Freedom of Speech

I can’t believe I need to write this.

I thought given it being the Fourth of July, a freedom themed blog post would be apropos. I’m also aware of a sudden influx of Vietnamese signing up on Minds(Welcome!), fleeing the encroaching crackdown on Facebook, which also relates to this topic. Finally, there was a recent update which allowed many of those I have previously criticized to delete comments I had previously made on their posts, ensuring future readers can’t see those I exposed fail to defend their views. Ah, well. I suppose they can have their echo chamber if they really want it. I still have screenshots, so they can’t completely flush my comments down the memory hole, despite their best attempts.(I'm not against the delete feature overall, just to be clear; just against how some people are using it.)

Given the rationale behind its creation, it boggles my mind that we still have people on this platform that disagree with its founding principles at a very core level. Of course, the principle I am referring to is freedom of speech itself.

I hear all the usual arguments(paraphrased):

“Too many idiots are given a platform and have their ideas treated as valid as mine.”

“People just create their own echo chambers, ignoring the scientific evidence and facts.”

“We need authorities and experts to provide proper explanations, not uneducated people who don’t understand the subjects they are talking about.”

“Debates are pointless, no one actually changes their minds, they only double down.”

“Hate speech is not free speech.”

“You may have freedom of speech, but you don’t have freedom of consequences from that speech.”

“We need to censor the other side because they will do the same thing to us, given the chance.”

You get the idea. I see these all over YouTube, Facebook, even the Mainstream Media, as well as more debunking of these arguments than I can count. Those arguing for censorship have largely lost the argument, as far as I’m concerned. I came to Minds because I wanted to see ideas I can’t find elsewhere, and discuss ideas freely with other people who wish to simply seek the Truth, and not just the Consensus.

But I (foolishly) thought Minds would be vacant of these anti-freedom viewpoints. Maybe some of them are a kind of controlled opposition, or people who want to morph Minds into another Facebook through their influence. Either way, it sickens me.

Let me clarify my position, one that I believe is shared by a great majority of users on Minds.

Censorship, even when used against those who are provably incorrect, always hurts discourse. It always hurts society. And if it goes on too long, it can be lethal; people being jailed and even executed for not agreeing with the State’s established truth.

It doesn’t matter where it starts. Maybe someone is just a bit too edgy and unfiltered in their speech? Maybe they are targeting specific people for harassment? Or maybe they don’t give anything of value, just posting nonsense and spam? Surely silencing these uncouth individuals can't do any harm?

Once you open that door, it is nigh impossible to close. Hate speech is free speech that some people don’t like, and once a certain level of political polarization is reached, that definition encompasses all speech accept for the accepted establishment statements. Welcome to 1984.

But then, some people may ask, how do we defeat trolls, haters, and radicals? We already know how.

For radicals: We fight fire with fire. In this case, we fight bad ideas with better ideas. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, after all. Rather than forcing them underground and legitimizing claims of oppression, and by extension, their claims they are the true Truth tellers, we need to expose them. Show the inherent contradictions and incoherence of their ideology. If they spout lies, debunk them. Otherwise, how do you(or anyone, for that matter) actually know that they are lying?

For haters: We use the Bearing Mafia approach. We treat them politely, we engage them in good faith. Even when they get heated, we approach each of their arguments calmly and fairly. In the end, the outside observer will see them as the unreasonable person they are, and the calm person as reasonable. It takes two people to engage in an internet slap fight, and one person simply lashing out at a collected individual does not a convincing argument make. Of course, if you just want to have an internet slap fight, that is okay too; its your call. Just don't complain once the level of discourse has descended to name calling.

For trolls: The internet has known the secret to dealing with trolls since time immemorial. You ignore them. They want attention, nothing more and nothing less; don’t give it to them, and they will move on. It’s that simple. Even blocking them is a tacit acknowledgement they got to you, and it causes other trolls to smell the blood in the water. If you seriously can’t take even a simple joke without responding, it almost doesn’t matter what position you hold; the internet is filled with people who hold a fondness for goofs and gaffs. So lighten up a bit, or no one will want to listen to you anyways.

So, you might ask, what about legitimate cases for censorship? They do exist, but I’m very restrictive on what I consider valid, for reasons I’ve already highlighted.

1. Spammers. The people who simply clog up a feed. These people aren’t exercising freedom of speech, they are attempting to drown out other people exercising it. Preferably, these can be dealt with by restricting how many posts they can make in a short period of time, and not allowing copy/paste messages to be posted repeatedly. In the cases where they evade all technological methods for otherwise stopping them, I believe a block or ban is warranted. I grant this quite begrudgingly, as some people still manage to rationalize those who left three separate comments as spammers; that is not spamming.

Compare the real life example of someone giving a presentation who is then interrupted by protesters who don’t just oppose his views, but actively prevent him from spreading those views. They aren’t exercising their first amendment rights, they are trying to take them away from someone else.

2. Blatant rule breakers. This can vary from straying off topic to posting unwanted(or illegal) explicit material, but the end result is the same. If someone establishes a space for discourse, they can specify rules such as no nudity, or even no profanity. They could even make more esoteric rules, such as no discussing religion or politics. Things that would normally fall under the purview of free speech normally can be excluded in this manner, as long as these rules are transparent. What you can’t do is restrict the public discourse overall; if people want to discuss things you find vulgar in their own venues, you can’t stop them. Sorry SJWs, even if they are spouting “hate speech”, they still have a right to do so under the principle of freedom of speech.

...and that’s about it, really. There might be some examples I’m forgetting, but I personally don’t want this list extended much further without some really solid arguments as to why. But want to know the biggest reason to not block and censor people? It’s because you are trying to oppress them and reduce their reach. Do you know what happens instead? They grow in influence. It’s one thing if some tiny channel is spouting radical views. It’s another thing entirely if they are banned for their views; they can go elsewhere and claim victimhood, that the establishment fears them because they know they are right.

So, to the handful of people who block me and mass downvote my stuff because I poked a little whole in your arguments… Keep it up. You didn’t shut me down, you made me stronger and made yourself weaker. You admitted I was right, even if you refuse to say it out loud. And everyone else you block? You are giving them more power as well. You didn’t change their mind, you convinced them further of the rightness in their opinions. You radicalized them further, while exposing yourself as incapable of dealing with criticism.

If one’s ideas can’t survive any opposition, then in the end they won’t survive at all. It’s called the marketplace of ideas, and people won’t buy a faulty product forever when better ones exist.