Ken WhiteA long-form discussion of why I think it’s important to be specific when we’re debating free speech. Are we talking law, culture, or decency?
https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-pedantry?sd=pf
Arkenor ☿️
Alistair Young@Popehat ‘Scuse me while I send this link to literally-not-figuratively everyone I have ever argued free speech with.
BruceToman@Popehat @icymi_law Yes!!! Thank you.
Tom Wild@Popehat Thank you for the clarity. Those of us without a legal background (me), really appreciate this.
R. Robot@Popehat
Thank you for describing one of my pet peeves far better than I could. It's a something I see even in statements from well-respected civil rights groups. For example, I like FIRE, but there are times that they don't clearly distinguish between criticism of public schools that violate free speech rights, private schools that lack a strong free speech culture, and private schools that violate contractual promises to students.
Thank you for describing one of my pet peeves far better than I could. It's a something I see even in statements from well-respected civil rights groups. For example, I like FIRE, but there are times that they don't clearly distinguish between criticism of public schools that violate free speech rights, private schools that lack a strong free speech culture, and private schools that violate contractual promises to students.
@Roberto_the_robot I think they do this pretty well and pretty specifically in long-form pieces on their site. It’s harder to do in a tweet or Facebook post.
@Popehat
Yeah, it's difficult to communicate in short messages. This is a good example of what I was referring to. The reference to "academic freedom" is an implied acknowledgement that free speech rights were not involved, but that is a subtlety that the general public might miss. An explicit statement would be more educational.
Steve@Popehat
Excellent analysis.
At risk of making a long article longer, I would add to the free speech rights section the observation that the law varies by country, with two examples:
- Germany enshrines one aspect of its its national culture and decency into its law: glorification of Nazis is forbidden.
- Although some authoritarian countries have no real free speech rights, some have partial rights, but with exceptions such as blasphemy and criticism of government.
WesDym@Popehat Agree. That said, I usually assume that whenever anyone in the US says the phrase "free speech RIGHTS", they're probably thinking about the First Amendment. In general all cases of 'free speech' outside the First Amendment refer to privilege, not right.