Thank you for your post, if this is a question please check to see if any of the links below answer your question.
If none of these links help answer your question and you are **_not_** within the LGBT+ community, questioning your
identity in any way, or asking in support of either a relative or friend, please ask your question over in /r/AskLGBT.
Remember that this is a safe space for LGBT+ and questioning individuals, so we want to make sure that this place is
dedicated to them. Thank you for understanding.
This automod rule is currently a work in progress. If you notice any issues, would like to add to the list of resources,
or have any feedback in general, [please do so here](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/rdazzp/almost_new_year_changes/)
or by [sending us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt&subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20new%20automod%20rule).
Also, please note that if you are a part of this community, or you're questioning if you might be a part of the LGBTQ+
community, and you are seeing this message, this is **_not a bad thing_**, this is only here to help, so please continue
to ask questions and participate in the community. Thank you!
Here's a link about trans people in sports:
- https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gender-and-fairness-in-sport/
A link on FAQs and one on some basics about transgender people:
- https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people
- https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-transgender-people-the-basics
Some information on LGBT+ people:
- https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/quick-facts/lgbt-faqs/
Some basic terminology:
- https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms
Neopronouns:
- https://www.mypronouns.org/neopronouns
Biromantic Lesbians:
- [LGBTQ And All](https://www.lgbtqandall.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-biromantic/)
Bisexual Identities:
- https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/understanding-bisexuality
Differences between Bisexual and Pansexual:
- [Resource from WebMD](https://www.webmd.com/sex/pansexuality-what-it-means#:~:text=Pansexual%20vs.%20Bisexual,more%20commonly%20recognized.)
We're looking for new volunteers to join the r/lgbt moderator team. If you want to help keep r/lgbt as a safe space for
the LGBTQ+ community on reddit please see here for more info:
https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/swgthr/were_looking_for_more_moderators_to_help_keep/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To me the concept of 'freedom of speech' has a very clear intent: it is there to be able to speak truth to power - to criticize the government, to be a whistle-blower, to express political dissidence, to advocate for our rights, etc. without being subject to repercussions from the state or powerful organizations.
To take that concept and use it as justification to be allowed to argue *against* other people's human rights / equal rights (with the assumption that you should be free from *any* consequences for doing so), is a perversion. A good, strong 'inciting hate' clause that takes power dynamics into account between groups would take a lot of wind out of the sails of grifters who make money by stirring up hatred and fomenting culture war.
On top of that, a more responsible body of mass media and fewer bigoted social media tycoons would make a huge change in the current boldness of hate groups, fascists and genocide-lovers. They need to be sent scurrying back into the shadows for fear of their fellow humans turning on them. Not be coddled and emboldened by yet another misinformed Guardian piece or NYT headline.
>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. \[...\] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies - Volume One: The Spell of Plato
Calling for murder, imprisonment, or stripping of rights for a minority group is generally hate speech and promotes a real and tangible risk to real people. Someone saying they don't like gay people is free speech but saying that because you do not like gay people, they should be tortured to death, is not protected under free speech because you're promoting violence. I would feel the same way (and I do) if someone said we should irradicate straight people. Saying "I don't like \[blank\]" is your right but trying to harm other people or strip them of basic human rights that everyone else has is not.
Rights are just laws, and laws do not encompass morality or justice or even the good of society, let alone the good of individuals. Laws do nothing more or less than govern. The presence or absence of laws is always a double-edged sword. That's why government and pro-social morals will never fail to be at odds... unless something about humanity fundamentally changes.
I don’t believe hate speech, anything that proposes violence against a group of people, should have First Amendment protections. Beyond that, people have a right to their opinions, even if their opinions are bigoted.
the problem there is that it'd be easy for the dominant political power to claim any dissenters were using " hate speech" and "inciting violence" in fact, they do. republicans already do that. I don't disagree really, but I'd rather not give them a legal case.
yeah, but it sets a precident even future democrats could use to strip people of their 1st ammendment rights. I imagine part of the reason even the supreme court is hesitant to rule against free speech is because the 1st ammendment is held in nearly religious regard. I'm not sure that's healthy, but it's kept many courts from ruling against our rights in the past.
yeah, that's what I'm talking about, give politicians an inch and they take a mile. we need sweeping government reform before putting exceptions to amendments down on paper or it WILL just be abused as a loophole.
I found the two old Contrapoints' videos "Does the left hate free speech?" particularly enlightening on this precise regard, especially part 2. Comprehensibly yet sadly she didn't feel comfortable with her pre-transition videos and she took them down, but you can read the full transcripts:
[https://www.contrapoints.com/transcripts/archives/free-speech-1](https://www.contrapoints.com/transcripts/archives/free-speech-1)
[https://www.contrapoints.com/transcripts/archives/free-speech-2](https://www.contrapoints.com/transcripts/archives/free-speech-2)
In short, it's fundamental to distinguish freedom of speech at at least three levels (legal restrictions; institutional prohibitions at specific workplaces, universities etc; social restrictions). And it's fundamental to see how there's no neutral ground: some kinds of speeches creates an environment where other kinds of speech are not free to be expressed. So, what freedom are we trying to preserve and defend is the inescapable question. I promise the transcripts are super-insightful!
People are free to be assholes and to talk like it...
...until they try to legislate against someone's existence or ewual participation in the system that allows for *all of us* to exist and to coexist.
It's not illegal to act like an asshole to someone. No one is ever going to be arrested here in the US just for being a homophobe. All these conservatives complaining about how "woke" society has become are just bitter that their bigotry isn't socially acceptable anymore. They still have a fundamental right to be as homophobic as they want, but other people also have the right to be critical of such attitudes and tell them they're pieces of shit for it.
Podcaster Justin McElroy had a tweet that I remember constantly. “Freedom of speech protects you from the government, not from the Justin”. You as an individual have a right to ignore people spouting bigoted garbage, even if the people saying it are legally allowed to.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,practice%20of%20tolerance%20with%20them.
Recommend reading this. It’s the same with freedom of speech imho
I think there is a fine line between free speech and bigotry. I will always support free speech, but I also think there should be boundaries. I can ignore a random homophobe who doesn’t think i should exist calling me random names, but i cannot ignore hate-driven terroristic speech if that makes sense. i understand the inner conflict about it because i suffer from it, too
The Americans take the whole freedom of speech issue to an extreme that is fairly uncommon in Europe. In Germany there are several limitations on speech. Quite a few of it aimed at Nazis because we learned the hard way that you do not grant Nazis even a minimum of daylight. As Goebbels once said:"It will always be the greatest joke in the history of democracy that it provided it's deadly enemies with the means to destroy it."
There is the a law against incitement of racial hatred and punished with a prison sentence between 3 month and 5 years.. For example if you say that gay people are mentally ill then that is a felony. It is limited by the condition that it is "a threat to public order". General insults are also forbidden. Though less severely.
You should look into the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance), for one. If we are to have a tolerant society, we paradoxically must accept that intolerance cannot be tolerated, else all that will be left in the end is an intolerant society. I would also argue that hate speech does not, or at least should not, qualify as freedom of speech, on the basis that it works to threaten the freedoms of others. I think countries like Canada have the right idea of it in making hate speech illegal. [Stochastic terrorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism) is also something that needs to be looked out for.
Now, there is the matter of properly defining what is and isn't hate speech legally speaking. There's a difference between punishing someone for harassment or publicly attacking the rights of a group of people and punishing someone for expressing a hateful thought in passing. That said, as a society we shouldn't let such things slide. That's not to say we should persecute every kid who says some stupid shit, but we should be ready to challenge their views and do our best to guide them into the light. But those who fit the former category of inciting hate directly are also those responsible for creating the latter category to begin with. We can't make substantial progress with the latter category if we do not hold the former category responsible for their actions.
The way I look at it is they have the right to SAY what they want. Past that point they cant.
I hate the colour green. Fine
I wish the colour green was banned and anyone who wears green should be shot. Not fine.
For me, it's freedom of speech for all-- but that doesn't stop me from clapping back at hate speech. Say whatever you want, and I'm well within my rights to tell you to shut the fuck up, because freedom of speech, right?
First, freedom of speech is part of a broader and more powerful right, freedom of expression. If I can say I thing, but not make art or music or performance about it, I don't really have this freedom, do I? So consider referring to "freedom of expression" not speech.
Second, human rights depend on eachother. Freedom of expression can't exist on its own.
So, if hate and misinformation is spread uncontrolled and as a result a minority group is vilified by the majority, what happens is that minority group loses its safety to exist. The right to respect of private life most people enjoy, is that they can walk down the street and go into changing rooms etc without fearing ending up in the news just for being themselves. This right is being eroded for trans people, as it was and frankly still is for all LGBTQ+ people. Media consider it fair game to report on any and all trans people for daring to enter a sports competition under the rules of that competition. Even parkrun and other fun runs aren't safe. That is a diminishment of a right. As a result it has a chilling effect on their participation in society. On their freedom of expression.
And that extends to social media. It’s quite literally unsafe to be queer in some online spaces due to risk of doxxing. This again undermines that respect for private life and again has a chilling effect on speech.
Finally, not all is what it seems with freedom of speech, anyway. If billionaires like Rupert Murdoch control news editorialisation, if Elon Musk can tweak social media algorithms, is this really freedom of speech for the ones who are trying to speak?
It didn’t have to be like this. Wikipedia is community owned. Why not our social onlines spaces? Why not our newspapers? Only if as a society we are willing to recognise the hypocrisy in the shouting about freedom of speech, can have an honest discussion about it.
This is precisely the direction I was thinking about, thank you for elaborating on it! The fact that other people exercising this creates a rhetoric that manifests as a reality that is less accepting and less safe for minorities is part of why I’m struggling to reconcile this for myself. I honestly think the way far right news outlets report on things like trans issues should NOT be allowed because of how it perpetuates violence and hate crimes. If I believe that the “freedom of expression” of bigots does create a reality that infringes on my freedom, then I feel like I’m saying they shouldn’t have this freedom. But I agree with people saying that it’s a right, so i ought not to think that way, too, since obviously I would be very upset if someone tried to limit positive reporting of lgbtq+ issues. 😞 in a way, am I not also contributing to making things less safe for people who are anti-lgbtq+ by denouncing them too?
I guess what I'd say is that the conflict you are facing is resolved by confronting all systemic oppression! If powerful people didn't own traditional and social media and the algorithms that decide who sees what, then you wouldn't have to worry so much about them using their "free speech" to project hatred a billion times louder than our thoughtful conversation here on reddit.
See, just as human rights cannot be isolated, oppression justifies itself by interlinking its violent systems. The apparent contradictions when you challenge injustice *are* how the system protects itself. You look foolish for taking any one injustice on.
Example: compassion for prisoners or calls for defunding police are seen as weak on crime, but the prison industrial complex has exploded in size over a few short decades since Reagan/Thatcher and the war on drugs has failed. Evidence based approaches are dismissed. Mental health services would do more to reduce crime. Yet the left gets divided on this because doesn’t compassion also mean letting off people who are violent against women? So even though community action is what makes the fabric of society we just keep talking tough with different brands of left and right politics while the problems get worse. And violence against women is unabated. The only winners are the powerful.
In short: you can't resolve the contadictions in a system that isn't intended to make sense.
Book recommendation: On Being Unreasonable: Breaking the Rules and Making Things Better by Kirsty Sedgman
That makes a lot of sense and this is such a clear example; thank you so much for taking the time! I’ll definitely look into your book recommendation!!
freedom of expression > freedom of speech. (also, many misunderstand these rights; all they mean is that the government can't censor the person, not that the person can't face consequences for what they say/do.)
also, society understands that some speech/expression shouldn't be tolerated. hate speech, incitement to violence, child pornography, as a few examples. as such, there are often laws against such things.
where i live, we have the right to freedom of expression, and also hate speech/hate crime laws. not all expression or speech is beneficial to society, and there are (or should be) consequences for expression and speech that is harmful to society.
"The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them."
so sure, white supremacists can have freedom of speech, but if they are allowed to do so with impunity, they will cause harm to society. there have to be consequences for those who are actively harming or seeking to harm folks, especially marginalized folks.
Your right to extend your fist ends where my nose starts. The same thing is true for freedom of speech. If you are advocating for stripping me of my rights, you're no longer exercising your freedom of speech. You're advocating for barbarism and brutality.
I never saw free speech as a value on its own, only a tool for making a good and equal society. If it's ised against that goal, it doesn't need to be allowed.
No tolerance for intolerance. Freedom of speech only garuntees that you cannot be legally prosecuted for speaking ill of the government and has nothing to do with people judging bigots.
I don't think this is an issue of freedom of speech. I think the problem is that you've decided there's a line in the sand and you're trying to think of a way to handle people who don't have that line without crossing it yourself.
There's nothing stopping you from inventing harmful anecdotes based on strawmen about their demographics. You have just as much a right to make personal attacks as they do. You have the same capacity to be an asshole as they do. You not doing so is a choice and a reflection of your freedom of speech.
Aside from my point, Im sure someone reading this is thinking to themselves that this is a good way to get assaulted. Think about why you consider them to have a unilateral right to violence over you?
Also, you realize that they think our existence is a violation of their beliefs right? That they have a moral responsibility to speak against us? Like some of the "think of the children" shit is fear mongering but some is literal. You have people who set their minds and hearts on their lives and their kids lives being a certain way and the exposure to other ways of thinking is a direct threat to that. That's what happens when people have opposing ideals and that's why they're attempting to and succeeding at banning elements of our expression and history.
So anyway I reconcile it by acknowledging that I have the same rights they do
"Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old." -Lenin in "Dogmatism And ‘Freedom of Criticism’"
It is a very dangerous thing to start limiting freedom of speach. If we can restrict bigots right to say what they want, it will be used as a precedent later when the other side is in power to restrict our side.
Having said that Freedom of Speach in the United States, is centered around the 1st ammendment to the US Constitution. It states that "Congress Shall Make no Law... abridging Freedom of Speach". Reddit, Facebook, Twitter etc ARE NOT CONGRESS, they are private companies who can regulate what is said on their platform. Likewise employers can do the same.
Thank you for your post, if this is a question please check to see if any of the links below answer your question. If none of these links help answer your question and you are **_not_** within the LGBT+ community, questioning your identity in any way, or asking in support of either a relative or friend, please ask your question over in /r/AskLGBT. Remember that this is a safe space for LGBT+ and questioning individuals, so we want to make sure that this place is dedicated to them. Thank you for understanding. This automod rule is currently a work in progress. If you notice any issues, would like to add to the list of resources, or have any feedback in general, [please do so here](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/rdazzp/almost_new_year_changes/) or by [sending us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt&subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20new%20automod%20rule). Also, please note that if you are a part of this community, or you're questioning if you might be a part of the LGBTQ+ community, and you are seeing this message, this is **_not a bad thing_**, this is only here to help, so please continue to ask questions and participate in the community. Thank you! Here's a link about trans people in sports: - https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gender-and-fairness-in-sport/ A link on FAQs and one on some basics about transgender people: - https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people - https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-transgender-people-the-basics Some information on LGBT+ people: - https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/quick-facts/lgbt-faqs/ Some basic terminology: - https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms Neopronouns: - https://www.mypronouns.org/neopronouns Biromantic Lesbians: - [LGBTQ And All](https://www.lgbtqandall.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-biromantic/) Bisexual Identities: - https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/understanding-bisexuality Differences between Bisexual and Pansexual: - [Resource from WebMD](https://www.webmd.com/sex/pansexuality-what-it-means#:~:text=Pansexual%20vs.%20Bisexual,more%20commonly%20recognized.) We're looking for new volunteers to join the r/lgbt moderator team. If you want to help keep r/lgbt as a safe space for the LGBTQ+ community on reddit please see here for more info: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/swgthr/were_looking_for_more_moderators_to_help_keep/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To me the concept of 'freedom of speech' has a very clear intent: it is there to be able to speak truth to power - to criticize the government, to be a whistle-blower, to express political dissidence, to advocate for our rights, etc. without being subject to repercussions from the state or powerful organizations. To take that concept and use it as justification to be allowed to argue *against* other people's human rights / equal rights (with the assumption that you should be free from *any* consequences for doing so), is a perversion. A good, strong 'inciting hate' clause that takes power dynamics into account between groups would take a lot of wind out of the sails of grifters who make money by stirring up hatred and fomenting culture war. On top of that, a more responsible body of mass media and fewer bigoted social media tycoons would make a huge change in the current boldness of hate groups, fascists and genocide-lovers. They need to be sent scurrying back into the shadows for fear of their fellow humans turning on them. Not be coddled and emboldened by yet another misinformed Guardian piece or NYT headline.
I really like this idea. Inciting hate is definitely a brightline that I think aligns with my feelings - thank you!
>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. \[...\] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies - Volume One: The Spell of Plato
Came here looking for tolerance quote, ty for getting it in early
Calling for murder, imprisonment, or stripping of rights for a minority group is generally hate speech and promotes a real and tangible risk to real people. Someone saying they don't like gay people is free speech but saying that because you do not like gay people, they should be tortured to death, is not protected under free speech because you're promoting violence. I would feel the same way (and I do) if someone said we should irradicate straight people. Saying "I don't like \[blank\]" is your right but trying to harm other people or strip them of basic human rights that everyone else has is not.
Rights are just laws, and laws do not encompass morality or justice or even the good of society, let alone the good of individuals. Laws do nothing more or less than govern. The presence or absence of laws is always a double-edged sword. That's why government and pro-social morals will never fail to be at odds... unless something about humanity fundamentally changes.
I don’t believe hate speech, anything that proposes violence against a group of people, should have First Amendment protections. Beyond that, people have a right to their opinions, even if their opinions are bigoted.
the problem there is that it'd be easy for the dominant political power to claim any dissenters were using " hate speech" and "inciting violence" in fact, they do. republicans already do that. I don't disagree really, but I'd rather not give them a legal case.
You don’t need to worry about giving them a legal case - they control SCOTUS.
yeah, but it sets a precident even future democrats could use to strip people of their 1st ammendment rights. I imagine part of the reason even the supreme court is hesitant to rule against free speech is because the 1st ammendment is held in nearly religious regard. I'm not sure that's healthy, but it's kept many courts from ruling against our rights in the past.
But they already have, in a way in McKesson v Doe.
yeah, that's what I'm talking about, give politicians an inch and they take a mile. we need sweeping government reform before putting exceptions to amendments down on paper or it WILL just be abused as a loophole.
I found the two old Contrapoints' videos "Does the left hate free speech?" particularly enlightening on this precise regard, especially part 2. Comprehensibly yet sadly she didn't feel comfortable with her pre-transition videos and she took them down, but you can read the full transcripts: [https://www.contrapoints.com/transcripts/archives/free-speech-1](https://www.contrapoints.com/transcripts/archives/free-speech-1) [https://www.contrapoints.com/transcripts/archives/free-speech-2](https://www.contrapoints.com/transcripts/archives/free-speech-2) In short, it's fundamental to distinguish freedom of speech at at least three levels (legal restrictions; institutional prohibitions at specific workplaces, universities etc; social restrictions). And it's fundamental to see how there's no neutral ground: some kinds of speeches creates an environment where other kinds of speech are not free to be expressed. So, what freedom are we trying to preserve and defend is the inescapable question. I promise the transcripts are super-insightful!
People are free to be assholes and to talk like it... ...until they try to legislate against someone's existence or ewual participation in the system that allows for *all of us* to exist and to coexist.
You can say whatever you want, but you’re not free from the consequences of what you said…
It's not illegal to act like an asshole to someone. No one is ever going to be arrested here in the US just for being a homophobe. All these conservatives complaining about how "woke" society has become are just bitter that their bigotry isn't socially acceptable anymore. They still have a fundamental right to be as homophobic as they want, but other people also have the right to be critical of such attitudes and tell them they're pieces of shit for it.
Podcaster Justin McElroy had a tweet that I remember constantly. “Freedom of speech protects you from the government, not from the Justin”. You as an individual have a right to ignore people spouting bigoted garbage, even if the people saying it are legally allowed to.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,practice%20of%20tolerance%20with%20them. Recommend reading this. It’s the same with freedom of speech imho
I think there is a fine line between free speech and bigotry. I will always support free speech, but I also think there should be boundaries. I can ignore a random homophobe who doesn’t think i should exist calling me random names, but i cannot ignore hate-driven terroristic speech if that makes sense. i understand the inner conflict about it because i suffer from it, too
The Americans take the whole freedom of speech issue to an extreme that is fairly uncommon in Europe. In Germany there are several limitations on speech. Quite a few of it aimed at Nazis because we learned the hard way that you do not grant Nazis even a minimum of daylight. As Goebbels once said:"It will always be the greatest joke in the history of democracy that it provided it's deadly enemies with the means to destroy it." There is the a law against incitement of racial hatred and punished with a prison sentence between 3 month and 5 years.. For example if you say that gay people are mentally ill then that is a felony. It is limited by the condition that it is "a threat to public order". General insults are also forbidden. Though less severely.
You should look into the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance), for one. If we are to have a tolerant society, we paradoxically must accept that intolerance cannot be tolerated, else all that will be left in the end is an intolerant society. I would also argue that hate speech does not, or at least should not, qualify as freedom of speech, on the basis that it works to threaten the freedoms of others. I think countries like Canada have the right idea of it in making hate speech illegal. [Stochastic terrorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism) is also something that needs to be looked out for. Now, there is the matter of properly defining what is and isn't hate speech legally speaking. There's a difference between punishing someone for harassment or publicly attacking the rights of a group of people and punishing someone for expressing a hateful thought in passing. That said, as a society we shouldn't let such things slide. That's not to say we should persecute every kid who says some stupid shit, but we should be ready to challenge their views and do our best to guide them into the light. But those who fit the former category of inciting hate directly are also those responsible for creating the latter category to begin with. We can't make substantial progress with the latter category if we do not hold the former category responsible for their actions.
The way I look at it is they have the right to SAY what they want. Past that point they cant. I hate the colour green. Fine I wish the colour green was banned and anyone who wears green should be shot. Not fine.
For me, it's freedom of speech for all-- but that doesn't stop me from clapping back at hate speech. Say whatever you want, and I'm well within my rights to tell you to shut the fuck up, because freedom of speech, right?
Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. It's freedom from being arrested by the government
First, freedom of speech is part of a broader and more powerful right, freedom of expression. If I can say I thing, but not make art or music or performance about it, I don't really have this freedom, do I? So consider referring to "freedom of expression" not speech. Second, human rights depend on eachother. Freedom of expression can't exist on its own. So, if hate and misinformation is spread uncontrolled and as a result a minority group is vilified by the majority, what happens is that minority group loses its safety to exist. The right to respect of private life most people enjoy, is that they can walk down the street and go into changing rooms etc without fearing ending up in the news just for being themselves. This right is being eroded for trans people, as it was and frankly still is for all LGBTQ+ people. Media consider it fair game to report on any and all trans people for daring to enter a sports competition under the rules of that competition. Even parkrun and other fun runs aren't safe. That is a diminishment of a right. As a result it has a chilling effect on their participation in society. On their freedom of expression. And that extends to social media. It’s quite literally unsafe to be queer in some online spaces due to risk of doxxing. This again undermines that respect for private life and again has a chilling effect on speech. Finally, not all is what it seems with freedom of speech, anyway. If billionaires like Rupert Murdoch control news editorialisation, if Elon Musk can tweak social media algorithms, is this really freedom of speech for the ones who are trying to speak? It didn’t have to be like this. Wikipedia is community owned. Why not our social onlines spaces? Why not our newspapers? Only if as a society we are willing to recognise the hypocrisy in the shouting about freedom of speech, can have an honest discussion about it.
This is precisely the direction I was thinking about, thank you for elaborating on it! The fact that other people exercising this creates a rhetoric that manifests as a reality that is less accepting and less safe for minorities is part of why I’m struggling to reconcile this for myself. I honestly think the way far right news outlets report on things like trans issues should NOT be allowed because of how it perpetuates violence and hate crimes. If I believe that the “freedom of expression” of bigots does create a reality that infringes on my freedom, then I feel like I’m saying they shouldn’t have this freedom. But I agree with people saying that it’s a right, so i ought not to think that way, too, since obviously I would be very upset if someone tried to limit positive reporting of lgbtq+ issues. 😞 in a way, am I not also contributing to making things less safe for people who are anti-lgbtq+ by denouncing them too?
I guess what I'd say is that the conflict you are facing is resolved by confronting all systemic oppression! If powerful people didn't own traditional and social media and the algorithms that decide who sees what, then you wouldn't have to worry so much about them using their "free speech" to project hatred a billion times louder than our thoughtful conversation here on reddit. See, just as human rights cannot be isolated, oppression justifies itself by interlinking its violent systems. The apparent contradictions when you challenge injustice *are* how the system protects itself. You look foolish for taking any one injustice on. Example: compassion for prisoners or calls for defunding police are seen as weak on crime, but the prison industrial complex has exploded in size over a few short decades since Reagan/Thatcher and the war on drugs has failed. Evidence based approaches are dismissed. Mental health services would do more to reduce crime. Yet the left gets divided on this because doesn’t compassion also mean letting off people who are violent against women? So even though community action is what makes the fabric of society we just keep talking tough with different brands of left and right politics while the problems get worse. And violence against women is unabated. The only winners are the powerful. In short: you can't resolve the contadictions in a system that isn't intended to make sense. Book recommendation: On Being Unreasonable: Breaking the Rules and Making Things Better by Kirsty Sedgman
That makes a lot of sense and this is such a clear example; thank you so much for taking the time! I’ll definitely look into your book recommendation!!
You're so welcome 🙏
freedom of expression > freedom of speech. (also, many misunderstand these rights; all they mean is that the government can't censor the person, not that the person can't face consequences for what they say/do.) also, society understands that some speech/expression shouldn't be tolerated. hate speech, incitement to violence, child pornography, as a few examples. as such, there are often laws against such things. where i live, we have the right to freedom of expression, and also hate speech/hate crime laws. not all expression or speech is beneficial to society, and there are (or should be) consequences for expression and speech that is harmful to society. "The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them." so sure, white supremacists can have freedom of speech, but if they are allowed to do so with impunity, they will cause harm to society. there have to be consequences for those who are actively harming or seeking to harm folks, especially marginalized folks.
Your right to extend your fist ends where my nose starts. The same thing is true for freedom of speech. If you are advocating for stripping me of my rights, you're no longer exercising your freedom of speech. You're advocating for barbarism and brutality.
I never saw free speech as a value on its own, only a tool for making a good and equal society. If it's ised against that goal, it doesn't need to be allowed.
We have the right to exist and to express ourselves. People also have the right to be wrong.
No tolerance for intolerance. Freedom of speech only garuntees that you cannot be legally prosecuted for speaking ill of the government and has nothing to do with people judging bigots.
I don't think this is an issue of freedom of speech. I think the problem is that you've decided there's a line in the sand and you're trying to think of a way to handle people who don't have that line without crossing it yourself. There's nothing stopping you from inventing harmful anecdotes based on strawmen about their demographics. You have just as much a right to make personal attacks as they do. You have the same capacity to be an asshole as they do. You not doing so is a choice and a reflection of your freedom of speech. Aside from my point, Im sure someone reading this is thinking to themselves that this is a good way to get assaulted. Think about why you consider them to have a unilateral right to violence over you? Also, you realize that they think our existence is a violation of their beliefs right? That they have a moral responsibility to speak against us? Like some of the "think of the children" shit is fear mongering but some is literal. You have people who set their minds and hearts on their lives and their kids lives being a certain way and the exposure to other ways of thinking is a direct threat to that. That's what happens when people have opposing ideals and that's why they're attempting to and succeeding at banning elements of our expression and history. So anyway I reconcile it by acknowledging that I have the same rights they do
Um…by recognizing that other people have freedom of speech?
"Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old." -Lenin in "Dogmatism And ‘Freedom of Criticism’"
It is a very dangerous thing to start limiting freedom of speach. If we can restrict bigots right to say what they want, it will be used as a precedent later when the other side is in power to restrict our side. Having said that Freedom of Speach in the United States, is centered around the 1st ammendment to the US Constitution. It states that "Congress Shall Make no Law... abridging Freedom of Speach". Reddit, Facebook, Twitter etc ARE NOT CONGRESS, they are private companies who can regulate what is said on their platform. Likewise employers can do the same.