Progressives are more in support of authoritarianism than they realize. Censoring speech is authoritarian by definition. It’s the primary reason I don’t identify as one.
Edit: Consider putting the power, and setting the precedent, of subjectively altering the first amendment in the hands of this conservative SCOTUS. Is that really a great idea? Fascism arrives as your friend.
Second edit: It turns out that I’ve been misinformed about progressives supporting hate speech censorship. Sorry about the confusion. Have a good night.
Since when do progressives censor speech?
Edit:
Consider putting the power, and setting the precedent, of altering the first amendment in the hands of this conservative SCOTUS. Is that really a great idea? Fascism arrives as your friend.
Again, when have progressives done this? How are progressives responsible for how a conservative SCOTUS rules on First Amendment rights? Specifically, what legislation has been drafted by progressives that censor hate speech? I have yet to see anyone aside from social media, who have their own set of codes of conduct, be censored by the government over hate speech.
A perfect example would be how Republicans say the craziest racist shit and aren't censored for it. If anything, it gets plastered all over the news. So your logic is highly flawed, champ.
Literally everyone censors speech, and is fine with it. Everyone, with exceptions so scant that may as well not exist at all.
Laws that prohibit workplace harassment. Defamation. Laws that punish incitements to violence. Laws that punish fraud and confidence scams. Laws against insider trading. Even things like RICO. These are ALL, in varying forms, limits on speech that are basically uncontentious to most normal, well-balanced people. These are limits on speech so ubiquitous and accepted that people have actually somehow convinced themselves that somehow "free" speech is clearly categorically different than these other things even when it plainly isn't.
The only people sincerely for (edit: total) free speech are honest-to-god anarchists. True "free speech absolutists" basically do not exist, and when someone claims to be one it really just means they want to be able to get away with using racial slurs in public.
I completely agree, I was just thrown off by OP's statement that progressives censor hate speech since I am not aware of any legislation specifically passed that makes it illegal for the common person to make hate speech.
I don't think he's being sincere.
I was. I’m learning now that I’ve been misinformed. I’m very happy to be wrong about this.
Not at all. I don’t need laws to be a respectful person. Do you need religion to be a good person?
I’m educated enough in political science to know that one of the most common ways to create a dictatorship is to leverage fear of the right to enact socially controlling legislation with the support of the left, then slowly begin to leverage that same legislation against the leader’s enemies. It’s prevalent throughout human history, and a proven system for inevitable authoritarian control.
Incidentally, the other most common way to create a dictatorship is by leveraging the military and police forces against the people, as Trump plans to do in Project 2025. Just food for thought.
In modern history, it's typically the right wing dictators that got voted in through "legal" means, and it's the right wing dictators that achieve power by slowly controlling what can and cannot be said by the media. The leftist dictatorships, if you want to call the soviet-style ones as such, do so through violence and the military. You have it exactly backwards which sins here come from which wing. It doesn't pass a common sense test, so I think you may need to go back to school.
And let's not get bogged down in utter bullshit. We're talking about "progressive" censorship here, which almost certainly means hate speech laws. There have been exactly zero dictatorships that flowed out of political movements of intentional inclusivity. Neither the Nazis nor Soviets were concerned with "hate speech". They both were all about it.
I didn’t say the dictators were left wing. You’re right, they’ve been almost exclusively right wing leaders. I said they begin by getting support from the left to enact social legislation against the right, then begin to leverage that newly created power against the enemies of the government, including media. It’s the most common first step onto the slippery slope.
You said it yourself. Media censorship leads to authoritarian control.
But literally all modern states have media censorship. Literally all of them. For example, prohibitions on libel or fraud. That's censorship. Confidentiality of national secrets is a form of censorship. Hell, even copyright laws can be interpreted as a form of censorship.
Libel/slander is a civil suit, not a crime. Fraud is falsification yielding a gain. Private institutions can and should determine their own code of conduct.
The problem comes into play the day that SCOTUS puts an asterisk on the first amendment to determine an intangible. As soon as the government has the precedent to enact censorship legislation, the tool will be available to whatever corrupt leader decides to wield it.
You aren't answering me. You're deflecting.
Are we legalizing fraud or not?
I’m not deflecting. I don’t understand your question. Fraud involves a contract or gain. That’s not protected by free speech.
I think the problem stems from your lack of understanding of how the Constitution protects freedom of speech. I’m simply saying once we grant the government permission to silence our enemies, they can use that power to silence us.
What does "protected by 'free speech'" even mean? Who is this free speech and how are they protecting or not protecting anything?
Fraud is a form of speech. It's putting ideas out into the world -- ideas that induce a false understanding in another, typically to reap some material benefit to the fraudster... but lots of the protected forms of speech do that.
The state punishes this speech by outlining a procedure for a harmed party to punish the fraudster, backed by the authority of the state (i.e., lawsuits).
Just because speech is part of a contract doesn't magically transmogrify it into non-speech. Besides, what even constitutes a "contract" isn't something we can say is fully and perfectly defined...
So here we have speech and punishment for it. That sums up to censorship. And how do we decide what is and isn't "fraud" and so does or doesn't qualify as protected speech? It's complicated. Very complicated. We have a huge statutory framework. Legal tests. We're still trying to specify the line. The target shifts through all of history. Cases get overturned and updated and our frameworks and tests evolve. Sometimes we go too far. Sometimes not far enough. Sometimes the shifting reality of how our society operates changes the balancing point. Sometimes we have simply been wrong and regretted it.
Now I think I know what you actually are trying to say. That political speech needs to be highly protected from government meddling. That's hardly a radical idea. I don't know any credible person who disagrees with it.
But there's also a significant legal grey area between which, for example, it becomes hard to identify where political speech ends and direct calls to violence start. Surely it isn't protected for a political leader standing in front of a riled mob to point across the street to his political enemy and shout "go kill him, now!" But where's the exact point where the rhetoric shifted from "proper" political speech to a call to violence, exactly? How much subtext and implication are we going to accept? How riled does the crowd have to be? Either way, by outlining a point where speech can end you up punished, we've censored that speech. And censorship through civil action is still censorship, don't be confused.
In its best form, the state exists to help balance rights in tension. When one person's speech rights are out of balance with the harms that speech inflicts on another (such as in fraud or an incitement to violent), the state exists to mediate that. And we should want it to be just and fair when it does, and balance that tension in a way that creates the best possible environment. Join the reasonable people and discuss where you think things fall on that balance. Don't pretend there's some magical and inviolable difference between this censorship and other kinds that are acceptable, though. Have a reason.
Fraud is not deception. It’s deception with gain:
Fraud involves intentional deception to gain something of value, usually money. One commits fraud through false statements, misrepresentation, or dishonest conduct intended to mislead or deceive. This article looks at types of fraud crimes and the criminal and civil penalties for fraud.
Fighting words are words meant to incite violence such that they may not be protected free speech under the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court first defined them in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942) as words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
I’m not suggesting we go backwards. I’m concerned about the repercussions of allowing SCOTUS to set the precedent of what can and cannot be said or written by citizens or media to protect the feelings of others. That sets the precedent for a crime of opinion regarding freedom of speech.
I know it’s a harsh stance, and as an empathetic person, I hate that I can’t trust my government enough with the power to protect the vulnerable. I simply don’t trust them enough with that power.
Plenty of protected political speech involves deception with gain (especially gain of political office). Inciting violence is already against the law... and that law is a form of censorship.
I’m concerned about the repercussions of allowing SCOTUS to set the precedent of what can and cannot be said or written by citizens or media to protect the feelings of others.
And I am saying they already can do and did and you need to engage with that and not pretend there's some magical line that cannot be crossed. Defining what is and isn't protected speech is a complex and ever-ongoing negotiation. The links you provided are evidence of this -- are evidence that I am right. There isn't a clear categorical definition that separates the protected from unprotected -- what is protected and isn't protected is defined only by where the censorship starts.
You should be highly concerned with the repercussions of the SCOTUS's decisions. They're a corrupt institution that historically nearly always act as a brake on expanding civil rights. Good news for you on this subject, this SCOTUS would never let a hate speech law stand -- they quite like to see vulnerable people persecuted. More good news: there basically are no hate speech laws. The only government agencies censoring political speech right now are far right conservative ones like Florida, doing the exact thing you fear. It aint progressives and it aint happening with support of progressives.
But you can't pretend that speech isn't speech and censorship isn't censorship just to make your own political ideology easier to reckon. That's just embracing censorship in a different way.
Again, many forms of censorship are uncontentious. Here we have links to two forms of censorship that are such. If there's some new kind of censorship you find objectionable, identify it and make the case for why it is worse than its counterfactual.
I have yet to see any legislation passed by progressives that censor hate speech.
It’s been my understanding that hate speech censorship has been a progressive ideal for many years now. I’m learning tonight that it’s not actually the case. It was the primary reason I drifted from the ideology.
I am very aware of how free speech is already regulated in regards to inciting violence or a riot, as well as its hierarchical place regarding a content or conduct policy. What concerns me, is regulating speech in regards to an intangible.
I’m a very empathetic person, and it’s painful for me to say, but I don’t believe it’s safe to empower our government to legislate speech in regards to feelings. Unlike inciting violence, the impact is subjective. If we define it as verbal or written attacks on a protected class, then who is to define what classes are protected? How often do we amend it as new classes are created? How do we define a verbal attack? That is a slippery slope of precedent that can be used against all of us, as well as journalists, under the wrong administration.
With that being said, I’m very surprised to learn that all of the calls for hate speech censorship from the far-left have faded away. I’m very happy to hear it, and I’m sorry for causing such a commotion with my misunderstanding.
It’s been my understanding that hate speech censorship has been a progressive ideal for many years now.
Progressives prefer direct means to combat hate speech, instead of relying on legislation. And if you see one punch a nazi, no you didn't. That nazi fell.
In all seriousness, I absolutely believe private platforms owe their users a content policy that protects them from attacks. I just don’t think it should be legislated. If Elon want to turn X into a cesspool, it’s no different than your local bar becoming a racist dive. You just find a new place to go with your friends on a Saturday night.
Second edit: It turns out that I’ve been misinformed about progressives supporting hate speech censorship. Sorry about the confusion. Have a good night.
No, you were LIED to by malicious actors trying to turn you against people who are, at least broadly speaking, more aligned with your goals than against. There is a reason communists historically kill social democrats before going after fascists, because they're afraid of diluting power between similar parties. They want sole power so badly they are willing to risk fascists getting it if they think it gives them a better chance.
Then here you come with "sorry I've been misinformed" like it was an innocent mistake. Either you know you're acting in bad faith or you're uncritically regurgitating what others have told you in bad faith. The people telling you that stuff are not your friends, they are just manipulators who want to stir shit between two groups fighting the same enemy.
So you weren't misinformed, you just fucked up, try taking some personal responsibility and go back to figure out where you went wrong and who you should be trusting.
Ok, then I fucked up. I wasn’t protecting my pride. I was legitimately misinformed, and haven’t had this conversation until now. Call it whatever you’d like. Your opinion of me is of no consequence.
Most of my friends are liberals, some are republicans, others libertarians. I haven’t been close with my progressive friends since I used to tour with Phish in the ‘90s. Lol
Sometime around ten years ago, I distinctly recall reading articles and seeing videos of progressive politicians calling for censorship. In hindsight, that was leading up to the mass disinformation campaigns of the 2016 election, so it makes sense how I could’ve made the mistake of consuming media at face value. I remember centrists began referring to progressives as “the regressive left” due to the initiative. None of those calls came from Bernie, so I still voted for him in the primary, but it certainly turned me off to the ideology.
As I said, I’m happy to have learned otherwise. I’ve been supporting progressive ideals since the ‘90s. That hasn’t changed, only my comfort identifying as one.
Progressives are more in support of authoritarianism than they realize. Censoring speech is authoritarian by definition. It’s the primary reason I don’t identify as one.Edit: Consider putting the power, and setting the precedent, of subjectively altering the first amendment in the hands of this conservative SCOTUS. Is that really a great idea? Fascism arrives as your friend.Second edit: It turns out that I’ve been misinformed about progressives supporting hate speech censorship. Sorry about the confusion. Have a good night.
Since when do progressives censor speech?
Edit:
Again, when have progressives done this? How are progressives responsible for how a conservative SCOTUS rules on First Amendment rights? Specifically, what legislation has been drafted by progressives that censor hate speech? I have yet to see anyone aside from social media, who have their own set of codes of conduct, be censored by the government over hate speech.
A perfect example would be how Republicans say the craziest racist shit and aren't censored for it. If anything, it gets plastered all over the news. So your logic is highly flawed, champ.
Literally everyone censors speech, and is fine with it. Everyone, with exceptions so scant that may as well not exist at all.
Laws that prohibit workplace harassment. Defamation. Laws that punish incitements to violence. Laws that punish fraud and confidence scams. Laws against insider trading. Even things like RICO. These are ALL, in varying forms, limits on speech that are basically uncontentious to most normal, well-balanced people. These are limits on speech so ubiquitous and accepted that people have actually somehow convinced themselves that somehow "free" speech is clearly categorically different than these other things even when it plainly isn't.
The only people sincerely for (edit: total) free speech are honest-to-god anarchists. True "free speech absolutists" basically do not exist, and when someone claims to be one it really just means they want to be able to get away with using racial slurs in public.
I completely agree, I was just thrown off by OP's statement that progressives censor hate speech since I am not aware of any legislation specifically passed that makes it illegal for the common person to make hate speech.
I don't think he's being sincere.
I was. I’m learning now that I’ve been misinformed. I’m very happy to be wrong about this.
Not at all. I don’t need laws to be a respectful person. Do you need religion to be a good person?
I’m educated enough in political science to know that one of the most common ways to create a dictatorship is to leverage fear of the right to enact socially controlling legislation with the support of the left, then slowly begin to leverage that same legislation against the leader’s enemies. It’s prevalent throughout human history, and a proven system for inevitable authoritarian control.
Incidentally, the other most common way to create a dictatorship is by leveraging the military and police forces against the people, as Trump plans to do in Project 2025. Just food for thought.
In modern history, it's typically the right wing dictators that got voted in through "legal" means, and it's the right wing dictators that achieve power by slowly controlling what can and cannot be said by the media. The leftist dictatorships, if you want to call the soviet-style ones as such, do so through violence and the military. You have it exactly backwards which sins here come from which wing. It doesn't pass a common sense test, so I think you may need to go back to school.
And let's not get bogged down in utter bullshit. We're talking about "progressive" censorship here, which almost certainly means hate speech laws. There have been exactly zero dictatorships that flowed out of political movements of intentional inclusivity. Neither the Nazis nor Soviets were concerned with "hate speech". They both were all about it.
I didn’t say the dictators were left wing. You’re right, they’ve been almost exclusively right wing leaders. I said they begin by getting support from the left to enact social legislation against the right, then begin to leverage that newly created power against the enemies of the government, including media. It’s the most common first step onto the slippery slope.
You said it yourself. Media censorship leads to authoritarian control.
But literally all modern states have media censorship. Literally all of them. For example, prohibitions on libel or fraud. That's censorship. Confidentiality of national secrets is a form of censorship. Hell, even copyright laws can be interpreted as a form of censorship.
Libel/slander is a civil suit, not a crime. Fraud is falsification yielding a gain. Private institutions can and should determine their own code of conduct.
The problem comes into play the day that SCOTUS puts an asterisk on the first amendment to determine an intangible. As soon as the government has the precedent to enact censorship legislation, the tool will be available to whatever corrupt leader decides to wield it.
You aren't answering me. You're deflecting.
Are we legalizing fraud or not?
I’m not deflecting. I don’t understand your question. Fraud involves a contract or gain. That’s not protected by free speech.
I think the problem stems from your lack of understanding of how the Constitution protects freedom of speech. I’m simply saying once we grant the government permission to silence our enemies, they can use that power to silence us.
What does "protected by 'free speech'" even mean? Who is this free speech and how are they protecting or not protecting anything?
Fraud is a form of speech. It's putting ideas out into the world -- ideas that induce a false understanding in another, typically to reap some material benefit to the fraudster... but lots of the protected forms of speech do that.
The state punishes this speech by outlining a procedure for a harmed party to punish the fraudster, backed by the authority of the state (i.e., lawsuits).
Just because speech is part of a contract doesn't magically transmogrify it into non-speech. Besides, what even constitutes a "contract" isn't something we can say is fully and perfectly defined...
So here we have speech and punishment for it. That sums up to censorship. And how do we decide what is and isn't "fraud" and so does or doesn't qualify as protected speech? It's complicated. Very complicated. We have a huge statutory framework. Legal tests. We're still trying to specify the line. The target shifts through all of history. Cases get overturned and updated and our frameworks and tests evolve. Sometimes we go too far. Sometimes not far enough. Sometimes the shifting reality of how our society operates changes the balancing point. Sometimes we have simply been wrong and regretted it.
Now I think I know what you actually are trying to say. That political speech needs to be highly protected from government meddling. That's hardly a radical idea. I don't know any credible person who disagrees with it.
But there's also a significant legal grey area between which, for example, it becomes hard to identify where political speech ends and direct calls to violence start. Surely it isn't protected for a political leader standing in front of a riled mob to point across the street to his political enemy and shout "go kill him, now!" But where's the exact point where the rhetoric shifted from "proper" political speech to a call to violence, exactly? How much subtext and implication are we going to accept? How riled does the crowd have to be? Either way, by outlining a point where speech can end you up punished, we've censored that speech. And censorship through civil action is still censorship, don't be confused.
In its best form, the state exists to help balance rights in tension. When one person's speech rights are out of balance with the harms that speech inflicts on another (such as in fraud or an incitement to violent), the state exists to mediate that. And we should want it to be just and fair when it does, and balance that tension in a way that creates the best possible environment. Join the reasonable people and discuss where you think things fall on that balance. Don't pretend there's some magical and inviolable difference between this censorship and other kinds that are acceptable, though. Have a reason.
Fraud is not deception. It’s deception with gain:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/fraud.html
Inciting violence is already against the law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
I’m not suggesting we go backwards. I’m concerned about the repercussions of allowing SCOTUS to set the precedent of what can and cannot be said or written by citizens or media to protect the feelings of others. That sets the precedent for a crime of opinion regarding freedom of speech.
I know it’s a harsh stance, and as an empathetic person, I hate that I can’t trust my government enough with the power to protect the vulnerable. I simply don’t trust them enough with that power.
Plenty of protected political speech involves deception with gain (especially gain of political office). Inciting violence is already against the law... and that law is a form of censorship.
And I am saying they already can do and did and you need to engage with that and not pretend there's some magical line that cannot be crossed. Defining what is and isn't protected speech is a complex and ever-ongoing negotiation. The links you provided are evidence of this -- are evidence that I am right. There isn't a clear categorical definition that separates the protected from unprotected -- what is protected and isn't protected is defined only by where the censorship starts.
You should be highly concerned with the repercussions of the SCOTUS's decisions. They're a corrupt institution that historically nearly always act as a brake on expanding civil rights. Good news for you on this subject, this SCOTUS would never let a hate speech law stand -- they quite like to see vulnerable people persecuted. More good news: there basically are no hate speech laws. The only government agencies censoring political speech right now are far right conservative ones like Florida, doing the exact thing you fear. It aint progressives and it aint happening with support of progressives.
But you can't pretend that speech isn't speech and censorship isn't censorship just to make your own political ideology easier to reckon. That's just embracing censorship in a different way.
Again, many forms of censorship are uncontentious. Here we have links to two forms of censorship that are such. If there's some new kind of censorship you find objectionable, identify it and make the case for why it is worse than its counterfactual.
When it's hate speach
I have yet to see any legislation passed by progressives that censor hate speech.
It’s been my understanding that hate speech censorship has been a progressive ideal for many years now. I’m learning tonight that it’s not actually the case. It was the primary reason I drifted from the ideology.
I am very aware of how free speech is already regulated in regards to inciting violence or a riot, as well as its hierarchical place regarding a content or conduct policy. What concerns me, is regulating speech in regards to an intangible.
I’m a very empathetic person, and it’s painful for me to say, but I don’t believe it’s safe to empower our government to legislate speech in regards to feelings. Unlike inciting violence, the impact is subjective. If we define it as verbal or written attacks on a protected class, then who is to define what classes are protected? How often do we amend it as new classes are created? How do we define a verbal attack? That is a slippery slope of precedent that can be used against all of us, as well as journalists, under the wrong administration.
With that being said, I’m very surprised to learn that all of the calls for hate speech censorship from the far-left have faded away. I’m very happy to hear it, and I’m sorry for causing such a commotion with my misunderstanding.
Progressives prefer direct means to combat hate speech, instead of relying on legislation. And if you see one punch a nazi, no you didn't. That nazi fell.
In all seriousness, I absolutely believe private platforms owe their users a content policy that protects them from attacks. I just don’t think it should be legislated. If Elon want to turn X into a cesspool, it’s no different than your local bar becoming a racist dive. You just find a new place to go with your friends on a Saturday night.
No, you were LIED to by malicious actors trying to turn you against people who are, at least broadly speaking, more aligned with your goals than against. There is a reason communists historically kill social democrats before going after fascists, because they're afraid of diluting power between similar parties. They want sole power so badly they are willing to risk fascists getting it if they think it gives them a better chance.
Then here you come with "sorry I've been misinformed" like it was an innocent mistake. Either you know you're acting in bad faith or you're uncritically regurgitating what others have told you in bad faith. The people telling you that stuff are not your friends, they are just manipulators who want to stir shit between two groups fighting the same enemy.
So you weren't misinformed, you just fucked up, try taking some personal responsibility and go back to figure out where you went wrong and who you should be trusting.
Ok, then I fucked up. I wasn’t protecting my pride. I was legitimately misinformed, and haven’t had this conversation until now. Call it whatever you’d like. Your opinion of me is of no consequence.
Most of my friends are liberals, some are republicans, others libertarians. I haven’t been close with my progressive friends since I used to tour with Phish in the ‘90s. Lol
Sometime around ten years ago, I distinctly recall reading articles and seeing videos of progressive politicians calling for censorship. In hindsight, that was leading up to the mass disinformation campaigns of the 2016 election, so it makes sense how I could’ve made the mistake of consuming media at face value. I remember centrists began referring to progressives as “the regressive left” due to the initiative. None of those calls came from Bernie, so I still voted for him in the primary, but it certainly turned me off to the ideology.
As I said, I’m happy to have learned otherwise. I’ve been supporting progressive ideals since the ‘90s. That hasn’t changed, only my comfort identifying as one.