That's expected, not weird. What's weird is that defenders of free speech tend to use their own words, tailored to the circumstance, whereas hate speech apologists tend to trot this line out verbatim. (… I guess that's also what you'd expect.)
Isn't there a bit of selection bias or similar there?
What kind speech would need to be defended with such a moralistic statement?
It seems to me like phrases like this are the go-to when defending speech that many or most might be offended by. If most aren't offended by it there's really no defending needed.
It's about defending the principle of free speech rather than what someone said.
To your point, only reprehensible or unpopular speech must be defended by the principle. As you say, speech that is popular and uncontroversial would not need defending. Do you want to live in a society where you may only express approved and uncontroversial views? If you have controversial or unpopular views, then you protect your right to express them by defending the principle of free speech, even for those with whom you disagree, even abhor.
Not at all, this isn't about hate speech, its about power dynamics.
It's about how the group with power, whether they are the heroes or villains will always attempt to stifle speech.
80 years ago racists had power and tried prevent those looking for racial equality from speaking.
Now the anti-racist have power and are using that power to prevent the speech of the weaker group.
Always look at the power dynamic, not whether you agree with the speech or not.
The idea that freedom of expression shouldn't cover 'hate speech' is a recent invention that has been used to chip away at human rights. It isn't at all unusual that most pushback should be seen in that context.
Here in Germany you can see how this argument evolves. For the Green party everything which disagrees with their position is declared nowadays rated as "hate speech" because the only conceivable reason for disagreeing with the green is people hate them.
Recently (in the last few years), I've seen it used 1) to argue against misinformation bans (specifically anti-vax nonsense), 2) to argue in favor of allowing equal time to political opponents, 3) as a defense of permitting Palestinian/pro-Hamas protests and publicly fact-checking their claims, rather than banning them, and I'm sure there have been others. The third case would support your "hate speech" contention, but the other two were in the spirit of the article.
People who value a free market of ideas trot this out a lot. You also here things like "Free speech only has value when you extend it to those you disagree with" or "Free speech means people have a right to tell you things you don't want to hear."
Perhaps you only notice when it's applied to things you consider hate speech, or assume it (since I didn't see anything in the article about it)?
teddyh|1 year ago
wizzwizz4|1 year ago
redwoolf|1 year ago
How the fuck do I delete my account?
_heimdall|1 year ago
What kind speech would need to be defended with such a moralistic statement?
It seems to me like phrases like this are the go-to when defending speech that many or most might be offended by. If most aren't offended by it there's really no defending needed.
rendall|1 year ago
To your point, only reprehensible or unpopular speech must be defended by the principle. As you say, speech that is popular and uncontroversial would not need defending. Do you want to live in a society where you may only express approved and uncontroversial views? If you have controversial or unpopular views, then you protect your right to express them by defending the principle of free speech, even for those with whom you disagree, even abhor.
RansomStark|1 year ago
80 years ago racists had power and tried prevent those looking for racial equality from speaking.
Now the anti-racist have power and are using that power to prevent the speech of the weaker group.
Always look at the power dynamic, not whether you agree with the speech or not.
throwawa14223|1 year ago
jacobr1|1 year ago
setopt|1 year ago
menotyou|1 year ago
MarkusQ|1 year ago
Recently (in the last few years), I've seen it used 1) to argue against misinformation bans (specifically anti-vax nonsense), 2) to argue in favor of allowing equal time to political opponents, 3) as a defense of permitting Palestinian/pro-Hamas protests and publicly fact-checking their claims, rather than banning them, and I'm sure there have been others. The third case would support your "hate speech" contention, but the other two were in the spirit of the article.
People who value a free market of ideas trot this out a lot. You also here things like "Free speech only has value when you extend it to those you disagree with" or "Free speech means people have a right to tell you things you don't want to hear."
Perhaps you only notice when it's applied to things you consider hate speech, or assume it (since I didn't see anything in the article about it)?
debacle|1 year ago
- Criticism of COVID response
- Concerns about the medical patriarchy
- Concerns about infringement on free speech
- Concerns about election integrity
- Pick your current global armed conflict
- Pretty much anything on the Internet that isn't fully accepting of the post-capitalist post-scarcity view of the global economy
- Revolution in Bangladesh
- The seizure of HK a few years ago
- Julian Assange (I believe) has a gag order as a result of his plea deal.
- Whistleblowers in the agri/aero/chem/etc industries
The list goes on and on. Critically, one person's "hate speech" is another's "apt criticism," and vice versa.
melling|1 year ago
You need to come with facts.
“I criticize [Covid|Climate change|election…]
That’s not criticism until you supply evidence.