Most of that I see is from the far right, which is very noisy and seems to have silenced the center-right.
13 Likes
Or of course the far left, which has silenced the moderate left
9 Likes
Interesting. I don’t see it as a far right, far left issue. I see it as a pro free speech or anti-free speech thing.
What is someone willing to do to get someone to stop saying something they don’t like? But I have seen people in the last year screaming at each other over having separate opinions.
Sadly, I don’t know many folks in the middle any more. There’s a chasm where they used to be.
3 Likes
Much less so than on the right (the various factions of center-left and left seem to have infinite capability to argue with each other, even when they mostly agree on actual policy), and what the (far) right sees as the “far left” (presumably the Bernie Sanders fans) is only a little more left than the usual US center-left, despite the “socialist” branding. The actual far left (actual communists and such) mostly went away when the end of the USSR in 1991 revealed the weaknesses and failures of communism that many of idolized.
2 Likes
Oh, brother. For an exercise maybe watch both channels left and right. Then compare notes. I know which one you are watching 
3 Likes
Where did they go? There are many in my state who are quite vocal about their stance. And I think in Portland too.
2 Likes
It isn’t about free speech – there is plenty of it. But the chasm you speak of means that no one listens because the other side is usually flinging some nasty insults, and there is no agreement on actual factual basis for any discussion.
I do not watch TV news, since it tends to be lower quality and heavy on opinions (often blatant lies) rather than news (even in comparison to their own web sites). Some of the people I know seem to be very politically oriented in terms of what they share on social media; the stuff shared by the right-leaning ones tend to be more extreme and nasty than the stuff shared by the left-leaning ones.
3 Likes
It IS about free speech. Here’s why. When opinions get voiced and tested, people get to decide what to adopt and what to discard. Without open discourse, the chasm grows.
Re: News. You can find crazy all over the place. Left, right and center. No one has ownership of some of the vitriol out there. Again, it goes back to what are you willing to say is acceptable speech. Do you shut down the crazies? Because some think it’s fine to determine who is heard and who is silenced. Again, free speech.
I’d rather skip over the crazies then allow someone/some media channel(s) to be the arbiter of what’s allowed. That’s dangerous. And not free speech.
3 Likes
Let’s just admit that the term “free” speech is a misnomer. Some people get to speak, others don’t. “Free Speech” is not a level playing field. Hence the rich parents’ outrage as they realize what the rest of us have known all along.
3 Likes
People are deciding what to adopt and what to discard. The chasm grows because people are deciding to move toward the extremes and not listening to others, not because there is any kind of censorship against free speech. Just because some people choose not to listen to you does not mean that you are being censored.
Media channels, as private businesses, are the arbiters of what is allowed on their channels. People are free to choose between them, and there are media channels all over the political spectrum. How is that not free speech?
3 Likes
You’re assumption that it’s not a level playing field isn’t in the concept/definition of free speech. Speech doesn’t need a level playing field because in the open, the ideas stand. People can accept them or not.
4 Likes
Media reporting is just that reporting. It’s not free speech.
Channels report as they wish.
The chasm has a number of causes many of which lie in folks not learning about both sides of an issue, biased reporting and its effects and a number of other factors.
1 Like
The most useful illusion that the notion of “free speech” perpetuates is the idea that speech can be a “pure” zone free of politics; that it’s a marketplace of ideas, where the best idea wins!
That is to say, “free speech” is a thoroughly ideological concept and the fact that so many people defend it as being divorced from power or politics (as in “the good old days” or “when I was at school”) shows how powerful it actually is.
2 Likes
No one here is saying that free speech is divorced( or connected ) from power and politics. The only people I’ve heard make similar statements to yours often segued into some diatribe on power structure which was quickly followed by communism/socialism. Maybe that’s your context but no one here was talking about power or politics in the context of free speech.
And what I was raising was the growing trend of students/people feeling they cannot share their views and that it is not a good thing. There are multiple polls, surveys, articles, etc that reflect similar issues raised in the article below. Pew and Cato have each done some.
Sorry, I have read your post several times and am not following what you are saying. I am specifically talking about those of one view silencing those with differing views being problematic and that it seems to be a growing trend/issue, including in colleges and non-elite high schools in current day America.
If there are examples of when one side silencing the other results in progress can you share them because all the scenarios that come to my mind I would categorize as the opposite (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin)?
One side/group silencing another either direction is a slippery and dangerous slope. My family lived the history other people read about, so I am fully aware it is not something new on earth. However, I growing up in 1980s America (at least where I lived) did not experience 25% of students/staff that would have agreed it was appropriate to create an obstruction to free speech as is described below.
From the article - "Next they were asked: If confronted with that view they identified as most objectionable, how appropriate would it be to take a series of actions, such as asking a tough question, publishing a dissent, or more extreme measures? An alarming 25.5 percent of survey respondents said it would be appropriate to “create an obstruction, such that a campus speaker endorsing this idea could not address an audience.” This authoritarian view was held by about 19 percent of self-identifying liberals, 3 percent of moderates, and 3 percent of conservatives…
Also troubling were the undergraduates who reported having kept an opinion to themselves in the classroom, even though the opinion was related to the class, because they were worried about the potential consequences of expressing it. Almost 68 percent of conservatives censored themselves in this way, along with roughly 49 percent of moderates and 24 percent of liberals."
9 Likes
Free speech is a misnomer and is being misused by many. Speech has never been free of public criticism and judgment. Words have consequences, ie, they are not free. No one actually has to listen to what another has to say. They certainly don’t have to value another person’s viewpoint. There is no free speech issue when unpopular opinions result in public criticism. There is no free speech issue when an individual does not want to voice their opinion for fear of judgment. That’s not what the Constitution guarantees.
12 Likes
McCarthyism and blackballing (for examples) predated the internet. People would tell lies and folks could end up in the electric chair. (Another thing I’m thankful for in this time period - DNA testing and video cameras.) Speak up against some folks and you were only ruining yourself, because who’s going to be believed? The teacher, priest, boss, white lady/man, or you?
There are things going on now - just as there were in the past. But overall, I see where there’s been a ton of progress made - at least with the younger generation I work with.
If others can’t, I again suggest watching more historical documentaries where people are caught on film saying what they were saying.
Like many, I held my breath when the capitol got stormed and breathed a sigh of relief when we (mostly) came together against it afterward instead of ending up like Myanmar is now. If folks are being silenced who advocate overthrowing our government, I guess I’ll admit I don’t give a hoot. I don’t see too many being silenced though. Enough gets out there that I can still hear their message (and Qanon and others).
I have neighbors who believe almost any conspiracy theory out there. They aren’t coming up with them on their own. “News” is getting through. They’re both still employed and some of us living around them think they’re nuts, but we haven’t shunned them. It doesn’t mean we want them given a microphone at school.
7 Likes
Let’s hope you also felt the same nervousness when Antifa took to the streets and BLM marches turned violent in several cities. Or did that reporting even reach you?
We have a friend in MN whose business was partially burned. It’s a female owned business and she spent several nights alone inside to protect her business. So when you report about Qnon, I’m not sure why would would skip the others trying to tear the fabric of local communities. Why?
Portland is perhaps the best example. It goes on almost nightly but zero reports on the nightly news on most channels.
I’m in the middle. Always have been. Eager to learn both sides. Taught our kids the same.
11 Likes
Of course it reached me. I’m not sure why you think it wouldn’t have? And no, I didn’t feel the same nervousness because it wasn’t the Capitol. To me, the Capitol adds a whole different dimension - purposely wanting to overthrow the gov’t vs protesting “whatever.”
I’ll also add that I’m against all forms of violence (even schoolyard fights) and vandalism - lest one assume I’m not because I didn’t expressly say it.
How long should any post be? There are plenty of atrocities out there. My point is there always have been, but I think as a society we’re improving and kids are resilient enough to both keep the US going and hopefully correct some of the wrongs of previous generations.
5 Likes
I think one question is if 2/3 of conservatives, 1/2 of moderates, and 1/4 of liberals at UNC are censoring themselves do you even have an accurate representation of “popular” vs “unpopular” opinion there (as an example)?
Please define “public criticism”.
Is retaliation just criticism? Are bullying, doxxing, harassment, canceling just “public criticism”? When my D’s classmate threatened to stab her in the neck with a pencil over a disagreement of political opinion was that just “criticism”?
5 Likes