I don’t understand how one can advocate for censorship, yet be incapable of defining what speech should be restricted.
I feel like Sarah defined pretty thoroughly the type of speech that should be restricted when she said “If you are advocating for the literal eradication of people because they are part of your “out group”, then into the bin with you.”.
That feels like a line that we should all be able to agree upon, and yet there are still many who bafflingly say that we should respect Nazi’s ability to spout Nazi propaganda and recruit online.
You’re 100% right that the exact threshold at which speech verges from the “unpleasant but tolerable” to the “dangerous and requiring censorship” is fuzzy and subjective. But I think it’s entirely safe to say that when what you’re discussing is the eradication of groups or even “just” individuals, you’re on the wrong side of that threshold, plain and simple.
We can talk about where exactly that line falls relative to other issues, but that’s always going to vary from person to person in the fine details, but anyone who thinks that literal Nazis should have a safe space to discuss actual Nazi propaganda frankly isn’t someone whose opinion I’m going to take seriously, in the same way I wouldn’t take seriously someone who argues the Earth is flat (though - being harmless - I’d certainly support their ability to talk about Flat Earth online without censorship).
Thank you for your thought out and well written response. You bring up important points to consider.
To be honest, I don’t have any answers to where the limit of tolerable speech should be that aren’t arbitrary or contradictory. There’s a lot of nuance in this topic that I feel gets lost in most discussions.
For example, in a vacuum I agree that Nazi propaganda should not be tolerated or protected speech. Especially clear and immediate advocation for the physical harm of people. But on the other hand, there have been times in history where advocating for violence has resulted in overall positive social change (such as the American and Haitian revolutions). Does the distinction of tolerability get drawn at advocating for the violent extermination of a political regime vs a group of people? How do you make a distinction between the two that is satisfactory for any situation, past, present, and future?
If you take Nazi propaganda in insolation I think every reasonable person would support banning it (including myself). With the advantage of hindsight I think there are lots of topics/beliefs where that would be reasonable and appropriate. Where it gets concerning is making rules that stop intolerable speech now, yet won’t squash positive (but subversive) new ideas that aren’t part of the social conciousness yet. If history is any indicator we all have beliefs that will be considered intolerable in the future. Do you have to draw that line on a case by case basis? And if so, who should have the authority to do that?
Maybe I’m being unintentionally obtuse, but if there can’t be rules made that are equally valid in hindsight and future unknown situations, it’s better to err on the side of unrestricted speech. I don’t want to unintentionally prevent future posivitve changes out of fear of Nazis and other hate-groups.
I don’t understand how one can advocate for censorship, yet be incapable of defining what speech should be restricted.
I suppose it makes sense for somebody unable to express their belief system to also be unable to consider more than one viewpoint.
I feel like Sarah defined pretty thoroughly the type of speech that should be restricted when she said “If you are advocating for the literal eradication of people because they are part of your “out group”, then into the bin with you.”.
That feels like a line that we should all be able to agree upon, and yet there are still many who bafflingly say that we should respect Nazi’s ability to spout Nazi propaganda and recruit online.
You’re 100% right that the exact threshold at which speech verges from the “unpleasant but tolerable” to the “dangerous and requiring censorship” is fuzzy and subjective. But I think it’s entirely safe to say that when what you’re discussing is the eradication of groups or even “just” individuals, you’re on the wrong side of that threshold, plain and simple.
We can talk about where exactly that line falls relative to other issues, but that’s always going to vary from person to person in the fine details, but anyone who thinks that literal Nazis should have a safe space to discuss actual Nazi propaganda frankly isn’t someone whose opinion I’m going to take seriously, in the same way I wouldn’t take seriously someone who argues the Earth is flat (though - being harmless - I’d certainly support their ability to talk about Flat Earth online without censorship).
Thank you for your thought out and well written response. You bring up important points to consider.
To be honest, I don’t have any answers to where the limit of tolerable speech should be that aren’t arbitrary or contradictory. There’s a lot of nuance in this topic that I feel gets lost in most discussions.
For example, in a vacuum I agree that Nazi propaganda should not be tolerated or protected speech. Especially clear and immediate advocation for the physical harm of people. But on the other hand, there have been times in history where advocating for violence has resulted in overall positive social change (such as the American and Haitian revolutions). Does the distinction of tolerability get drawn at advocating for the violent extermination of a political regime vs a group of people? How do you make a distinction between the two that is satisfactory for any situation, past, present, and future?
If you take Nazi propaganda in insolation I think every reasonable person would support banning it (including myself). With the advantage of hindsight I think there are lots of topics/beliefs where that would be reasonable and appropriate. Where it gets concerning is making rules that stop intolerable speech now, yet won’t squash positive (but subversive) new ideas that aren’t part of the social conciousness yet. If history is any indicator we all have beliefs that will be considered intolerable in the future. Do you have to draw that line on a case by case basis? And if so, who should have the authority to do that?
Maybe I’m being unintentionally obtuse, but if there can’t be rules made that are equally valid in hindsight and future unknown situations, it’s better to err on the side of unrestricted speech. I don’t want to unintentionally prevent future posivitve changes out of fear of Nazis and other hate-groups.