In 2020, free speech is most often attacked under three false premises:
1. "It's a private company, they can deplatform whoever they want!"
This is obviously true to an extent, but as all communication is increasingly dominated by a few private companies, leads to a situation where free speech is effectively stifled not by the government but by an oligarchy. This is especially true since internet infrastructure like DNS is implemented by private companies.
2. "It's freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences of speech!"
Clearly this argument is absurd and wrong, yet I've seen it get touted nonetheless, notably in an XKCD comic. If the government threw you in jail for political speech, and defined that as "allowing free speech but simply having consequences of that speech", most would agree that's not true free speech. Yet people accept that flawed logic in other contexts.
If you can lose your livelihood for a political opinion, you don't really have free speech, yet that's increasingly the precedent set by Silicon Valley as a reasonable consequence of unpopular political opinions.
3. "We can't be tolerant of intolerant opinions!"
Again, perhaps some truth here in the most extreme cases, yet increasingly we label all but the most anondyne opinions as intolerant. The range of acceptable opinions gets narrower every day, and the consequences for diverging from it increasingly harsh.
To me it's an objective reality that there's a massive attack on free speech in 2020, especially in places like Silicon Valley and primarily by people who identify as "the left", usually using the fallacious arguments noted above.
In 2020, free speech is being attacked by the president literally trying to block the publication of a book because he doesn't like the content. People who are upset about website moderation policies or unruly college kids are probably not acting in good faith given the circumstances.
> 2. "It's freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences of speech!"
It is funny how this argument is similar to the old communist-era joke: "In USSR, we have freedom of speech. But freedom after speech is a different matter."
> If you can lose your livelihood for a political opinion, you don't really have free speech, yet that's increasingly the precedent set by Silicon Valley as a reasonable consequence of unpopular political opinions.
A hypothetical for you. Let's say you're married to someone. That someone later down the line turns into a massive jerk, frequently spouting obscenities at you and has changed politically. If you divorce them, are you violating their right to freedom of speech? Should we as a society not allow divorces lest they censor someone's opinion?
I have no issue with people being fired or divorced for spouting obscenities. I would certainly think poorly of someone who filed for divorce because their spouse changed politically.
This argument conflates government punished speech and socially ostracized speech. I’ve never heard articulated how a society without consequences for speech would actually function.
Being moved by a powerful speech or sermon is certainly a consequence. As is being entertained by a blockbuster film. Or is it only liberals being offended that we should eliminate in this hypothetical society?
1. "It's a private company, they can deplatform whoever they want!"
This is obviously true to an extent, but as all communication is increasingly dominated by a few private companies, leads to a situation where free speech is effectively stifled not by the government but by an oligarchy. This is especially true since internet infrastructure like DNS is implemented by private companies.
2. "It's freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences of speech!"
Clearly this argument is absurd and wrong, yet I've seen it get touted nonetheless, notably in an XKCD comic. If the government threw you in jail for political speech, and defined that as "allowing free speech but simply having consequences of that speech", most would agree that's not true free speech. Yet people accept that flawed logic in other contexts.
If you can lose your livelihood for a political opinion, you don't really have free speech, yet that's increasingly the precedent set by Silicon Valley as a reasonable consequence of unpopular political opinions.
3. "We can't be tolerant of intolerant opinions!"
Again, perhaps some truth here in the most extreme cases, yet increasingly we label all but the most anondyne opinions as intolerant. The range of acceptable opinions gets narrower every day, and the consequences for diverging from it increasingly harsh.
To me it's an objective reality that there's a massive attack on free speech in 2020, especially in places like Silicon Valley and primarily by people who identify as "the left", usually using the fallacious arguments noted above.