parent
  • BlueOracle
    +5

    Censorship by the state is a totally different issue. The state is a centralized power that has domain over all of the citizens of a country. The state can have you arrested and thrown in prison. Obviously it's important for there to be limits to that power, and disallowing censoring of speech is one of the limits we've (in the US at least) agreed to. When you have dispersed and private entities, like websites, they are free to agree to their own codes of conduct and mission statements and posting restrictions etc. I could have a site where only pictures of cats are allowed, and if you post a picture of a dog you are banned for life. This is not a restriction of anyone's freedom. You do not have a reasonable expectation of absolute free speech everywhere you go. Website admins can't arrest you like the state can. They only have the power to exclude you from conversation if they so choose. This is not something for which you can claim legal damage, because, again, you have no reasonable expectation for unfettered speech. If you value 100% free speech above all else, then, by all means, set up a site where you can say whatever you like whenever you want.

    As for normalizing hate speech, let me explain. Certain speech, such as that promoting dehumanization and/or eliminationism of groups of people, is generally culturally taboo. The character of a society is determined by social norms, and social norms are often expressed and enforced through speech. It's a question of what kind of a society you would like to live in. By normalizing I mean that Reddit bills itself as being "the front page of the Internet". The forum in which speech appears matters. If the front page of the New York Times (or, hell, the back page) had a story about how some ethnic group is evil and need to be destroyed, that would be a lot more concerning than a random guy on the street handing you a handwritten pamphlet expressing the same sentiment. One way that hateful ideologies, those that call for the elimination or subjugation of others, are kept in check is through intentional marginalization of those views. If you go to a hate-group's website, you are aware that the views there are only supported by those who are participating on that site. When you go to a sub on Reddit that is espousing the same ideology, you may assume that everyone on Reddit, from r/science to r/aww, is at least okay enough with that ideology to share a space with its proponents. This has the effect of normalizing those ideologies. It's also a matter of accessibility. I'm not very likely to randomly stumble across a hate site I'm not looking for. On Reddit it was hard to ignore these groups. You could be looking at something on r/news and get caught up in it. Hell, you could have a multi and look at r/aww and r/fatpeoplehate at the same time.

    I do not know how the free speech absolutists have seized control of this conversation to the degree that they have. Free speech is something to be weighed against other freedoms which are also important and valuable, such as the freedom from harassment and the chilling of speech which occurs when bigots control the conversation. Just because you value free speech doesn't mean that you have no standards and no expectation of conduct. People who complain about grey areas are not thinking critically enough, and are likely just regurgitating a slogan they heard someplace. Life is full of grey areas which humans are uniquely capable of navigating. Social ...

    ... Read Full