|
| Thread: Open Discourse: Beyond Freedom of Speech |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 23, 2014 09:17 PM |
|
|
artu said:
If I'm a history professor who believes that the holocaust didn't happen, I am very likely to get fired. There are many kinds of unpopular ideas.
That's a different situation - if he believes this, it makes him bad at his job, and so he's fired for being bad at his job, not for having unpopular views. The equivalent of this would be if instead of donating to anti-gay causes, Eich would've donated to the-Internet-is-run-by-fairies causes - if that were his belief, his competence to run Mozilla would've been in question. Or, more realistically, not hiring a KKK member to run a racial sensitivity seminar is not an attempt to censor the KKK member's beliefs, it's an attempt to find a good person for the job (which the KKK member isn't). If a person's beliefs prevent them from doing their job well, it is not censorship to fire them. But if their beliefs don't interfere with their ability to do their job - such as if your baker posts on Stormfront in his spare time - then firing/boycotting them is censorship.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 09:21 PM |
|
|
Yes, it's a bad example. I'm not as experienced as you in oversimplifying. 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 10:09 PM |
|
|
Isn't the problem way simpler?
If someone offers an AGGRESSIVE opinion against a certain group of people WHILE he has some kind of public function, the opinion attracts more attention due to the publicity - which is basically borrowed.
It doesn't matter whether the person is an actor, a singer, a politician, a CEO, a high cleric ...
Conversely, no one would be interested in said aggressive opinion if the person was publicly unknown and had a cleaning job.
The error of said person is to use their public status in order to offer personal opinions that are divisive AND BE HEARD.
Consequently, reactions, even if they escalate - like a boycott - are absolutely logical and even correct, since said person abused their status IN ORDER TO create attention (otherwise why offer an aggressive opinion in the first place?).
So where is your problem, Mvass? Everything is as it should be.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 10:26 PM |
|
|
The problem is, who decides what an aggressive opinion is? Many social conservatives think that gay equality is hostile to traditional marriage. What if the Eich case had taken place 20-30 years ago and Eich had endorsed same-sex marriage instead of opposing it, leading to boycotts by social conservatives?
You could say that prominent people (CEOs, actors, etc) shouldn't ever express controversial opinions, not even in private, lest someone find out. But this is bad for open discourse, as they're in a unique position to bring issues into the eye of the public - not to mention, why should they have to censor themselves, anyway? Better to let them say what they will, and then not confuse the position of the CEO with the position of the company. Let everyone speak, and no one boycott them for it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 10:51 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:03, 23 May 2014.
|
JJ said:
since said person abused their status IN ORDER TO create attention (otherwise why offer an aggressive opinion in the first place?).
This is not always true. It's a valid point, especially in this age where celebrities sometimes become celebrities BECAUSE they do that, even plan it step by step as a strategy: There's no such thing as bad publicity.
But other times, it's just old-fashioned gabbiness and loud mouth.
mvass said:
Better to let them say what they will, and then not confuse the position of the CEO with the position of the company. Let everyone speak, and no one boycott them for it.
But the CEO agrees to being a representative of the company.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 11:11 PM |
|
|
Sure, he agrees, but that doesn't mean he should silence himself. That is, if the company makes self-censorship of this kind a precondition of employment, he should censor himself, but there's a reason that the company has this precondition (presumably, it's afraid of boycotts and similar actions). If it weren't afraid of boycotts, it wouldn't have that as part of the contract.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2014 04:28 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 04:28, 24 May 2014.
|
in France, we also have a different problem, where you can get into trouble, not because you are intolerant, but because you refuse to be. that seems mostly seen in politics.
that's kind of complicated to explain.
some groups have a black list of groups or people who, they think, shouldn't be allowed to speak in public, because they are intolerant or dangerous, which may be true, or simply slander.
now, comes a group which is perfectly tolerant, they think everyone should have freedom of speech and they accept to debate with anyone without any censure.
boom, that tolerant group is now added to the blacklist, on the pretense that he accepted to discuss with an already blacklisted group, which obviously must mean they are friends, share the same ideas, and thus, are both intolerant and dangerous.
those people, then write articles, or write to authorities about how dangerous those blacklisted groups are, in order to have authorities prevent them from holding public meeting. they say those groups incite to racial hatred (because they are against the policy of Israel), or are dangerous for democracy (because they accept to let anyone talk, even those who have dangerous opinions) or they want war (because they want to leave the EU)...
and this is how intolerant groups, discredit those who don't share their intolerant views and prevent their ideas from spreading.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted May 24, 2014 01:08 PM |
|
|
One of the problems with freedom of speech is that you not only face certain threats(discussed until now in this thread),but others may also IGNORE you.
I think power of ignorance is far greater now then in the past.Too much information flow is cunstructed and even if people can devide the useful info from the trash,they often lack the time and patience to listen it.
What is the point to be able to speak freely,when nobody listens to you?
What is the point of expressing your opinion on paper and others decide to trash it in the recycle bin?
I know I sound pesimistic/sarcastic,but in this line of thought I guess you should always be a member of some supportive group to be really heard.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 24, 2014 05:33 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:44, 24 May 2014.
|
Mvass, once again, I understand your concern. You are worried that the current use of boycotts will lead to a certain kind of uniformity. A system in which anybody with a slightly different idea is afraid to speak up because, although indirectly, the system will intimidate them. But your alternative also doesn't make sense, it's an anesthetized political climate, where no one reacts to anything. It's quite impossible to execute and also very unnecessary to do so: If some head of a company turns out to be an extreme racist, I find it quite reasonable, actually even socially functional, that people, and especially the people of the related race, give a reaction to this. And boycotting is one of the most civil and peaceful methods of doing that.
To suggest that nobody should protest anything because some people will be afraid of unpopularity and self-censor is one of the most gutless things I've ever heard. You want to be able to speak out anyway you want but without facing any sort of echo, whatsoever. Instead, the solution to your problem is people with unorthodox ideas, having the courage and decency to stand-up for those ideas. Yes, boycotts can be exploited sometimes and crowds can suppress and assimilate individuals. This would be specifically the case, if society is going through some ultra conservative phase. (But then boycotts will be the least of your problems.) But to suggest that, boycotts should be objected to no matter the context, is like telling people not to drive, because car accidents may happen.
Besides, it would only work if everybody excessively defends everybody and I just don't see that happening. Introspectively, I can't picture myself trying to convince people not to boycott the guy, who said atheists are the seed of Satan or Turks are barbarians. And to turn this into a social norm... way too hypothetical.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2014 06:16 PM |
|
|
I find it harsh, that someone may lose his job, or see his reputation destroyed on social networks, because he said something racist for example.
though, that depends on your position in society. some people just can't say anything they want, expecting it would have no consequences.
but, for each racist that gets the blame, how many can speak without facing any consequences, or are even encouraged to do so?
look at politics, how many parties are racists, and how much support they get.
you know, some people say the best way to unite people, is to find them a common enemy. racist people become those who wants to protect their country, and tolerant ones are seen as those who wants minorities to impose their will over everyone else.
actually racist people seem to enjoy a lot of freedom of speech, they are often the ones to muzzle those who are too tolerants.
you are encouraged to put the blame on muslims, on immigration from the west or the south, on catholics, on russians, on chineses... and that's not considered racist, that's considered loving your country. the only thing that actually seems to label you as racist would be to speak against Israel.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 24, 2014 06:27 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:28, 24 May 2014.
|
|
So in France, when someone says something like, Israel is unjust in its policies with Phillistine, do people boycott him?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2014 06:46 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 18:50, 24 May 2014.
|
I don't even know what is Phillistine 
but would people in general boycott someone who speaks against Israel? I don't think so, as there is a rather large amount of people who are against Israel policy. but if you are too vocal about your opinion, you risked being labeled by the system and some people may try to restrict your freedom of speech.
in another hand, you may face some popular opposition if you speak in favour of Islam, though I'm not sure if many would go as far as to boycott you.
censorship, such as preventing the holding of meetings or conferences for exemple is usually the result of the influence of very small groups, even though a majority of people may disagree with the decision.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2014 07:01 PM |
|
|
Artu, the problem is that a priori you can't distinguish between an extremely unpopular idea that's wrong and an extremely unpopular idea that's right. As I said earlier, what if racism turns out to be correct? Then we'd have been quite wrong to have boycotted. Heliocentrism, evolution, atheism, etc, have been extremely unpopular at some point in the past (and some of these are still unpopular today), should people who advocated for these correct things been even more intimidated than they were? I also disagree that nothing can be done about how people react to unpopular views. In the past, using violence to deal with those the community disagrees with was more acceptable. Now, it's rare, at least in the civilized world. The social norm can be changed for boycotts as well, perhaps by anti-boycott people saying things like "If you get him fired, you're just bullying him into silence, you're not proving that you're right".
You may call this position gutless, but I call it civilized. Just like we gave up aggressive violence to live with each other in civilized peace, we should give up boycotts used to silence so we can be even more civilized. People who express their views in the face of great opposition are brave* (or foolhardy), but relatively few people are willing to do that. Who knows how much progress was foregone because the people who had good ideas were justifiably afraid to speak up? They shouldn't have to be afraid.
Edit: Also, it's not a matter of ultra-conservatism. Progressives can engage in censorship just as well, as we see in the Eich case, among others.
*By the way, the "brave voice of truth in the face of opposition" trope creates the bad social phenomenon of "fake brave voice of truth in the face of opposition", that is, people who act like they're Galileo being oppressed by the Church, but are really just edgy teenagers saying dumb things.
Fauch, Artu means Palestine.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 24, 2014 07:03 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:22, 24 May 2014.
|
@Fauch
That was my mistake, sorry. I accidentally used the spelling of the ancient people for the contemporary country. It's Palestine. In Turkish both are spelled Filistin.
@mvass
People sticking with their ideas are people sticking it with their ideas. Why should it ring the bell of angsty teenager? On the contrary, if anything is childish, it's wishing to shout out everything but trying to avoid facing the music afterwards.
OF COURSE, you can't know which ideas are better with absolute certainty. And there are NO universal ideas that will always be right/wrong, especially regarding politics and social norms. That's the whole point! Social reaction is part of what tests your ideas. You can not expect to sit in your ivory tower and babble out anything you want without facing absolutely no consequence at all. You talk like a soldier who gets surprised when he gets shot at in the battlefield.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2014 07:35 PM |
|
|
It's not people saying unpopular things who are ringing the bell of "angsty teenager", but angsty teenagers trying to pass themselves off as brave people saying unpopular things. If you didn't need to be brave to say unpopular things, this trope wouldn't exist.
And calling something childish is no argument. The debate is about whether those negative consequences should exist - no need to insult these who want to avoid them.
As for testing your ideas, this kind of social reaction doesn't test them, it suppresses them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 24, 2014 07:50 PM |
|
|
I'm not sure you realize what your position is starting to turn into. We are not talking about facing the death squad here, and the ideas processed are not intellectual challenges.
You are, in a way, suggesting that people should be apathetic to hate speech that targets them directly and all social declarations should be treated as if they're equally popular. When someone targets gays or blacks or who ever in his speech, people won't react to this by debating it like metaphysics. They will declare that they exist, and if you don't like them, they don't like you either and they wont buy from you. It's simply saying, if you don't respect me, I'm not your customer.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2014 08:22 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 21:29, 24 May 2014.
|
and that becomes counter-productive, if, invoking freedom of expression you don't react to hate speech, actually letting those people intimidate and muzzle the targets of their hatred.
about Israel, I don't know if you heard the case about Dieudonné. Dieudonné is a humorist who was several times condemned for racist comments. since those comments are often made in sketches, or said with an ambiguous enough tone, it's debattable whether Dieudonné is serious or just joking, and his goal is probably more about provoking a reaction.
now, Dieudonné basically attacks everyone in his sketches (though I'm not sure about black and muslims, seeing that he is black and muslim himself) but the problem seems to be mostly about his comments on jews.
a lot of people think his position against Israel is actually the real problem, and that the so called associations for defense of jews (LICRA, LDJ) are actually instrumentalizing antisemitism in order to defend the interests of Israel. (it seems he was first condemned for antisemitism for a sketch about the policy of Israel)
on another hand, we have Manuel Valls, who, last year, under his mandate of minister of the interior, started a campaign for the boycott and interdiction of the spectacle of Dieudonné, under the pretense that it was a way for him to vehiculate hate speech, though whether it was the case or not was rather vague. while Dieudonné sometimes makes some really vindicative comments in his sketches, many people would say that only idiots would take it at face value. in particular, I think the trial hadn't even take place yet. Manuel Valls, who has been heard (and filmed) saying racist comments against non-white people, and who now enjoys the position of prime minister...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2014 03:53 AM |
|
|
I'm not suggesting apathy - you can react to speech you disagree with without punishing the speaker. For example, you could organize a march or peaceful protest of some kind that expresses significant disapproval without silencing anyone.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2014 04:17 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
For example, you could organize a march or peaceful protest of some kind that expresses significant disapproval without silencing anyone.
and you would effectively get nowhere with any opposition.
|
| |
|
|
