Karl Popper the Paradox of tolerance

I'm not so sure. In so far as Twitter and the like have become the new public square of the 21st century, being banned from it or other social media mediums like it, is in fact censorship.
Well it's censorship in the same way that getting kicked off Youtube for uploading porn would be censorship. The important point being that there are plenty of other platforms that you can do that on, and that private companies are free to set the rules for things that they are effectively publishing and paying to host.

In terms of the comparison to the public square, it's not really. The major difference, of course, is that a public square would be a very local thing and a very public thing. Doing or saying something offensive there would have very real consequences in your personal life because everyone would knew who said it and you would have to say it to their faces. That creates a certain amount of moderation and self-censorship. It's not possible in a public square to anonymously call someone a **** and threaten to rape them, for example, and anyone who did that would like face far more serious consequences than being kicked out of the public square.

I actually think the issue with Twitter is that you have a combination of virtue signalling (in the wider sense) and anonymity. So you get people who get large followings through showing how progressive/conservative/whatever they are, and there's almost a competition to be the most progressive/conservative/whatever so people become more and more extreme. These people aren't anonymous, because there's no point virtue signalling if nobody knows who you are. But then you have their followers, many of whom are anonymous, so when the virtue signaller posts something they find objectionable (to show what a good person they are) to all of their followers, that can be a green light for all of those people to attack whoever is responsible. The virtue signaller then comes up smelling of roses, because they weren't involved in the abuse, even though they obviously initiated it.
 
There is a basis of "disturbance" which can be used for it. For example you can't disturb people in the night with sound above a certain amount of decibels, so by that token it's also forbidden to express free speech at a volume that would disturb people in the night. I don't think i have to stand under youre bedrooms window as far as public acces allows me all night to yell say propaganda for jehova's witnesses all night, i bet you will call the cops and you'd have a point.

By that same token, you can't yell nazi propaganda on street disturbing people in the night neither.

As to "upset", well there is also a argument to be made to which certain speech can entail a psychological assault on some person. Though it's a more difficult debate, it's often more easily explained when it would regard for example kids. Oh, with free speech and free criticism a adult person could ften easily and significantly talk a kid down, and it could arguably have significant and potential negative effect on the child especially when it regards topics that typicly should be disturbing for young kids.

furthermore people that bear certain responsabillety's and duty's typicly also have the obligation to moderate their speech and their are often very good reasons for it aswell.

And I think you SHOULD be allowed to sit underneath my window spouting Nazi propaganda at 3am as I live in a town centre. I don't own the road nor the air. It's a public space.
I think the cops or somebody should show up and remind you that you're causing a bit of a nuisance but as long as you're not threatening then it's not a problem and they have no right to move you on.

Notice I used the word a public space. Not a shared space. We don't share public spaces - they don't belong to me and you equally. They belong to neither of us and neither of us has the right to treat that property as our own by enforcing speech within them.

As with the conversation on mental disturbances for children, that is such an incredibly vague barrier to hit that "psychological disturbance" has to be thrown out of the discussion. It's completely arbitrary and we cannot have laws that limit human rights that are so arbitrary.

Here's an example; I went to a bit of a posh school - millionaires kids and silver spoons running around everywhere. I grew up in a 2 up/2 down terraced house. Throughout school I was often negatively referred to by pupils and once or twice a teacher as what we'd now call a "chav". This hurt my feelings and made me feel lesser. Should they have been arrested for this speech?

Of course not. Because whilst my feelings were hurt and it made me ruminate on my life and our differences, it didn't actually stop me from learning or educating myself or schooling. There was no discrimination. My teacher's might have thought I was some sort of stain on the arsecheek of society but that didn't stop them from educating me to what I consider the best of their abilities. So there's no problem.

People can hold whatever views they want. They can often verbalise whatever views they want. They cannot then use these views to infringe on my freedom to be educated properly.

This is a very easy line to draw because it's the only line that allows any sort of consistency of ethics.
 
Liberalism demands "as much freedom of speech" as possible and i favour that, i just recognise that barriers on free speech of the nature i discribed already exist within normative law. Namely, you can find example's where the principle of "one's freedom ends where another one's begins" apply, and such could be that example of expressing free speech in a public place at night in a volume of decibels that is considered illegal.

Aka, i'm fine with someone singing Nazi propaganda within his own house at a volume that doesn't disturb anyone, not ok with those nazi propaganda songs being blasted out of minivan sized woofers at night in front of my porch.

I think you always have to take in mind the form of free speech that could entail in some way a breech of the law. For a more practicle example perhaps, discrimination is forbidden and therefore it free speech that aids with discrimination could be accesory to that breech of law.
I suppose there might be other examples that fit. But as I look at your example above it's not the Nazi propaganda that's the issue here, it's simply the noise.. Whether it was a Nazi propaganda or a nursery school rhymes, it would have been unacceptable at loud decibels, in the middle of the night, in front of your porch. It's the noise that's unacceptable. The actual information relayed in that noise was simply incidental.

I'm not suggesting there aren't limits to free speech, there are. Certainly in America we know of the Obscenity, Incitement to violence, and lying are all examples of limits on free speech.

Albeit, the prevailing mores of society changes what is and isn't acceptable free speech overtime. For example Blasphemy used to be deemed obscene and a limit on free speech. Now Blasphemy is wholly acceptable. Although most limits related to Obscenity now focuses on Child pornography and the like.

Now it won't surprise me if child pornography stops being considered obscene. As Pedophilia Support Groups continue to push for acceptance.

It really gets tricky (and lots of leftist groups have been doing this as a tactic) where they start recasting a disagreement in positions as violence against their position.

Most recent calls for limits on free speech seem to be of that variety. "I take offense at your disagreement, thus you should be censored."

And that's worrying.
 
I suppose there might be other examples that fit. But as I look at your example above it's not the Nazi propaganda that's the issue here, it's simply the noise.. Whether it was a Nazi propaganda or a nursery school rhymes, it would have been unacceptable at loud decibels, in the middle of the night, in front of your porch. It's the noise that's unacceptable. The actual information relayed in that noise was simply incidental.

Sure, but the practicle result of it is that "laws to some degree limit free speech". You agree that law puts some limitations, some don't. You give some good example's of how law further limits free speech in cases, suffice to say that indeed for example a teacher isn't allowed to make oppinions to minors that could be perceived as "solliciting for sex", guess that falls under obscenity for you.

Albeit, the prevailing mores of society changes what is and isn't acceptable free speech overtime. For example Blasphemy used to be deemed obscene and a limit on free speech. Now Blasphemy is wholly acceptable. Although most limits related to Obscenity now focuses on Child pornography and the like.

I am no fan of censorship, the only thing is that i recognise that some limits on free speech are nessecary so i can't be radically for free speech in any and all case as some would seem to be. Notably certain members of the anti pc crowd act as if it's all that simple that no limit should exist whatsoever. The anti PC crowd is perfectly valid in contemporary culture given indeed that there is also a "pc crowd" that tries to stretch it when it comes to censorship and ill give them a point as long as they don't act as if it's "all that simple" and no limitations are needed whatsoever. Every limitation to free speech must be thurally discusses so that we keep the limitations to a functional minimal imho.

Most recent calls for limits on free speech seem to be of that variety. "I take offense at your disagreement, thus you should be censored."

And that's worrying.

Yeah i agree that there is a trend to explore how new limitations could be set on free speech, it's nothing we should do withought absolutly good reason but not everyone will always agree on what is good reason. as mentioned i think the "anti-pc" crowd have a contemporary function but it can also be taken to redculous extremes.

However i must also note: if there is one contemporary matter of censorship that i find most egregious then it must be that "US/UK media won't show brutal pictures of the consequences of warfare", they started this since the Iraq war. Free speech apparently doesn't go so far that you can show pictures to the American public on how their bombs are ripping apart children. Weirdly enough i never found a lot of symphaty for my case that US/UK media should absolutly be allowed and even be encouraged to bombard their viewers with that sort of stuff. Afcourse, this censorship is not enshrined in law, supposedly its a "self imposed voluntary censorship" by media channels to which they certaintly were not pressured by their goverment... certaintly.
 
And I think you SHOULD be allowed to sit underneath my window spouting Nazi propaganda at 3am as I live in a town centre. I don't own the road nor the air. It's a public space.
I think the cops or somebody should show up and remind you that you're causing a bit of a nuisance but as long as you're not threatening then it's not a problem and they have no right to move you on.

Notice I used the word a public space. Not a shared space. We don't share public spaces - they don't belong to me and you equally. They belong to neither of us and neither of us has the right to treat that property as our own by enforcing speech within them.

As with the conversation on mental disturbances for children, that is such an incredibly vague barrier to hit that "psychological disturbance" has to be thrown out of the discussion. It's completely arbitrary and we cannot have laws that limit human rights that are so arbitrary.

Here's an example; I went to a bit of a posh school - millionaires kids and silver spoons running around everywhere. I grew up in a 2 up/2 down terraced house. Throughout school I was often negatively referred to by pupils and once or twice a teacher as what we'd now call a "chav". This hurt my feelings and made me feel lesser. Should they have been arrested for this speech?

Of course not. Because whilst my feelings were hurt and it made me ruminate on my life and our differences, it didn't actually stop me from learning or educating myself or schooling. There was no discrimination. My teacher's might have thought I was some sort of stain on the arsecheek of society but that didn't stop them from educating me to what I consider the best of their abilities. So there's no problem.

People can hold whatever views they want. They can often verbalise whatever views they want. They cannot then use these views to infringe on my freedom to be educated properly.

This is a very easy line to draw because it's the only line that allows any sort of consistency of ethics.
Kids can be cruel, calling you a Chav but it’s unforgivable for a teacher to do so, the very essence of an educator should be to teach all children what’s right and wrong. As we get older we make our own minds up but the preparation for adulthood shouldn’t be impaired by a teachers prejudice.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.