Do you know what I hate more than regressive leftist social justice zealots?
Anti-SJW people who are hypocrites.
These are people who, for example, have a YouTube channel and regularly make videos criticizing the regressive left, their ideology, and their latest antics. When doing so, they are stern supporters of free speech, and oppose and criticize the regressive leftist social justice warriors for their totalitarian ideology where they want to limit freedom of speech and "deplatform" people, ie. remove all means of communication from them by banning them from all social media and video sharing websites.
But then, give them the right sort of "bad guy", and these same critics turn around and start spouting the exact same deplatforming rhetoric themselves. Suddenly all that fancy talk about freedom of speech goes out of the window, and suddenly they start advocating deplatforming and banning some person that they don't like.
As a recent example, one such anti-SJW critic made a couple of videos about some guy who posted videos on YouTube about him mistreating, torturing and killing his pets. This critic was trying to raise awareness of this sick person, and trying to get the attention of the police officials of that person's country to do something about it, and for all those sick videos to be immediately reported and removed from YouTube.
So far so good. Indeed, this is horrendous criminal activity, and such a person should be immediately stopped by the authorities, and either given mandatory treatment, or put in jail (depending on what medical professionals consider his mental state to be). And all those infringing videos should also be removed, as they are completely inappropriate, and probably even illegal, to be distributed. (This is not really a case of free speech, because free speech is about expressing opinions, or delivering information to other people. Gruesome acts of nonsensical real-life illegal violence is not really an expression of opinion, and could even be seen as illegal incitement to violence, cruelty and illegal activity.)
However, that's not where he stopped. He also clearly, directly and repeatedly advocated for that person's YouTube channel to be terminated. In fact, in a follow-up video he showed outrage that the channel was still up, and not banned. He was not only advocating for the removal of the infringing individual videos. He was advocating for the removal of the entire channel, and the banning of that person from YouTube. He, in fact, and quite egregiously, actually used the word "deplatform" when doing this.
Now that's where I take issue.
Freedom of speech is not conditional. The right to free speech is inalienable, and every single person should have this same right. The right to free speech should not, and cannot be removed from a person just because that person commits a crime, no matter how heinous that crime may be.
If he commits a crime, he should be punished (via legal means, using due process). If he creates illegal or infringing content, that content should be removed or restricted. This is a given. However, his right to free speech must not be otherwise limited! Just because he committed a heinous crime does not mean he now should have less right to free speech as other people. If he wants to express legal opinions in the future, he should have the exact same rights as everybody else to do so, regardless of what crimes and atrocities he may have committed. Free speech is not conditional.
I am not talking here about whether Google, as a private company, should ban this guy or not (I don't think they should, but that's not really what I'm talking about here.) This is about advocating his complete banning and complete removal from a video sharing website.
This is a matter of principle. This critic is advocating the deplatforming of that person. By doing so he is essentially saying that free speech is conditional, and should be restricted for people who he finds especially repugnant.
In other words, he isn't really and advocate of free speech. He considers free speech to be as conditional as the social justice warriors do. Only the targets differ, not the principle.
In other words, he is a hypocrite. And there's nothing I hate more than hypocrites.
And I wish this were a singular isolated case. Unfortunately it's not. I have seen this several times in the past. Critics of social justice, defenders of free speech... who then turn around and advocate for the deplatforming and complete banning of people that they don't like. Apparently for them there are no wrong tactics, only wrong targets.
I cannot stand behind that. It doesn't matter what kind of heinous atrocity someone may have committed, or how sick in the head someone may be, he still has the same right to free speech as you and me, and that right must not be restricted. Punish crimes, and remove illegal and infringing content, but do not otherwise restrict his right to express legal opinions. If I should be able to express an opinion, for example a political opinion, so should that person.
Anti-SJW people who are hypocrites.
These are people who, for example, have a YouTube channel and regularly make videos criticizing the regressive left, their ideology, and their latest antics. When doing so, they are stern supporters of free speech, and oppose and criticize the regressive leftist social justice warriors for their totalitarian ideology where they want to limit freedom of speech and "deplatform" people, ie. remove all means of communication from them by banning them from all social media and video sharing websites.
But then, give them the right sort of "bad guy", and these same critics turn around and start spouting the exact same deplatforming rhetoric themselves. Suddenly all that fancy talk about freedom of speech goes out of the window, and suddenly they start advocating deplatforming and banning some person that they don't like.
As a recent example, one such anti-SJW critic made a couple of videos about some guy who posted videos on YouTube about him mistreating, torturing and killing his pets. This critic was trying to raise awareness of this sick person, and trying to get the attention of the police officials of that person's country to do something about it, and for all those sick videos to be immediately reported and removed from YouTube.
So far so good. Indeed, this is horrendous criminal activity, and such a person should be immediately stopped by the authorities, and either given mandatory treatment, or put in jail (depending on what medical professionals consider his mental state to be). And all those infringing videos should also be removed, as they are completely inappropriate, and probably even illegal, to be distributed. (This is not really a case of free speech, because free speech is about expressing opinions, or delivering information to other people. Gruesome acts of nonsensical real-life illegal violence is not really an expression of opinion, and could even be seen as illegal incitement to violence, cruelty and illegal activity.)
However, that's not where he stopped. He also clearly, directly and repeatedly advocated for that person's YouTube channel to be terminated. In fact, in a follow-up video he showed outrage that the channel was still up, and not banned. He was not only advocating for the removal of the infringing individual videos. He was advocating for the removal of the entire channel, and the banning of that person from YouTube. He, in fact, and quite egregiously, actually used the word "deplatform" when doing this.
Now that's where I take issue.
Freedom of speech is not conditional. The right to free speech is inalienable, and every single person should have this same right. The right to free speech should not, and cannot be removed from a person just because that person commits a crime, no matter how heinous that crime may be.
If he commits a crime, he should be punished (via legal means, using due process). If he creates illegal or infringing content, that content should be removed or restricted. This is a given. However, his right to free speech must not be otherwise limited! Just because he committed a heinous crime does not mean he now should have less right to free speech as other people. If he wants to express legal opinions in the future, he should have the exact same rights as everybody else to do so, regardless of what crimes and atrocities he may have committed. Free speech is not conditional.
I am not talking here about whether Google, as a private company, should ban this guy or not (I don't think they should, but that's not really what I'm talking about here.) This is about advocating his complete banning and complete removal from a video sharing website.
This is a matter of principle. This critic is advocating the deplatforming of that person. By doing so he is essentially saying that free speech is conditional, and should be restricted for people who he finds especially repugnant.
In other words, he isn't really and advocate of free speech. He considers free speech to be as conditional as the social justice warriors do. Only the targets differ, not the principle.
In other words, he is a hypocrite. And there's nothing I hate more than hypocrites.
And I wish this were a singular isolated case. Unfortunately it's not. I have seen this several times in the past. Critics of social justice, defenders of free speech... who then turn around and advocate for the deplatforming and complete banning of people that they don't like. Apparently for them there are no wrong tactics, only wrong targets.
I cannot stand behind that. It doesn't matter what kind of heinous atrocity someone may have committed, or how sick in the head someone may be, he still has the same right to free speech as you and me, and that right must not be restricted. Punish crimes, and remove illegal and infringing content, but do not otherwise restrict his right to express legal opinions. If I should be able to express an opinion, for example a political opinion, so should that person.
What are the limits of free speech or is there anything at all? Without violence is everything including lying swearing slandering disinforming or any means of propaganda under the protection of free speech?
ReplyDeleteThis is not about what content in particular should be removed and censored, and what content is ok. This is about advocating the *complete banning* of someone from a public forum, which is completely different. Your right to free speech should not be limited because of past crimes. That's not how free speech works. Free speech is unconditional, meaning it's not dependent on what you might or might not have done in the past. There is no crime in existence that would justify your right to free speech being removed from you, ie. you being stopped from expressing *any* opinions at all. It doesn't matter how heinous of a crime you have committed, you still should have the right to express your opinions as anybody else.
DeleteI agree with the article but i wonder what free speech's limits are. For example if i am not mistaken in usa swearing to president or anyone is under free speech? right? or am i mistaken? so as long as no violence included is everything said in any platform falls under freedom of speech or not?
ReplyDeleteSpeech that directly causes actual demonstrable harm to someone, such as physical harm or economic losses, is not protected under free speech. Defamation, ie. knowingly presenting demonstrably false factual claims about someone in such a manner that it demonstrably causes economic or social harm, is likewise not protected under free speech (although, of course, this is more of a gray area because it's harder to prove the distinction between opinions and deliberately presenting falsehoods as facts.) Incitement to criminal activity is not protected under free speech (although, once again, it can become a gray area.) All these gray areas ought to be treated and judged legally, using due process and the crime proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Delete