New Discourses Bullets, Ep. 128
Freedom of speech is a concept a lot of people appreciate but also struggle with. It can be challenging for people to distinguish between threats to their freedom of speech, cancellation, censorship, and, on the other hand, more speech being the answer to speech. Drawing from one of his oldest popular writings, host James Lindsay addresses the issue of freedom of speech in principle in this new episode of New Discourses Bullets. He breaks down the four component freedoms in freedom of speech: to speak, to hear, not to speak, and not to hear. He also distinguishes these from certain things that are not part of freedom of speech, including unprotected speech and a small variety of entitlement complexes that hide behind accusations of censorship. Join him to get clearer on this important issue.
Additional episodes of New Discourses Bullets can be found here.
Subscribe to New Discourses Bullets on SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Pandora, YouTube, Rumble, Odysee or by RSS.
3 comments
Freedom of speech in the community within the community is a moral standard not a law. The law has to do with how the government in the US interacts with the community and it individual members. There are laws that govern some community behavior, but those laws though encompassing speech have to do with other aspects of a community living together. The government is prohibited from creating laws that inhibit freedom of speech. So we hear words like inciting violence or liable.
But within the community “freedom of speech” is a self regulated (via laws and ordinances) that has its genesis in the moral standards of the community.
This is why morality matters. What is your moral code with regards to your speech?
Dear James,
The subject of freedom of speech is topical. However, the assassination of Charlie Kirk has drawn specific attention to ; incitement, complicity, conspiracy and what could be described as accessory. The term “assassination” provides a specific context which is also vital. It is not enough to explain the current laws. As important as they are, they have been proven inadequate at least in their clarity and application.
For several years at least, conservatives have been pointing out the dangerous and threatening practice of labeling adversaries as Fascists or similar provocative epithets. In the context of constant death threats to Kirk this could be, probably should be, considered to be incitement.
Another indictment of the sufficiency of the law is the common willingness to say that Kirk deserved his fate. In a democratic republic that is incongruous and anathema. More importantly it would be incitement to say he deserved to die before the fact and it is incitement to similar actions in the future. Not to mention a confession of complicity in principle. The spirit of the law has been violated and the law should be carefully adapted accordingly. That process starts with public discussion.
Another related topic is the imbalance in assassinations from each side.
Thanks and best wishes,
Andrew
There are some blurry lines when it comes to social media. Twitter for example suppressed the reach of certain individuals in underhanded ways using the algorithms. As well as suppressing content that was deemed to have a particular political flavour. While pushing up content of certain individuals and content of a different political flavour. And when it is all of the major platforms doing it the whole social media landscape acquires a certain stink. If the premise is that you open an account to represent yourself and your personal viewpoint, where’s the line for them suppressing it? If you use the service of a phone company or a postal service where is the line for them to listen to your conversation or open your mail and decide what you can say and not deliver the mail or cut off your call. Maybe I’m conflating the principle of free speech with something else. But the stink doesn’t go away when it becomes very hard to be critical of the mainstream political and cultural ideology, or worse you get arrested for it as per the situation in the UK.