These examples aren't violations of free speech, though you could reasonably argue that they reflect closed-mindedness.
1. Unless the bookshop had some kind of monopoly power, why shouldn't its proprietor choose to sell books they like, and not those they don't? I wouldn't, for example, expect a Christian bookstore to stock atheist books.
2. Unless you have left something out, the only consequence you faced for voicing unpopular opinions was that you were unpopular. Others, exercising their own right to free speech, said things that were critical of you. The scurriers preferred popularity to self-expression.
That's quite different from what we are seeing now from (most of) the erstwhile advocates of free speech - the government firing its own employees and leaning on private employers to do the same.
Yes, JaNo raises a key, classical challenge : Can human political organization, writ large, overcome The Laws Of Nature and the findings of evolution ?
Thanks for this. I couldn’t agree more with the need for consistent principles evenly applied here.
But one item that frustrates me in the free speech and cancel culture discourse is that a bunch of different freedoms all get rolled up into free speech. It makes it difficult to parse and apply consistent standards.
We are actually talking about freedom of expression and to dissent. Freedom to comment on another person’s website and that businesses freedom to police their own website. But also, freedom to advocate for someone else to be fired. And freedom to participate in markets (aka to boycott) based on political considerations.
For me, the freedom of expression is nearly limitless. But when use other people’s tools for your expression, you must agree to play by their rules or ve censored. If you don’t like their rules, you are free to use your market freedoms and avoid them.
I think freedom to advocate for someone else’s firing or punishment is legitimate but should be culturally stigmatized. Free speech snitches, or something. And finally, I think there is no inherent problem with boycotting based on political considerations, but it can get out of hand and so should be done sparingly.
What a wonderful, wonderfully written article. I am not a conservative, but have long regarded myself as a classical liberal (in the sense used by the Economist magazine and by this writer in his article). I could not agree more strongly with the points stated in this article. Thank you.
I believe in freedom of opinion and liberalism. But I detest when people knowingly lie and propagandize racist untruths or twist faith-based teachings to use as justification for cruelty or injustice. It is difficult to tolerate speech that is based in lies and used to manipulate reality to control people…especially when wealthy and powerful people use their platforms to steamroll opposition. The question that is much more relevant is not whether free speech should have limits, but whether ends justify the means in the use of free speech, and whether politicians and the ultra rich/powerful should be accountable for the means (lies) they use…
I am, I mean I need free-speech consistency for me, but not for thee Nazis in our midst. It might be a manufactured memory, but I seem to remember my father yelling at the Aaa Cee Llll users on the boob tube that he did not fight for some wannabe Nazis right to parade around a Jewish town exercising their right to “hate” speech…but I could swear I heard my fifty something old man say he fought to eliminate such scum from the face of the Earth. Just a little thing I wish I could hear the delightful Chi town chap’s reply. Or to put it another way, my officer and Christian gentleman father did not tolerate those that lie, cheat, steal or condone those that celebrate mass murderer…and the only thing he would have done differently if he had been Elwood is slam on the accelerator and he would not have missed…Just a sad and admittedly sick thought to chew on. Gotta run on. Peace through superior mental firepower
These examples aren't violations of free speech, though you could reasonably argue that they reflect closed-mindedness.
1. Unless the bookshop had some kind of monopoly power, why shouldn't its proprietor choose to sell books they like, and not those they don't? I wouldn't, for example, expect a Christian bookstore to stock atheist books.
2. Unless you have left something out, the only consequence you faced for voicing unpopular opinions was that you were unpopular. Others, exercising their own right to free speech, said things that were critical of you. The scurriers preferred popularity to self-expression.
That's quite different from what we are seeing now from (most of) the erstwhile advocates of free speech - the government firing its own employees and leaning on private employers to do the same.
Yes, JaNo raises a key, classical challenge : Can human political organization, writ large, overcome The Laws Of Nature and the findings of evolution ?
Thanks for this. I couldn’t agree more with the need for consistent principles evenly applied here.
But one item that frustrates me in the free speech and cancel culture discourse is that a bunch of different freedoms all get rolled up into free speech. It makes it difficult to parse and apply consistent standards.
We are actually talking about freedom of expression and to dissent. Freedom to comment on another person’s website and that businesses freedom to police their own website. But also, freedom to advocate for someone else to be fired. And freedom to participate in markets (aka to boycott) based on political considerations.
For me, the freedom of expression is nearly limitless. But when use other people’s tools for your expression, you must agree to play by their rules or ve censored. If you don’t like their rules, you are free to use your market freedoms and avoid them.
I think freedom to advocate for someone else’s firing or punishment is legitimate but should be culturally stigmatized. Free speech snitches, or something. And finally, I think there is no inherent problem with boycotting based on political considerations, but it can get out of hand and so should be done sparingly.
Thoughtful column and wonderful conversation on this topic with Jonah on The Remnant.
What a wonderful, wonderfully written article. I am not a conservative, but have long regarded myself as a classical liberal (in the sense used by the Economist magazine and by this writer in his article). I could not agree more strongly with the points stated in this article. Thank you.
I believe in freedom of opinion and liberalism. But I detest when people knowingly lie and propagandize racist untruths or twist faith-based teachings to use as justification for cruelty or injustice. It is difficult to tolerate speech that is based in lies and used to manipulate reality to control people…especially when wealthy and powerful people use their platforms to steamroll opposition. The question that is much more relevant is not whether free speech should have limits, but whether ends justify the means in the use of free speech, and whether politicians and the ultra rich/powerful should be accountable for the means (lies) they use…
I am, I mean I need free-speech consistency for me, but not for thee Nazis in our midst. It might be a manufactured memory, but I seem to remember my father yelling at the Aaa Cee Llll users on the boob tube that he did not fight for some wannabe Nazis right to parade around a Jewish town exercising their right to “hate” speech…but I could swear I heard my fifty something old man say he fought to eliminate such scum from the face of the Earth. Just a little thing I wish I could hear the delightful Chi town chap’s reply. Or to put it another way, my officer and Christian gentleman father did not tolerate those that lie, cheat, steal or condone those that celebrate mass murderer…and the only thing he would have done differently if he had been Elwood is slam on the accelerator and he would not have missed…Just a sad and admittedly sick thought to chew on. Gotta run on. Peace through superior mental firepower