Skip Navigation

Why does freedom of speech seem to invoke the right to be an arse?

I am not targeting any group, race or religion or whatever, just an observation why does it seem that freedom of speech appears to invoke an image of a defence to be an asshole?

I get it, free to speak your mind and all and sometimes hard truths need to be said that but is the concept so out of whack that people have less empathy for others that they don't agree with that they antagonise another to the point of disrespecting the right to dignity?

It seems like humanity is hard wired for conflict and if it isn't actively trying to kill itself it seems to find an outlet for violence some way somehow. Maybe it is social conditioning or just some primal urge that makes humans human.

I don't even know where else I could ask it, and it seems kind of stupid to think about so... have at thee

99 comments
  • GenX lefty here.

    I grew up with freedom of speech (the overall ideal, not the US legal concept) being a non-negotiable, axiomatic thing.

    Every bit of social progress the world has seen, came about by loudly and obnoxiously challenging accepted norms, and refusing to sit down and shut up. Civil rights, worker's rights, women's rights, gay rights, trans rights and a whole bunch more - all of them only advanced by brave people getting up on their hind legs and speaking up for them, even though it was considered an affront to common decency, even an abomination.

    For a bunch of overprivileged idiots to try and pull the ladder up behind them because their comfort is offended... really fucking bothers me.

    I promise, I absolutely guaranfuckingtee that every person alive today will one day be on the wrong side of history; there are norms in society that our descendants (should humanity survive long enough for us to have any) will be utterly disgusted with all of us; and we would be just as disgusted by them. The shiny GenZ hope-of-the-world darlings of today will be the contempible boomers of 60 years from now, that's just how history works. You can't stop that from happening; the best you can do is increase social flexibility and mobility so they don't remain totally rooted in the norms of their youth.

    The absolute unmitigated gall of people today to imagine that no, unlike all that came before them, they have the right of it, that their accepted norms must be coddled and protected from any that might dare challenge them, that social change can stop right here.... fuck no, fuck that, fuck them, fuck the entire concept.

    You don't disable progress, you mustn't hobble change. And speech that offends us is the only way you get change, pretty much by definition.

    Once you silence offensive speech (of whatever form), you're locking in the status quo, and ironically that's the most conservative thing you can ever do. Even if you believe that you and your team will never censor genuine activism, once you enable shutting-people-up as an option, you hand an absolutely terrifying weapon to the assholes that take power next time you lose the election.

    Now I will grudgingly concede that the landscape has changed, that the coming of the information age has shifted the way everything works, that the mechanisms and underlying rules are changing, and that the principles of absolute freedom of speech that made sense in my youth no longer get you the same results. The internet is a big scary machine, and its ability to create filter bubbles and viral trends and cliques and misinformation and just general ugh... is pretty damn terrifying. Just look at the damn antivaxers, climate change deniers, the rampant and increasing transphobia, the fascist assholes getting their hooks in everywhere - clearly the marketplace of ideas is a mob town now, and we can't just expect it to run itself.

    How do we fix it? I don't fucking know. Both sides seem to lead some pretty terrible places - is there a middle path somewhere? How do we trust anyone to steer it?

    • I agree on a lot of points, although it seems I have a more pacifist outlook while you have a more active outlook which if I am honest does more for progress.

      I see freedom of speech - in the general sense - as a means to be able to express yourself and your opinions and I feel that if people could express that without outright spreading a feeling of hatred and rage then I feel pretty much anything goes within reason. As even innocuous well meaning ideas can lead to dangerous outcomes.

      That doesn't mean people should expect the status quo, but sometimes I look at chimps and their "gang wars" and think we aren't that much different sometimes.

      For reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

      We are primed to respond most strongly with hatred and rage... perhaps some deep primitive instinct and that gets taken advantage of.

      Humans nature seems to be a violent one and if I look at history it is unfortunately violence that seems to be the most effective means to get through our thick human psyche to advance. Ancient Egypt, Alexander's Legacy, Rome's rise and fall, The Crusades, French Revolution, British Empire, American Independence, The World Wars.

      We are forever doomed to repeat history it seems until history can no longer repeat

      It is like humanity must experience great suffering and that suffering must reach a tipping point before we as a collective species change

      What the next big tipping point will be that forces a change, if we last that long, I don't know as well

  • The simple answer is they're attempting to insulate themselves from consequence or challenge.

    Free speech doesn't work like that (it only protects you from gov't retaliation, not other private citizens), but it doesn't stop them from trying because as some of the responses here exemplify, people will fall for it and let them continue saying whatever, regardless of whether it's true or harmful to the vulnerable.

  • Because people don't grasp what "free speech" means, at least in the US context.

    Freedom of speech (expression) protects one against government interference with expression. The US government can't stop you from saying bigoted, racist, or sexist things because you have the freedom to express yourself.

    But.

    Freedom of speech doesn't require anyone to offer you a platform to share your views, nor does it mandate an audience. If your views are unpopular, freedom of speech doesn't prevent others from denying you business or employment generally either; the ol' "consequences of your actions" principle.

    Bad actors want the right, a mandated platform, and no consequences for being shitty. They get upset when they find out that they're entitled to neither a platform nor protection from consequence.

  • People seems to be under the impression that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences, that you're free to spout all sorts of hateful nonsense and not have to deal with the hurt they cause.

  • It’s a combination of ignorance and entitlement. They think free speech means freedom from consequence and entitlement to a platform and/or audience. That’s why they get mad and claim it’s censorship when they’re banned for breaking rules etc.

    Also they only care about their freedom of speech, despite their claims to the contrary.

  • Because literally their only excuse for what they're saying is that the government can't legally stop them from saying it

  • It invokes any number of people from all around the spectrum to be an arse.

    If you're trying to be neutral or just don't much care for some particular political issue (what's political or not is an interesting question in itself, but nowadays anything is), you see just as much toxicity from all the ends of the spectrum.

    I still can't believe all the fights that were ensuing regarding wearing masks. But once something becomes a symbol...

    I'd even argue the "left" is faster to call names and dump baseless accusations on anyone quite at random, to be honest.

    I mean, just watch the downvotes on this comment from the "if you're not with us, you're a nazi" crowd.

    I won't be getting into it more in public. It's just hard for me to leave posts like this alone.

    • If you’re trying to be neutral or just don’t much care for some particular political issue

      There is no such thing, if you're "neutral" you're merely defending the status quo. The right defends the status quo, the left opposes it.

      Read this quote by one of the greatest heroes of the world, Martin Luther King:

      I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice [...]

      • I guess that's not wrong, but I can passionately care about some other matter where the status quo is borked, and I can choose to fight that, and not some other random thing you care about. That doesn't make me an ass or something other.

        It's a really interesting thing how the so-called "left" and "right" have chosen to fight over a handful of random things, and just as randomly chose to support one or the other side of the argument.

        Almost as if, I dunno, these things weren't even all that divisive in the first place, but it just might be in someone's interest for people to fight over and not notice potentially worse things that are going on.

      • Bleh, it seems ideology is unavoidable😂, seems that can be applied to the world over actually if it examined where countries try not to rock the boat too much to ensure their best interests are not disrupted too much

    • Not an American, so the whole America politica is not my thing

      My personal opinion or stance if I had to take one is one has the freedom to express themselves, but to also take into to try respect another's beliefs and reasoning

      So in this case, you have the right to express your opinions, you have made some assumptions, but still showed some level of restraint. Therefore I am, personally, going to respect your right to expression - seems sanctimonious for me to write that case but yeah... I do not know I am trying not to get into any ideology facets just trying to explore a question that has been bubbling in my mind.

      ( if you want my take on masks and you are free to disagree, is that during covid masks would lessen viral aerosol load.... so not foolproof but I find dealing with a 10000 viral load easier to deal with than 100000000 viral load)

    • Meh, confirmation bias here anecdotal notions. As someone on the left I can say I argue with people all the damn time without calling them nazis Assuming of course they aren't pushing for the genocide of a people.

      • A lot of people in both the left and the right argue with the other side all the time withour abusing the other of being a Nazi. However there are a number on both sides that assume anyone not in perfect agreement with them must be a Nazi. (Hint there are now two people on earth 100% agreed on everything, so such people tend to accuse a lot of people of being a Nazi)

  • Tldr:

    I am have let myself be too soft as I have not invoked my freedom of expression and fair conditions and let them bypass responsibility and get away with imposing their way of business.

    End tldr

    You know reading these comments made me look at my Country's constitution... South Africa

    Makes me think that people in general don't fully read them, myself included.

    It is interesting because in a way some of the things written here can in practice get someone put in jail because of the stigma of the past - primarily racism

    I was raised in the demographic as white but my mother is, and this the term they use here, coloured ( fair complexion) i am sure an internet search can confirm.

    Also realised that when my last job told me I wouldn't advance in the work because of the colour of my skin ( and I was too stupid and eager for a job I accepted) they were legally covering their ass as there is provision for it if it is formally accepted. That my rights were ebbed away with fine print ( example, they made me sign something inocculous 3 months into employment and fine out down the line that I missed out on receiving bonus by a month because of the signed document)

    But even through all that and the contracts they made me sign i still had the right to strike or to unionized.... of course they make sure that you can't do that because they prey on that need and suppress your right to diginity

    Really off topic apologies, brain wonders off and puts pieces into play that fell off the bandwagon😂

99 comments