Contemporary threats to free speech

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
Locked
chownah
Posts: 7539
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:18 am

robertk wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:29 am
Thanks for that Paul. It's a strange old world : the sensitive progressives might be offended by an antiabortion message, let's ban it.
Abortion is an issue which crosses political boundaries. I think it is safe to say that there are sensitive conservatives who might be offended and want to ban it.

Also, tobacco use is not a partisan political issue.

Since the two examples given were not what I considered to be good and clear examples of conservatives being censored (as the title of the article implies) I decide to look at where the article originated.....and much to my non-surprise it was from breitbart.

I doubt that there actually are any clear partisan political issues shown. Maybe someone can show that I am wrong and that there are some.

What I have written above is somewhat off topic in that there is still the issue of censorship of things which are not bipartisan political issues. Interestingly (for me) it seems that alot of this has nothing to do with net neutrality which I think is what pai was giving his speech about. Weaponised.
chownah

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 718
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Pseudobabble » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:01 am

chownah wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:18 am

I doubt that there actually are any clear partisan political issues shown. Maybe someone can show that I am wrong and that there are some.
https://politics.stackexchange.com/ques ... ronoun-use

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_stack

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... talk-class
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4207
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Rubber Forest, Phrao, Chiangmai

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Dhammanando » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:08 am

chownah wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:18 am
I doubt that there actually are any clear partisan political issues shown. Maybe someone can show that I am wrong and that there are some.
I think the most recent report on how American opinion is divided on these questions is last month's publication of a survey commissioned by the Cato Institute: The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America.

https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/sta ... ce-america

It's very long and I haven't myself digested it yet, so I'm posting it as something of interest, not as something that will prove you wrong.

chownah
Posts: 7539
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:48 am

Pseudobabble wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:01 am
chownah wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:18 am

I doubt that there actually are any clear partisan political issues shown. Maybe someone can show that I am wrong and that there are some.
https://politics.stackexchange.com/ques ... ronoun-use

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_stack

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... talk-class
I haven't looked at the links. I am not asking if there are partisan political issues since clearly there are.....I am asking if the speech which pai gave addressed any of them. Breitbart news seems to have taken two issues pai addressed which to me seem to not be partisan political issues and tried to pass them off as partisan political issues.....breitbart news does this at every oppportunity from what I have seen. For instance....is tobacco consumption a partisan poplitical issue?....I think not. Likewise for abortion. I seem to remember that in hillary's campaign someone at some time made the statement that right to lifers were welcome in the democratic party.
chownah

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20129
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:00 am

Greetings,

If the fact the speech was reported on by Breitbart gives rise to skepticism &/or concerns of bias, you can read the full Pai speech here (PDF, 5 pages).

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

chownah
Posts: 7539
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by chownah » Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:17 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:00 am
Greetings,

If the fact the speech was reported on by Breitbart gives rise to skepticism &/or concerns of bias, you can read the full Pai speech here (PDF, 5 pages).

Metta,
Paul. :)
The point is not that the speech was reported on by breitbart....the point is that breitbart took two seemingly none partisan political issues and weaponize them to bash their political opponents.....this is something that breitbart does at every opportunity. Fetter.
Why avoid admitting this? It seems that you are avoiding admitting this by bringing the entire speech but not bringing up some real partisan issues mentioned in the speech....of course I could be wrong....and of course you could show me as being wrong by just bringing some excerpts mentioning some partisan issues.....I welcome it....when I am wrong I like being shown that I am wrong unlike many who post here and petulantly whine when possible judgemental errors are suggested.
chownah

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20129
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:49 am

Greetings chownah,
chownah wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:17 am
.of course I could be wrong....
Yes, you are wrong, because I'm against the censorship of ideas, regardless of where those ideas sit on the political (or religious) spectrum. Even bad ideas should be allowed to be expressed, so that they can be annihilated in the marketplace of ideas.

It just so happens that in 2017, the majority of political and religious censorship (and associated threats of punishment) are done in support of left-wing ideals. So-called "hate speech" violations are a good contemporary example of this. In former days censorship may have been done primarily the other way around in support of right-wing ordeals. My concern is authoritarian censorship in general, regardless of whether it's left-wing or right-wing, thus it's not a "partisan" concern. Therefore, you getting in a twist over "partisan" "weaponization" is you arguing with yourself once more. As such, I'm not interested in your urge to quarrel. Thanks.

For what it's worth, a link was provided to Breitbart primarily because Breitbart will actually report on these matters, whereas the majority of mainstream media organisations are advocates of censorship in support of left-wing and globalist ideals (and protecting themselves from "conspiracy theories" about them being sexual predators, working for the CIA &/or George Soros-funded media organisations, aligned with political campaigns etc.), and are therefore far less motivated to voluntarily bring attention to such matters. They would much rather manipulate than draw attention to the manipulation.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

chownah
Posts: 7539
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by chownah » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:11 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:58 am
Greetings,

Day of Reckoning: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Slams Silicon Valley for Censoring Conservatives
.......
......

In further comments, the FCC chairman specifically called out the censorship of Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s pro-life ad, which was blocked by Twitter for “inflammatory speech.”
.......
Metta,
Paul. :)
Breitbart didn't mention that twitter saw their error and the blockage was only temporary.....did they forget?.....did they not know? This isn't news reporting....it is mosh pit politicking.
chownah

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20129
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:16 am

Greetings chownah,
chownah wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:11 am
Breitbart didn't mention that twitter saw their error and the blockage was only temporary.....did they forget?.....did they not know? This isn't news reporting....it is mosh pit politicking.
Realising a mistake was made does not magically mean that a mistake was not made.

I have no interest in your quarrelsomeness. I gave a link to the original speech and despite your protests, that is enough.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

chownah
Posts: 7539
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by chownah » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:21 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:49 am
Greetings chownah,
chownah wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:17 am
.of course I could be wrong....
Yes, you are wrong,
Metta,
Paul. :)
If I am wrong then bring an excerpt of the speech showing pai's mention of a partisan political issue.
I'll give you a hint.....there is at least one there in his speech. I did not find this out at breitbart however.....I found it elsewhere. It seems that your idea that only brightbart reported on this is way way off the mark. You should get out of your right wing echo chamber more often.....fact is I found out about this at what I think is a liberal news source.
chownah

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20129
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:24 am

Greetings chownah,
chownah wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:21 am
If I am wrong then bring an excerpt of the speech showing pai's mention of a partisan political issue.
I don't care for your games, chownah. How about you back off and stop sealioning? I just told you the partisan aspect is of no interest to me.

Bye.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

chownah
Posts: 7539
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by chownah » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:38 am

This post is not in reply to retrofuturist.

In pai's speech he said, "Everything nowadays is political. Everything. … This view that politics-is-all is often made worse by social media,". This is exactly the issue I have raised about how breitbart politicizes issues in a partisan way...even issues which are not of a partisan nature. Breitbart really is more of a social media site than a news site. Breitbart is a quintessential example of "This view that politics-is-all is often made worse by social media".

chownah

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by L.N. » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:54 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:21 pm
Like the author, I am pleased that hysterical moral accusations are losing their power as a means by which to suppress the speech of those with whom someone disagrees. The potency of such shrieking accusations and their associated epithets has suffered in recent years due to how transparent it has become to the average citizen that they are being rampantly abused in cynical attempts to gain social, economic or political advantage.
Wow. This is the first time I have opened or looked at this Topic, and now I have a better sense of why there may be so much resistance to various Topics regarding Right Speech.

There must be some middle ground where people can speak with one another in a mutually respectful way without assuming that someone is either (i) hysterically PC, or (ii) needlessly insensitive.
retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:35 pm
The purpose of this topic is to discuss the prevalence of trends, actions, ideologies and policies which are a threat to free speech in the 21st century.

The threats in scope for this discussion are inclusive of threats that arise from all sides of politics, from all ideologies, and from all groups and institutions.

I will share some examples soon, but I wanted to keep specific examples out of the "original post" in order to avoid confusion about the parameters of this topic.
I haven't read through this entire Topic, so apologies if this is rehashing, but one significant threat to free speech is when the President of the United States calls for NFL players to be fired for taking a knee during the national anthem, which they do as a form of protesting racial inequality, and when Trump also falsely accuses them of protesting the flag (nobody is protesting the flag). When the political establishment begins going after people for expressive conduct, it is a threat to freedom of speech.

There are other examples of modern threats to free speech which originate when those who are accustomed to being entitled feel discomfort when asked to treat others with dignity and respect.
retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:49 am
It just so happens that in 2017, the majority of political and religious censorship (and associated threats of punishment) are done in support of left-wing ideals.
Nonsense.
So-called "hate speech" violations are a good contemporary example of this.
"Hate speech" means fighting words which constitute a racial or ethnic epithet, without social value, which would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. Even if the law protects such speech, it is still not the kind of speech we should commend or promote. It is not a "hysterical moral accusation" to call such speech what it is: hate speech.
... My concern is authoritarian censorship in general, regardless of whether it's left-wing or right-wing, thus it's not a "partisan" concern.
What is wrong with self-regulation and self-control? What is wrong with someone speaking up to say, those words are offensive?
Therefore, you getting in a twist over "partisan" "weaponization" is you arguing with yourself once more. As such, I'm not interested in your urge to quarrel.
Wow. Getting very personal about a Member who happens to disagree with you. So if someone disagrees with you, it reflects a state of mind inclined toward "quarreling"? If someone disagrees with you, it is "getting in a twist"? But if you disagree with someone else, no problem, and no further response is invited? Hope this comment doesn't cause you to become quarrelsome and get into a twist.
For what it's worth, a link was provided to Breitbart primarily because Breitbart will actually report on these matters, whereas the majority of mainstream media organisations are advocates of censorship in support of left-wing and globalist ideals (and protecting themselves from "conspiracy theories" about them being sexual predators etc.), and are therefore far less motivated to voluntarily bring attention to such matters.
Utter nonsense.
They would much rather manipulate than draw attention to the manipulate.
Who is "they"? What kind of nonsense are you trying to put forth regarding traditional news sources?

From the ridiculous blog entry linked above:
This attitude includes, but is not at all limited to, the imbecilic concept of microaggressions, according to which a person may be “offensive” and guilty of “aggression” even when conscientiously trying to be polite ....
That sounds mighty familiar to me, after witnessing people who conscientiously try to be polite only to be vilified by right-wing conspiracy theorists.

I am sure you will love and agree with the following twisted viewpoints:“DANGEROUSLY VAGUE” – NEW US LAW BLURS THE LINE BETWEEN HATE SPEECH AND HATE CRIME.

Unfortunate when hate speech is given priority over common civility.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 718
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Pseudobabble » Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:21 am

L.N. wrote: "Hate speech" means fighting words which constitute a racial or ethnic epithet, without social value, which would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. Even if the law protects such speech, it is still not the kind of speech we should commend or promote. It is not a "hysterical moral accusation" to call such speech what it is: hate speech.
"Hate Speech" is a nonsense concept. We (and most places) already have laws against incitement to violence, which make no reference to the content of the speech, except insofar as it is judged to be incitement to violence. The designation of 'hate speech' implies, since it makes reference to content, that there is an absolute scale of 'moral' qualities, and that the beliefs behind the 'hate speech' are lower on the scale than the beliefs of the designator. This is directly contrary to the principles of free speech, tolerance for the ideals of others, and equality under the law. To perform the reductio, it is as though we were to designate certain colours of car 'hateful', and make our judgements on that basis, rather than mechanical safety.

Further, what is 'hateful', and what is not, is in the 'eye of the beholder', so to speak, and not the one who says the words. This is not to absolve the speaker of the responsibility of thinking through the impact of their words, but merely to point out that if we leave the designation of morally unacceptable speech only to the listener, there is an asymmetry in their influence over any ultimate judgement. In effect, if we say that it is the listener who defines what is 'hateful' or offensive, we remove the means of distinguishing formally between statements ('this speech spoken by Nazis is incitement to violence', 'that speech spoken by Black Panthers is not incitement to violence, merely nasty'), leaving only our trust of the listener's motivation. The legal system bequeathed to us makes distinctions on the basis of formal individual equality under the law, not the particular and contingent preferences of those involved.


So, as regards both 'hate speakers' and sensitive listeners:
L.N. wrote: What is wrong with self-regulation and self-control?

After all, there's a world of difference between hearing an unpleasant statement, and a punch in the mouth.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Mr Man » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:05 am

Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:21 am
"Hate Speech" is a nonsense concept. We (and most places) already have laws against incitement to violence, which make no reference to the content of the speech, except insofar as it is judged to be incitement to violence.
Hi Pseudobabble
We also have "hate speech" laws.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests