by Kacey Y » Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:47 pm
I think the problem with using terms like "Freedom of Speech" (TM, C, USA#1) is that people using it are often using some vague idealistic concept of it and not the legal/Constitutional definition. Usually in the vein of "I'm allowed to say anything I want, all points of view are equal and valid, to visit any reaction or consequence on me is censorship". None of which is true, literally or legally.
Here's example of the different views of freedom of speech, in the political context it's getting argued over most these days, using the Holocaust as a focal point.
*****NOT MY BELIEFS, ONLY EXAMPLES*****
A) The Holocaust was a huge event in world history, that harmed a lot of people in ways that they could never get over, but in the not too distant future everyone directly associated with it will be dead. So it's not really that impactful on a personal basis for people these days. So we really shouldn't worry about legislation or lawsuits over it or what people say about it, it's just a historical event, it doesn't really affect the present.
B) The Holocaust never happened or at the very least, it was greatly exaggerated. The Nazis were bad, but the Jews are milking the events of WWII in order to manipulate and control world media, government and economy.
**********
A is an opinion. Not a very well informed or realistic one, one that could have terrible effects if translated from personal opinion into public policy, but an opinion none the less. B is an assertion that matters of historical fact, experienced directly by people still living, are a lie, by a person who did not experience those events. Beyond claiming something that happened really didn't, it ascribes sinister motivations to the people who claim it did.
It's the difference between having the right to express an opinion that isn't popular and having the right to claim facts are opinions. If someone expressed A in public as a political candidate, people might not vote for them. If someone said it in a job interview, people might not hire them. If a CEO said it in an interview, people might boycott their business. If a celebrity said it on Twitter, sponsors might drop their advertising from their show and the network might cancel it. None of those things are censorship, no one in the government (or anywhere else) prevented them from expressing that opinion. They can't be legally punished for expressing it.
I think it goes beyond people thinking "Freedom of Speech" is B, it's also that idea that it means their immune from consequence, reprisal or lawsuit. They're not, they're only guaranteed the right to not be criminally prosecuted for their unpopular opinion or prevented from expressing it. The truth is, they're even allowed things like B (not in every country, but this one). Unfortunately, the fact that B is viewed as central to freedom of speech by certain groups of people now means the popularization of the idea that all facts are political opinions and if 99% of people believe one side and 1% believe the other, they both deserve equal time and consideration. Which is legal...but intellectually and ethically toxic to our society, in my opinion.
In other words, it might not be ILLEGAL to say this horrendous shit, but no one is obliged to give these people a wide public platform. So why the hell do they??
Appalachian Queer Punk Moms Local 138
