The first thing a kidnapper does is gag the victim so they cannot sound the alarm. Give up your free speech and the freedom of the press at your peril. Once they are able to silence you, the game is over. The loss of all of your other freedoms will fall like dominoes after. Anyone that advocates to censor you, or to unmask your anonymity is your adversary. Treat them like one - no matter what else they say.
But why is it so vital and necessary for the combined monolithic apparatus of government, corporations, and NGOs, to brute force censor everyone while decimating the careers and reputations of the dissenters? Here is why:
The reason the First Amendment is prime directive order 1, is because it is the most important freedom we have for the same reason it is the first target an adversary subverts, disrupts, and destroys during a crime, a war, or a takeover—preventing a target from assembling, communicating, and organizing a response to an assault grants an enormous advantage to the aggressors.
"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we will be led, like sheep to the slaughter." -Washington
And i am sorry to say it but this is where the rubber meets the road: The Second Amendment is second because it is the remedy for anyone trying to subvert the First.
‘The individual decides without an umpire deciding for them.’
This is the very heart of it. The people in charge, our elite, however you want to define that, cannot bear the idea that they do not get to be the umpires.
They demand the power to adjudicate over an increasing number of areas in our lives.
Speech is the most important of these areas of course, because curtailing our freedom of expression stops us complaining about their overreach.
Solid breakdown of why policing speach is inherently more complex than allowing it. The point about sophistry is crucial becuase so much of the anti-free-speech argument relies on emotional manipulation disguised as protection. When people claim certain statements cause harm when they're actually just offensive, they're collapsing important distinctions that let censorship creep.
Banning 'grave harm' speech is the first step on the slippery slope to first restrict and then eliminate free speech. If you are a true absolute free speech advocate, you mustn't step on it but be just as confident that it self-corrects as the rest does.
Perhaps that is true. It is worth acknowledging that even in the Anglosphere there are some accepted restrictions, albeit very limited in scope. But you are correct and it is worthy of dfiscussion.
Free speech is absolutely about taking sides, to many.
The feeling is this:
[Allowing free speech means allowing dangerous thoughts and ideas that may lead people astray, and therefore to allow such means the one who allows those ideas is culpable for any ill effects further down the causal chain.
Therefore, it is a virtuous duty for the enlightened to restrict and curate what ideas the people is exposed to, for their own good.]
You can dress that up in Catholic dogma, islamic preaching, wokeism, moral majority, that English biddy what used to complain about naughty bits in the papers, Disneyfication of folktales, and so on but it all amounts to the same thing, as described above:
Censorship always involves real contempt, on the part of the censor, for audiences and listeners. The underlying assumption is that the individual citizen is weak, stupid, susceptible, easily led -- everything that the censor, again by presumption, is not. The censor says to the citizenry: I can handle viewing this material but you, a mere child, cannot; you are sheep, but I am the shepherd; you are lemmings, but I am the wall. The censor axiomatically valorizes himself, while deprecating the individual, and thus democracy itself.
I agree. Contempt is a good word to describe the underlying foundation. It is a kind of sneer. You cannot be trusted with this so your betters must do it for you.
Covid demonstrated that layer of society was incapable of independent thought when under pressure.
"Except for the USA where the First Amendment still carries weight, leading Western nations now openly censor and punish those who transgress imposed restrictions on speech."
The First Amendment is losing weight fast!
"They use their intellectual talents to tarnish it with spurious notions of protecting the vulnerable from harm."
They use their lack of integrity to tarnish it with spurious notions of protecting the vulnerable from harm.
"There are only two groups involved in discussions about censorship:
The Restriction Group wish to restrict some content; this means less content;
The Open Group wish to publish all content, including distasteful material."
Agreed, there are two types of speech: free and controlled.
That, to me, is the best argument against censorship. It will *always* be abused.
Here in the US, we've long had laws on the books with regard to child pornography, libel, and possibly other very specific examples. Pretty much everything else should be allowed.
The first thing a kidnapper does is gag the victim so they cannot sound the alarm. Give up your free speech and the freedom of the press at your peril. Once they are able to silence you, the game is over. The loss of all of your other freedoms will fall like dominoes after. Anyone that advocates to censor you, or to unmask your anonymity is your adversary. Treat them like one - no matter what else they say.
But why is it so vital and necessary for the combined monolithic apparatus of government, corporations, and NGOs, to brute force censor everyone while decimating the careers and reputations of the dissenters? Here is why:
The reason the First Amendment is prime directive order 1, is because it is the most important freedom we have for the same reason it is the first target an adversary subverts, disrupts, and destroys during a crime, a war, or a takeover—preventing a target from assembling, communicating, and organizing a response to an assault grants an enormous advantage to the aggressors.
"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we will be led, like sheep to the slaughter." -Washington
And i am sorry to say it but this is where the rubber meets the road: The Second Amendment is second because it is the remedy for anyone trying to subvert the First.
Totally agree. Everyone needs a first and second amendment.
‘The individual decides without an umpire deciding for them.’
This is the very heart of it. The people in charge, our elite, however you want to define that, cannot bear the idea that they do not get to be the umpires.
They demand the power to adjudicate over an increasing number of areas in our lives.
Speech is the most important of these areas of course, because curtailing our freedom of expression stops us complaining about their overreach.
Thanks Spiff great article. 👍
Oh they definitely want to remain our umpires for all sorts of things. Speech, TV shows, food, the interwebs, you name it. But times are changing...
I hope so Spiff. But you are always more optimistic about these things than me!
Reality is real. Our elites are inept. I am convinced of it.
Solid breakdown of why policing speach is inherently more complex than allowing it. The point about sophistry is crucial becuase so much of the anti-free-speech argument relies on emotional manipulation disguised as protection. When people claim certain statements cause harm when they're actually just offensive, they're collapsing important distinctions that let censorship creep.
Yes we must remind people most of the "harmful" speech is just offensive to some. There is no harm.
They redefined "harm" just like they redefined "vaccine".
They certainly did. Even perceived harm and potential harm get an airing. Pathetic.
Banning 'grave harm' speech is the first step on the slippery slope to first restrict and then eliminate free speech. If you are a true absolute free speech advocate, you mustn't step on it but be just as confident that it self-corrects as the rest does.
Perhaps that is true. It is worth acknowledging that even in the Anglosphere there are some accepted restrictions, albeit very limited in scope. But you are correct and it is worthy of dfiscussion.
Free speech is absolutely about taking sides, to many.
The feeling is this:
[Allowing free speech means allowing dangerous thoughts and ideas that may lead people astray, and therefore to allow such means the one who allows those ideas is culpable for any ill effects further down the causal chain.
Therefore, it is a virtuous duty for the enlightened to restrict and curate what ideas the people is exposed to, for their own good.]
You can dress that up in Catholic dogma, islamic preaching, wokeism, moral majority, that English biddy what used to complain about naughty bits in the papers, Disneyfication of folktales, and so on but it all amounts to the same thing, as described above:
Giving yourself the duty to think for others.
Once you do that, you can justify anything.
I agree. Which is why we need to remind people free speech has little do do with content you find objectionable. It is all emotion of course.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
I learned that at the age of four. It’s really that simple.
Alas, not any more. Haven't you heard? Words are violence 🧐
<little finger to corner of mouth> …Right.
Moreover, you can't download sticks, and you can't upload stones.
This makes sense under current regime but is another liberal myth that allowed us to get here. Free speech for friends, censorship for enemies.
Yes, of course. All the more reason to establish free speech for all.
The point is, it makes sense to demand it now. But the goal is for our guys to end up with power to censor the other side.
Censorship always involves real contempt, on the part of the censor, for audiences and listeners. The underlying assumption is that the individual citizen is weak, stupid, susceptible, easily led -- everything that the censor, again by presumption, is not. The censor says to the citizenry: I can handle viewing this material but you, a mere child, cannot; you are sheep, but I am the shepherd; you are lemmings, but I am the wall. The censor axiomatically valorizes himself, while deprecating the individual, and thus democracy itself.
I agree. Contempt is a good word to describe the underlying foundation. It is a kind of sneer. You cannot be trusted with this so your betters must do it for you.
Covid demonstrated that layer of society was incapable of independent thought when under pressure.
"Except for the USA where the First Amendment still carries weight, leading Western nations now openly censor and punish those who transgress imposed restrictions on speech."
The First Amendment is losing weight fast!
"They use their intellectual talents to tarnish it with spurious notions of protecting the vulnerable from harm."
They use their lack of integrity to tarnish it with spurious notions of protecting the vulnerable from harm.
"There are only two groups involved in discussions about censorship:
The Restriction Group wish to restrict some content; this means less content;
The Open Group wish to publish all content, including distasteful material."
Agreed, there are two types of speech: free and controlled.
Absolutely. Free or unfree.
'Who gets to decide what is restricted or not?'
That, to me, is the best argument against censorship. It will *always* be abused.
Here in the US, we've long had laws on the books with regard to child pornography, libel, and possibly other very specific examples. Pretty much everything else should be allowed.
That is the Anglo-Saxon tradition. All is permissible except that which is explicitly forbidden.
Our would-be controllers lack the confidence to operate in such an environment. Words, we are told, are violence.
Brilliant.