Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Creative_soja t1_j34bbh3 wrote

The title is uninformative and misleading. Here are some highlights from the study:

>Over 87% of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, consistently express broad levels of support for free speech and free expression. But, there are willing to selectively withdraw First Amendment protections at times for some category of people. Then why do then make such strong endorsements regarding First Amendment protections? One reason to be skeptical about these declarations of support for free speech is that these endorsements lack tradeoffs and are socially desirable.

So, researchers hypothesized that it costs people nothing to support free speech, so they keep expressing their support. But could this change otherwise? The study essentially explored if introducing 'costs' affects support for free speech. The cost was the introduction of "the use of hurtful language".

For the control group, they asked: "I would never support restricting my or someone else’s freedom of speech"

For treatment ( 'cost') groups, they asked: "I would never support restricting my or someone else’s freedom of speech even if it means that Democrats/Republicans/other people will be able to say hurtful things about me/others"

The results show that

>Americans are willing to limit First Amendment protections for everyone (themselves included) when they deem the speech to be hurtful. However, they appear less ready to limit First Amendment protections for strictly partisan or ideological purposes. Respondents were relatively more opposed to censorship on college campuses when they heard different ideological viewpoints.

I don't find the results too significant. It was intuitive already that people might be reluctant to support free speech that was hurtful to in-groups and out-groups. Based on the introduction of the study, I was hoping they would explore why people changed their support for free speech. Was it just to avoid hurting others?

Edits: improved for clarity and grammar.

41

thereisonlyoneme t1_j37qxx7 wrote

Did they define "hurtful?" To me it means anything negative, but that is just my experience. I assume there is either an academic definition or it was defined for the study.

11

Creative_soja t1_j380jjt wrote

No. Unless I missed it, it seems they just used "hurtful" in a sentence of a survey question.

7

Evening_Team t1_j37mvh5 wrote

Insist on giving respect in public discourse rather than avoiding "hurtful" speech. Why? Because I cannot possibly anticipate every kind of way that another person might feel "hurt" by my words, even when my intent is to be very careful. Why? Because probably I do not know so much about the full lives of most individuals that I might speak to, whether in person (that is, directly) or remotely (that is, indirectly).

7

EasternShade t1_j37xb63 wrote

I don't think it's referring to hurt feelings, but to speech that causes or leads to harm. i.e. threatening someone is hurtful, whether it's done respectfully or not. And, whistle blowing on toxic chemical dumping is helping people, whether it's done respectfully or not.

There's still going to be some point where people argue whether or not particular speech is hurtful, but I don't think it's as sensitive as you're suggesting.

0

MountainScorpion t1_j38wvng wrote

Well, we have to be careful of those arguments, because people frequently try to equate speech to violence or actual harm, and that's a dark road.

3

Evening_Team t1_j3adddi wrote

In some districts the police can shoot you if they "feel" afraid.

1

EasternShade t1_j3962at wrote

That violence and speech aren't equivalent doesn't determine whether they can cause harm. And, some speech does cause direct harm.

I'm not arguing to say that speech, violence, and harm are equivalent, but it'd be incorrect to assert that speech doesn't cause harm.

0

MountainScorpion t1_j397ruk wrote

If I speak the words, "May Zeus strike you down", and you are hit with a thunderbolt - did I commit violence? Did I commit harm? Did I commit a crime?

2

EasternShade t1_j39cxhq wrote

Did you commit violence? No.

Did you commit harm? Probably not. The subject and context matters here.

Did you commit a crime? Assuming that's the whole of it, no.

More to consider,

Are you clergy of Zeus? Are you speaking to devotees of Zeus? Is part of the faith that this person, or people like them, pose an existential threat? What's the audience for your message?

In the Milgram Experiment, the whole incentive was nothing but words. And to the best of their knowledge, at least 28% of people were prepared to inflict fatal voltages, as high as 91%, 61% on average in the US. On nothing but words.

Knowing this, if someone were holding the clipboard when the 'learner' is actually being electrocuted by the 'teacher', does their contribution only being words absolve them? Would they commit violence? Would they cause harm? Would it be a crime?

1

MountainScorpion t1_j39f7f4 wrote

>Are you clergy of Zeus? Are you speaking to devotees of Zeus? Is part of the faith that this person, or people like them, pose an existential threat? What's the audience for your message?

Do we assume Zeus does or doesn't exist? IMHO, law should assume that he does not. Which means, absent proof, the speech did nothing. Except perhaps offend someone.

If he does:

Can we prove the intent of Zeus?

Can Zeus be depositioned or investigated?

Would Zeus submit to the judgment of a mortal government?

​

>Knowing this, if someone were holding the clipboard when the 'learner' is actually being electrocuted by the 'teacher', does their contribution only being words absolve them? Would they commit violence? Would they cause harm? Would it be a crime?

This is a loaded question from the perspective of free thought. We cannot prove intent as we are not psychic. Therefore, we can only and should only punish action.

Policing speech is the same as policing thought, no matter how disgusting or dangerous that speech is - history and philosophy have proven time and again that doing so is not a good idea.

The milgram experiment does highlight a weakness, and that is why it is up to culture to fight it, not law.

This was all covered pretty heavily by John Stuart Mill. I don't agree with him on everything, but it's pretty well considered.

2

EasternShade t1_j39j8dr wrote

>Do we assume Zeus does or doesn't exist? IMHO, law should assume that he does not. Which means, absent proof, the speech did nothing. Except perhaps offend someone.

Whether or not a deity will exist, their followers do. Speaking to them is what I'm referring to.

>Therefore, we can only and should only punish action.

Yet, Manson is rightly in jail.

>Policing speech is the same as policing thought, no matter how disgusting or dangerous that speech is - history and philosophy have proven time and again that doing so is not a good idea.

And yet we recognize speech as a crime. Threatening someone, slander, libel, bribery, and conspiracy are all comes. Intellectual property laws are government backed censorship on the grounds that people can call 'dibs' on some speech.

> The milgram experiment does highlight a weakness, and that is why it is up to culture to fight it, not law.

And we have historical examples of cultures failing in this and lawfully committing genocide until others intervene. Law can provide an additional barrier to inhibit such cultural shifts.

I recognize that it is difficult to define where the line is crossed, but the notion that all speech should be limitless does not align with significant portions of philosophy or law.

2

Evening_Team t1_j3acfge wrote

There is little basis for any overt spoken threats of personal harm within a society, even when asserting self-defense. The right to self-defense should be presumed at all times and thus need not be asserted in speech as a type of overt threat. Overt threats, such as brandishing a firearm, are also subject to prosecution under a pertinent statute.

1

EasternShade t1_j3ad4oq wrote

Yep. Some speech is recognized as hurtful and subsequently regulated.

1

Jam5quares t1_j38ne3o wrote

An absolute free speech policy is critical for a liberal democracy. The best way to expose bad ideas is to allow for it to be debated, mocked, and ultimately discarded out in the open. Otherwise you push these ideas to the fringe, underground, where they develop momentum. We have literally witnessed this time and time again. We have too many authoritarians in here.

26

myspicename t1_j3aea2q wrote

So no rules against libel, slander, direct incitement to violence, indirect orders to kill a la organized crime, direct commands to commit violence or crime?

−1

Morbo2142 t1_j37q4xi wrote

There should be a quick link to the paradox of tolerance on all of reddit that gets flagged anytime "freedom of speech" is mentioned.

To sum up my views, any speech that is eliminationist, eugenosist, or genocidal should probably be frowned upon at least and prosecutable at most.
"Freedom of speech" is nearly always a cover for this kind of talk, at least in America in the last 2 decades.

8

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j37reve wrote

I'd add Popper did not support restricting free speech to your sticky since redditors misuse his views to support thought restrictions.

11

CallMe_Immortal t1_j37qqss wrote

Yet it's ok to say "white people need to go". Replace white with any other color and you have "genocidal speech"

−30

Morbo2142 t1_j37roi5 wrote

Did I say anything about skin color? What does that even mean? Need to go?

You're just fragile and afraid because people called you out for being kinda racist.

It's not a zero sum world. Saying we want more bipoc representation doesn't meant that "white" people won't be represented at all?

All this is still nothing about genocide

10

dr-freddy-112 t1_j382mew wrote

What corner of the internet, or the world, are you hanging out in where you think there are people saying "white people need to go", and everyone is just like "yeah!"? That doesn't happen. White people in the US get criticized for system racism, especially when they stand up for that system. That's about the extent of it. There are very few people saying anything about getting rid of white people. The amount is so small that it's not even worth paying attention to.

8

assword_69420420 t1_j38zhfa wrote

I think it was unnecessary for that guy to bring race into it, but youve seriously never seen that sentiment? Im not saying its rampant, but ive definitely seen POC talking about the evils of white people or expressing the desire to have a society free of whiteness.

1

dr-freddy-112 t1_j38zwfe wrote

I've seen it, but the amount of people talking like that is very small, and it's usually called out, too. You get a few sympathizers who use historical context to give them a pass, but those people are in the minority as well.

2

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j392dta wrote

An example or two why someone might think that:

Biden has previously said reducing the percentage of whites in US society is a good thing;

I recall Jimmy Fallon's audience once applauding when he announced a report of whites becoming a minority in a certain projected year

I could give others: police investigations over signs saying "it's ok to be white";

Racist signs during blm supremacist rallies claiming "white silence is violence";

−1

dr-freddy-112 t1_j3955ol wrote

Source on the Biden comment? Source for police investigations into "it's ok to be white" signs?

Jimmy Falon's show is entertainment. There are cue cards for how the audience is supposed to react. You can't use that as an example of that being the opinion of a large group of people.

BLM has nothing to do with racial supremacy. "White silence is violence" is not racist. White people being silent about racial injustice, even when they're not perpetrating it, creates more injustice for people of color. This is a spinoff of something that MLK said.

0

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j397frx wrote

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-59179914

Biden:

"Folks like me who were Caucasian, of European descent for the first time in 2017 will be in an absolute minority in the United States of America, absolute minority. Fewer than 50 percent of the people in America from then and on will be White European stock. That’s not a bad thing. That’s as a source of our strength.”

>"White silence is violence" is not racist.

It's literal incitement to violence against whites, and that's what you'd say if whites held posters claiming "muslim silence is violence" after a terror attack.

0

dr-freddy-112 t1_j398m6b wrote

>"That’s not a bad thing. That’s a source of our strength.”

This is him saying that diversity is good, not that fewer white people being in the US is good. It's a stand against the GOP scare tactic of "we're being outnumbered".

>It's literal incitement to violence against whites

No, it's not. I don't think you understand what this statement means. It means that white people not standing up against racial discrimination is causing more violence against people of color. It's saying that if you stand by while injustice happens, you're complicit. It's not a call to violence at all.

2

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j39aaoe wrote

>This is him saying that diversity is good, not that fewer white people being in the US is good

That's called reducing the percentage of whites in the US.

Notice no one says this of the black population in an inner city neighborhood becoming a minority.

>I don't think you understand what this statement means

What do you think violence means? Isn't it ok to use violence in response to violence? Calling whites violent is literal incitement.

Notice how you avoid replacing "white" with muslim or black in a different context.

−1

dr-freddy-112 t1_j39b5jh wrote

You're being disingenuous with that Biden quote.

If Black or Muslim people were the majority, white people were being discriminated against, and those majority groups were silent, it would be the same thing. It would be "Black silence is violence" in that they would be complicit in the violence happening to white people who have less power due to their smaller population.

It's relative to the balance of power.

Honestly, it seems like you're thinking top-down. You came to a conclusion and are now trying very hard to find information that supports your claim, rather than starting with the information to form a whole picture.

3

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j39cxnx wrote

>You're being disingenuous with that Biden quote

That's a straightforward conclusion of the quote.

>discriminated against

But blacks aren't societally discriminated against. In fact, whites are societally discriminated against. So how are whites to speak out against discrimination when they're the actual victims?

>If Black or Muslim people were the majority

In many urban areas blacks are in fact the majority or plurality, and often hold institutional political power, and carry out disproportionate violence against ethnic groups such as Asians and Jews. In Chicago and New York the mayor and police chief are black.

Do you agree black silence is violence (against Asians)?

Shouldn't blacks openly condemn black-on-Asian violence before entering Asian owned stores where there's a power dynamic favoring blacks over Asians?

>It's relative to the balance of power.

So it's ok to use violence against a group until they follow the disputed beliefs you hold? If white silence is literally violence don't you agree violence is justified in self-defense?

Or do you oppose violence in self-defense?

1

dr-freddy-112 t1_j39d7w0 wrote

You need help, my dude. You've wandered into some dark right wing echo chambers and it shows. Whites are not discriminated against in the US. I'm done conversing with you. Get some help.

1

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j39drj7 wrote

Should Asian shop owners in NYC be allowed to prohibit violent patrons? If blacks are silent to black-on-Asian violence then aren't they acting violently toward marginalized Asians ?

2

[deleted] t1_j38cui2 wrote

[deleted]

0

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j39371y wrote

Plus all the other societies in the world. Nigeria isn't exactly welcoming Ukrainian refugees and changing their national identity.

1

Undisolving t1_j3832k4 wrote

Ah yes, white people are the most persecuted people… in your head.

−1

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j392svj wrote

They're the only group where a sign about them being "ok" triggers police investigations

0

Epbckr t1_j372g33 wrote

Did they define “freedom of speech” as to whether it pertained only to government regulation or if it included private entities? If they didn’t define the term then the survey is just horseshit.

6

geek66 t1_j3810r2 wrote

Lies slander Calls to violate laws

There is no thing as an absolute….

3

unselfishdata t1_j3lazhn wrote

Free speech is an expression of free thought, which in turn is an expression of Freedom. And as a huge fan of freedom, I respect your right to say negative things about me. I say negative, instead of hurtful, because it's more objective. No one has the ability to look into the soul of each individual to determine what is hurtful to them, and as such, no law should be passed to limit such speech, in general.

3

AutoModerator t1_j33v0d0 wrote

Vote for Best of r/science 2022!

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

drunk_funky_chipmunk t1_j3dhdsk wrote

I do not believe that republicans support free speech more than democrats. Just seems physically impossible to me

1

theKalmier t1_j36lxs1 wrote

Tolerance is like math. Tolerance means you accept more people (+) and intolerance is the exclusion (-).

Liking tolerant people (+ * + = +) peace on earth.

Liking intolerant people (+ * - = -) dating the "bad boy".

Hating tolerant people (- * + = -) hater.

Hating intolerant people (- * - = +) it's okay to hate the haters.

Edit: I must be dumb, someone wanna explain the dislikes for me please...?

Edit 2: okay, so how about I add tolerance is something you learn, so if you hate intolerant people, teach them to be more tolerant. Admittedly a challenge.

−1

EasternShade t1_j386kp6 wrote

There's a whole host of people that think that there's nothing wrong with being tolerant of everyone, possibly seeing it as a virtue, and that being intolerant of intolerant people is comparable to being intolerant of anybody else. For your formulation, they think only the leading - is the problem and that it is wholely problematic.

Seems that crowd is voting more than others.

6

JaiC t1_j37qj0i wrote

"Both sides" are willing to moderate hate speech, but one side conveniently doesn't define bigoted speech as hate.

Science will keep being bad as long as it keeps being political. And until scientists recognizes that centrism is a political stance, nothing will change.

−2

[deleted] t1_j38czep wrote

[removed]

−3

Epbckr t1_j39f9im wrote

Well maybe, but in America there is absolutely no hate speech exception to free speech, at least in terms of what is protected from government regulation by the 1st amendment.

4

BMXTKD t1_j38spm2 wrote

One man's hate speech is another man's whistleblowing.

Best way to deal with hate speech, is to simply name, shame, and defame.

3

Alternative-Flan2869 t1_j362wxb wrote

There is a difference between free speech and hateful violent fascist lies.

−5

DollyVarden2021 t1_j36vgme wrote

Who gets to decide? You, apparently.

16

Jam5quares t1_j38mw04 wrote

I don't think fascism is what you think it is.

8

Alternative-Flan2869 t1_j39eeta wrote

You have the first part right “I don’t think…” Attempting to violently overthrow the government, trying to purposely disregard legal votes, actively creating a set of fake electors to disqualify votes, etc. ad nauseum is textbook fascist behavior, and you need to know that fast.

2

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j36ga6y wrote

What's a fascist lie?

6

copperdomebodhi t1_j37o7ix wrote

You're asking this on January 6th? "It was patriotic to try to stop the vote count because the 2020 election was fraudulent," is a lie that supports violence to prevent democracy and install right-wing authoritarianism.

7

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j393s4x wrote

Wouldn't that just be a lie?

3

copperdomebodhi t1_j395bxg wrote

When it supports violence to prevent democracy and install right-wing authoritarianism, that makes it a fascist lie.

1

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j396kw9 wrote

Isn't that just a lie or a lie promoting violence? Also, is fascism just right-wing authoritarianism? Wouldn't that be time variant because right wing today has a different idea cluster than right-wing 80 years ago.

1