Freedom of speech
Mar. 11th, 2026 02:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livThere's been a rant I have been meaning to turn into an essay for a while, but Ken White (Popehat) has done it better, so I direct you to his really well-written and referenced (though US-centric) article: The Fashionable Notion of 'Free Speech Culture' Is Justifying State Censorship, Ironically. Criticism. Is. Not. Censorship, and
This is important in Europe too, not just in the US, because it's a deliberate, specific Russian infowar tactic to promote far right events at UK universities and claim censorship if anyone objects. A
There's a story that many people repeat that goes: some people on the left have abandoned the principle of freedom of speech in a misguided attempt to promote racial justice, but I, a sophisticated person, understand that freedom of speech is only meaningful if you protect the free speech of people you disagree with. It's a plausible, even seductive lie; certainly freedom of speech applies to people with horrible opinions if it is a meaningful right at all. But there's a huge gulf between making laws to protect people with racist opinions from being punished by the state merely for having opinions, and insisting that every influential organization, whether an educational institution or high-profile media, whether a private business, a charity, or connected to the state, must invite racists and transphobes to promote their message in front of broad audiences, and any suggestion to the contrary is the same as censorship. And it's always racists and transphobes; the 'whatabout disagreeable speech' folk never protect the rights of anyone except white, racist men and white TERFs. Actually, there's no conflict between real freedom of speech and racial justice; the bad consequences of saying racist things should be limited, but racists don't have an automatic right to be "free" from anyone disagreeing with them, let alone a right to be applauded and their ideas promoted.
There's a faux, "free-speech culture" approach to moderation of internet discussions, too. It is simply not true that completely unmoderated forums where users have no control over their interactions promote free speech and anything else is a bad compromise. Having to accept mass, organized groups of people threatening you with violence any time you say anything that might be uncomfortable for the worst racists is not a win for free speech. X is not a free speech haven because it allows users to post the N-word (but bans the word 'cis') and use GenAI to create CSAM images. (And that's aside from their known reputation for blocking certain views of global conflicts and promoting others.) Dreamwidth, which actually fights for free speech in the US courts, stands up to payment processors who don't want sexually explicit (but legal) material, and actively refuses to comply with Russian state censorship even at considerable person risk, is on the side of free speech. But DW also gives me the tools to ban you if you come at me or my friends with racial slurs, graphic threats of violence or just plain bullying.
I would argue that that's not only compatible with freedom of speech, it's actually an essential part of it. Though the gangs using the internet to automate attacks on individuals whose speech they don't like are not exactly the state, and what they're doing is a different vector of attack from traditional "censorship". Still, the bare minimum we need to have meaningful freedom of speech is automated tools to defend each other from automated attacks.
“Free speech culture” has a natural tendency to discount the speech rights and interests of people who criticize speech.
This is important in Europe too, not just in the US, because it's a deliberate, specific Russian infowar tactic to promote far right events at UK universities and claim censorship if anyone objects. A
network based at [Cambridge] University and backed by Thiel, which it said was using the issue of free speech to “normalise white nationalism on UK campuses”.Neither Putin nor Thiel has anyone's freedom at heart, and they're all too successful at distracting people with a toddler-like notion of "freedom" where you get to say the naughty words without being told off.
There's a story that many people repeat that goes: some people on the left have abandoned the principle of freedom of speech in a misguided attempt to promote racial justice, but I, a sophisticated person, understand that freedom of speech is only meaningful if you protect the free speech of people you disagree with. It's a plausible, even seductive lie; certainly freedom of speech applies to people with horrible opinions if it is a meaningful right at all. But there's a huge gulf between making laws to protect people with racist opinions from being punished by the state merely for having opinions, and insisting that every influential organization, whether an educational institution or high-profile media, whether a private business, a charity, or connected to the state, must invite racists and transphobes to promote their message in front of broad audiences, and any suggestion to the contrary is the same as censorship. And it's always racists and transphobes; the 'whatabout disagreeable speech' folk never protect the rights of anyone except white, racist men and white TERFs. Actually, there's no conflict between real freedom of speech and racial justice; the bad consequences of saying racist things should be limited, but racists don't have an automatic right to be "free" from anyone disagreeing with them, let alone a right to be applauded and their ideas promoted.
There's a faux, "free-speech culture" approach to moderation of internet discussions, too. It is simply not true that completely unmoderated forums where users have no control over their interactions promote free speech and anything else is a bad compromise. Having to accept mass, organized groups of people threatening you with violence any time you say anything that might be uncomfortable for the worst racists is not a win for free speech. X is not a free speech haven because it allows users to post the N-word (but bans the word 'cis') and use GenAI to create CSAM images. (And that's aside from their known reputation for blocking certain views of global conflicts and promoting others.) Dreamwidth, which actually fights for free speech in the US courts, stands up to payment processors who don't want sexually explicit (but legal) material, and actively refuses to comply with Russian state censorship even at considerable person risk, is on the side of free speech. But DW also gives me the tools to ban you if you come at me or my friends with racial slurs, graphic threats of violence or just plain bullying.
I would argue that that's not only compatible with freedom of speech, it's actually an essential part of it. Though the gangs using the internet to automate attacks on individuals whose speech they don't like are not exactly the state, and what they're doing is a different vector of attack from traditional "censorship". Still, the bare minimum we need to have meaningful freedom of speech is automated tools to defend each other from automated attacks.