The problem with discussions like these is that the people who should see and hear them seldom, if ever, take the time.
I had a debate with one student about the lack of freedom of speech on campuses. He denied that any such thing was taking place. I proceeded to provide several examples from various sources that left no doubt.
At that point he admitted that there was some speech that was discouraged or forbidden, but justified it.
Now, I did not use neo-nazi's or white supremacists as an example. I can argue that everyone, no matter how offensive their agenda, has a right to make their case in the court of public opinion. But that would have been counter productive to the discussion. The examples I used were similar to the individuals in the above video. People advocating individual rights and free market capitalism. Often referred to as "Hate Speech".
His argument morphed to the idea that college campuses are the last frontier, the only safe place left for marginalized people to have a voice. To him, that apparently requires that others have no voice at all. "We're all equal, but some are more equal that others" <G>
A lot of people seem to have lost sight of the fact that when you give one group a "special" platform, you are not bringing us together. Quite the contrary.
And speaking of free speech. In today's conservative world:
More Money = More free speech.
"Some people are more equal than others."
More money=more free speech?
Not sure I agree. Free speech is binary. You either have it or you don't. Money can help get your message to more people, for certain, and that's certainly not limited to conservatives. Lots of money on both sides of the aisle.
Wealthy political folks on both sides of the isle, it is true.
But corporations seem to use their "free speech" more than poor folks, who have little voice.
As do unions, assorted networks, etc. etc.
It's a double edged sword no mater how you slice it <G>
Poor people have less of a voice.
Your denial speaks volumes...
So I guess you are abandoning your original declaration:
"And speaking of free speech. In today's conservative world:
More Money = More free speech."
Can't say I blame you. The idea is every legal citizen has a voice at the voting booth. Outside of places like California anyway.
Not abandoning anything.
Are you confused that there is a difference between free speech and the right to vote?
by Lata Nott, Executive Director, First Amendment Center
The First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship. Social media platforms are private companies, and can censor what people post on their websites as they see fit. But given their growing role in public discourse, it’s important to ask ourselves–what exactly are their censorship policies? How do they compare to each other, and to the First Amendment’s protections?
https://quillette.com/2019/06/23/how-free-speech-dies-online/
Last year, I explained why it is wrong to consider weakening speech protections to allow bans on speech by the alt-right, neo-Nazis, or other far-Right groups: it is safer to let Nazis speak in a society that places high value on individual rights and has strong legal protections for those rights than it is to risk letting Nazis take control of institutional power in a society where protections on individual rights have been eroded. I explained, with specific examples, how easy it would be for a far-Right regime to turn restrictions on violent or hateful speech against its enemies.
However, since then, while free speech has remained a controversial topic, the focus of the debate has moved away from restrictions on speech by state actors, and toward the question of how corporate entities that privately control the platforms which host a great deal of our speech and debate should regulate and moderate their users.
These platforms are not bound by the US Constitution or by other legal regimes that protect private speech from state coercion, but their rule-making processes should be guided by the same principles that led all Western democracies to implement strong protections for speech—even speech that others may find offensive.
Well Sam, you started with "In a conservative world, more money = free speech" When you acknowledged that there is money on all sides buying "Free Speech" I assumed you had abandoned your original statement.
I apologize for my misconception.
So, since this is , based on your statement, a conservative problem, what would be your liberal solution? How would you fix it so that in a country of roughly 320 million, everyone gets a chance to have everyone else listen? We have the internet. That certainly helps, and even the poorest of the poor can access the internet at their local library. But that hardly seems to come close.
I suggested that the loudest and most equal form of expression is in the voting booth where the richest has the same vote as the hardest worker who has the same vote as the laziest slacker. But you seemed to think I was just confusing the issue.
So, I'll ask again, what is your liberal solution?
First of all, address me as joj. I will continue to address you as Tim.
I offer no solutions. Not because I think none exist, but I know a rabbit hole when I see one.
I am easily able to acknowledge that campuses are left leaning and trample on free speech rights of some far right conservatives. But you? You cannot acknowledge that poor people have less of a voice. It is so obvious that they do. Money buys speech, "justice" and much more.
I am not blaming you for the problem. But tell me why you have such a hard time admitting the obvious. Does it somehow lessen you as a human being either in your values or your achievements?
For me, I recognize my privileges in our society (white, educated, male etc...) and I feel blessed for them.
Poor people have every bit as much a right to free speech as rich people.. Are you really claiming other? The courts would all disagree.
Can they take out a full page ad in the local newspaper? Not without getting the money to do so. Same for me.
Not sure what you point is. Why are you trying to create victims out of thin air?
This is where joj is obviously coming from:
https://democracyisforpeople.org/page.cfm?id=19
I will say though, that this dynamic has been changed greatly by a competing force that is even more powerful today in many ways..........the Mainstream(national) Media.
Here's one person's view on this(and they have some good points):
https://globalfreedommovement.org/five-current-mass-media-thought-control-strategies/
I thought that's where he might be trying to go, but I wanted to hear it. Thanks for bringing it up.
Citizens United, where the courts upheld the 1st amendment? My biggest question is why the left dislikes the 1st, and interestingly the 2nd amendments so much. Never mind. I think I know.
But look at the alternative to Citizens United. Without rulings like it, you can limit the flow of some cash to the political process.. And that would be a good thing, right? Too much cash out there.. Who can argue with that? The current election cycle runs for about 2 years. Do we really need 2 years of this nonsense, most of it based on BS, to make an informed decision? But can you really turn off the spigots from all sources?
For instance, can you put a dollar figure on a network like CNN constantly spewing negative news, much of it nonsense, against your opponent? Do we have the courts rule on a "Fair Reporting" doctrine where networks are required to provide balanced coverage? If they could/did, how would we enforce it? Who would enforce it? Could they be unbiased? What would it look like?
Or what if a union with 20,000 members mobilizes to campaign for a particular candidate over another. How much is that worth? Should we make that illegal?
These are 2 examples, but there are many more. When you plug one or two holes but leave dozens of others wide open, is that more fair? And if you attempt to plug all the holes, you'll have to rely on something that looks a lot like tyranny where nearly every "political" expression is somehow regulated or verboten.
It's been tried many times, often starting with good intentions. But it never turns out well.