health benefits of smoking -- of course and why not? It is for your own good, everyone knows that.) or simple social pressure that loathes, and desires to expunge from society, independent thought.
Non-Player Characters (source of the above quote)
Some are calling for not spreading or platforming lies. Whose lies? Governments and media worldwide have 0 credibility. If you cite the mainstream media as a credible source, I call that 'spreading lies'.
Responding with a link to an article that cites the 'paradox of tolerance', which purportedly justifies censorship? I debunked that in my original post. Did the person linking to that in their response even read it?
Equating a one-on-one email and Gemini capsule posts with Twitter and Facebook? Straw man -- as sad as it is, the truth is that Twitter and Facebook are the public square at this point in time. They have more power than the government. Hell, they *silenced* the leader of the Free World. This same responder then goes on into offering a red herring.
That sounds like an awkward way to end this article, but that's all I've got for now.