2025_05_20 spread expectation for free speech0001.pdf

The pdf is not easy to read because it has to be downloaded first. The gist of the file is that social media can be used to spread to people around the world to have a universal expectation for free speech which includes speech critical of government. It gives example of categories of how to agitate for more speech in a country where people are fined or jailed for it. It makes the obvious observation that such techniques will not make big waves in countries where free speech is supported widely already and where government does not enforce double standards in regards to speech.

More examples are welcome.

Moderator Note

Our rules require that material for discussion be posted. Is there some reason you can’t just do this?

15 hours ago, shanesmith said:

The pdf is not easy to read because it has to be downloaded first. The gist of the file is that social media can be used to spread to people around the world to have a universal expectation for free speech which includes speech critical of government.

Can we just discuss the concept? Is there any need to download this file? Did you write it?

If not, we'd really rather hear your words on the subject. As if we're talking around a table, rather than listening to you lecture.

Freedom of speech is a key ingredient to fighting oppressive, authoritarian regimes. Free speech MUST include speech critical of the government.

16 hours ago, shanesmith said:

2025_05_20 spread expectation for free speech0001.pdf

The pdf is not easy to read because it has to be downloaded first. The gist of the file is that social media can be used to spread to people around the world to have a universal expectation for free speech which includes speech critical of government. It gives example of categories of how to agitate for more speech in a country where people are fined or jailed for it. It makes the obvious observation that such techniques will not make big waves in countries where free speech is supported widely already and where government does not enforce double standards in regards to speech.

More examples are welcome.

Perhaps we could discuss this

Rowan Atkinson: Free Speech

In particular, "the freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all".

As one who admire Atkinson's eloquence on this matter, I feel compelled to post this quote from the address which @KJW has thoughtfully linked for us:

It is what you might call The New Intolerance, a new but intense desire to gag uncomfortable voices of dissent. ‘I am not intolerant’, say many people; say many softly spoken, highly educated, liberal-minded people: ‘I am only intolerant of intolerance’. And people tend to nod sagely and say ‘Oh, wise words, wise words’ and yet if you think about this supposedly inarguable statement for longer than five seconds, you realize that all it is advocating is the replacement of one kind of intolerance with another. Which to me doesn’t represent any kind of progress at all. Underlying prejudices, injustices or resentments are not addressed by arresting people: they are addressed by the issues being aired, argued and dealt with preferably outside the legal process. For me, the best way to increase society’s resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it. As with childhood diseases, you can better resist those germs to which you have been exposed.

9 hours ago, TheVat said:

As one who admire Atkinson's eloquence on this matter, I feel compelled to post this quote from the address which @KJW has thoughtfully linked for us:

It is what you might call The New Intolerance, a new but intense desire to gag uncomfortable voices of dissent. ‘I am not intolerant’, say many people; say many softly spoken, highly educated, liberal-minded people: ‘I am only intolerant of intolerance’. And people tend to nod sagely and say ‘Oh, wise words, wise words’ and yet if you think about this supposedly inarguable statement for longer than five seconds, you realize that all it is advocating is the replacement of one kind of intolerance with another. Which to me doesn’t represent any kind of progress at all. Underlying prejudices, injustices or resentments are not addressed by arresting people: they are addressed by the issues being aired, argued and dealt with preferably outside the legal process. For me, the best way to increase society’s resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it. As with childhood diseases, you can better resist those germs to which you have been exposed.

Isn't that approach Darwinian?

22 hours ago, TheVat said:

As one who admire Atkinson's eloquence on this matter, I feel compelled to post this quote from the address which @KJW has thoughtfully linked for us:

It is what you might call The New Intolerance, a new but intense desire to gag uncomfortable voices of dissent. ‘I am not intolerant’, say many people; say many softly spoken, highly educated, liberal-minded people: ‘I am only intolerant of intolerance’. And people tend to nod sagely and say ‘Oh, wise words, wise words’ and yet if you think about this supposedly inarguable statement for longer than five seconds, you realize that all it is advocating is the replacement of one kind of intolerance with another.

Indeed, being tolerant automatically means you don't like it.

13 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Isn't that approach Darwinian?

I'd say it's anti-Darwinian, in that societal tolerance allows the weaker amongst us to also survive the anger of the intolerant.

13 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Isn't that approach Darwinian?

It's a good question. I think it's more anti-Darwinian, as Dim suggested. In the sense of maybe decreasing dog piles upon those who offend, allowing speech to be countered rather than suffocated. As an American jurist said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. But yeah, if we're talking cruel hate speech against someone young and vulnerable...then maybe sometimes you do have to just shut it down. When does intolerance become abuse is a question that arises.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

When does intolerance become abuse is a question that arises.

I think the word your seeking is obtuse...

Something I recall reading about tolerating intolerance or not is that tolerance is not a moral standard. Tolerating others is part of the social contract. If you don’t, then you exist outside of the social contract structure and aren’t covered by it.