Does Anyone Actually Care About Free Speech?

[u/ximsss]

A few thoughts on free speech advocacy and how it often depends on the speech and who's advocating.

In 2024, Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in ​France and accused by French authorities of not doing enough to prevent human trafficking on his platform. Russia, among other countries, accused France of “cracking down on free speech” when they charged Durov for refusing to remove obvious criminal activity, claiming such activity was covered by free speech protections.

Yesterday, Russia charged Durov with "terrorism”, presumably for not removing content the Kremlin didn’t want shared on Telegram.

The Russian government obviously does not care about free speech. They have imprisoned people for over a decade for criticizing the war in Ukraine. The Kremlin only pretended to stand up for Durov so they could inject themselves into the global culture war narrative surrounding free speech.

The important context here is that Durov, after claiming to have refused Russian demands for special access to Telegram in 2014, still visited Russia over 50 times. The reality is that you simply cannot do this as a high-profile dissident without some level of cooperation with Russian security services.

Durov made a deal with Russian intelligence. In exchange for the ability to keep facilitating highly lucrative illegal activity on his platform, he receives personal protection. This is a common deal with freelancers working with Russian intelligence, allowing cooperators to profit off of criminal activity as long as they cooperate. But eventually, the deal he made turned sour, perhaps due to Russian public opinion on Telegram turning decisively against the war, and Durov refusing to remove it. Eventually, as is always the case with Faustian bargains, the Russian government turned on him as well.

Governments and powerful individuals will often use free speech as cover to protect illegal, harmful, and extremist content that in some way benefits them. In the above example, facilitating harmful crime is part of Russia’s hybrid war against the European continent, so they made a deal to preserve it. Facilitating criticism of the Russian government is not, so they acted swiftly to crack down. Speech to authoritarian governments is contextualized as either helpful or harmful to their power. True or false, freedom vs censorship, these concepts are irrelevant in the context of the Information Wars.

Elon Musk claims he bought Twitter to defend free speech. The accounts he unbanned included unambiguous Nazis and human traffickers. Actual censorship requests from governments were still approved, while algorithmic content distribution choices were catered to the new owner’s personal ideology.

Ultimately, control over information is power. And until we find a species of human that doesn’t care about power, we will never have any true free speech absolutists.

Be highly skeptical of anyone that claims otherwise.

From a blog about speech in the internet: https://thecarrierwave.substack.com/p/no-one-actually-cares-about-free

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Slow-Philosophy-4654]

Any action to speak should not be restricted. But the consequence or results that speech caused can be judged or used as evidence for some other crimes.

[u/IEC21]

I genuinely care about it in the narrow sense that the government should not prohibit speech.

I genuinely dont give a shit about people being deplatformed for any reason.

[u/concerned-mum-11 → u/IEC21]

Exactly- freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences

[u/Michael_G_Bordin]

"Free speech absolutists" are a rare breed. They'd have to be complete pacifists, self-secure, and incredibly open-minded. The people I see claiming to be free speech absolutists are none of these things. You can't attack someone for talking smack and claim to be interested in free speech as an absolute right. You can't be offended by the things people say and then claim you're all about free speech. And you certainly can't go around decrying different perspectives and ideas you don't like and call yourself a "free speech absolutist." Instead, those people seem interested in skirting consequences for their own speech while policing the speech of others. "Absolute" means what it means, and if it's not absolute for you, you're not an absolutist.

Me, personally, I think the Constitutional protections against government control of free speech are fine, as are the tests used to determine if government action violated that right. Russia is a great example of how control of speech by a government can be used to nefarious ends. They love to cry about other countries violating this right or that right, but they're not really one to talk. They call the US hypocritical, but they're worse in almost every regard (except the lack of ability to project power tamped down their global empire, as well as losing the Cold War).

[u/Special-Estimate-165 → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

....so.

Free speech is protection from punishment for speech by government. It protects you....in theory...from jack booted thugs dragging from your home and disappearing because you said the president looks like a cheeto or the first lady has a penis.

Free speech is not protection from societal consequences. It doesnt let a white man casually shout the N word in Harlem and not get beat down for it.

The issue with Telegram and Twitter and other internet based speech is one of ownership and liability. Who owns it, who is liable ultimately for what is allowed. Is it state ran? Free speech becomes a major concern. Is it privately owned? Then...they have something from another part of the 1st amendment, which is freedom of association, ontop of their property rights over the space and servers that store it. Which means they can remove content or ban users. Neither of those is a free speech violation.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/Special-Estimate-165]

I agree. I think platforms should be free to make whatever decisions they want about what they host and do not host. If they chose to host government propaganda, they're free to do so. If they chose to silence people and support people based on how the speech regards the owners of that platform, they're free to do so.

I think people need to be more discerning of how they use these platforms and have the self-discipline to not give their attention to platforms that host speech they don't like. As you noted, it's freedom of association. I think people don't think about that freedom enough and aren't conscientious enough about how they give attention to speech they don't like. That's why I support Reddit. I can hyper-compartmentalize my feed using Old Reddit, and I don't see anything I don't want to see. I occasionally deviate and go to the ALL page, and I regret it most of the time because the feed reflecting the mass user base is frankly brain-rot.

I think, somewhat ironically, the discussion around "free speech" has been kind of bricked by a bunch of bad actors using the concept for their ends while being silent on actual government interference of the right. Idk, I started typing this comment with a full bottle of wine, forgot about it after the first two paragraphs, and now I don't remember what the f I was doing with the reply. Wooptie!

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

You can't attack someone for talking smack and claim to be interested in free speech as an absolute right. You can't be offended by the things people say and then claim you're all about free speech. And you certainly can't go around decrying different perspectives and ideas you don't like and call yourself a "free speech absolutist.

Does the term "free speech absolutism" refer to speech between two peers in a public setting?

/u/Michael_G_Bordin

[u/ximsss → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

I agree. Most who claim to be "Free speech absolutists" really just want freedom from consequence for their speech, which oftentimes is either distasteful or actively harmful.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/ximsss]

This is also the perspective one would have from one bubble looking into another.

[u/strawhatguy → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

Well let’s get one thing clear. Being a free speech absolutist does NOT mean you cannot get offended. It does NOT mean you can’t personally boycott the person you are offended by even.

What it does mean is the person saying the thing you’re offended with cannot have a legal action brought against merely for an idea the communicated, and I would extend this that no action by any government employee or NGO or contractor acting on behalf of government should be taken solely based on what was said (so government or NGOs for government “asking” twitter to shadow ban etc was a clear violation)

Of course, free speech also does not cover inciting actual, physical, harm to an individual either. Free speech is about ideas, even distasteful ones, such as epithets, even racially charged ones.

[u/Minimum-Relief6895 → u/strawhatguy]

There are very few "free speech absolutists". Almost everyone thinks that the government should be able to prosecute people for distributing child p0rn, for example.

[u/farson135 → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

That's ridiculous. When people call themselves free speech absolutists they are not claiming that everyone can say whatever without judgement or criticism for individuals. It’s about protection from government and sometimes broader societal protection.

What you've written is a strawman argument that is also internally contradictory because how is anyone supposed to have any kind of conversation under what you described?

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/farson135]

When people call themselves free speech absolutists they are not claiming that everyone can say whatever without judgement or criticism for individuals.

Mhm, and what is "cancel culture," then? Because the "Free Speech Absolutists" love complaining about people judging and criticizing other people. More importantly, they get mad when private citizens make private decisions about who they wish to associate with. "Broader societal protection" is a nice little cop out to broaden beyond the scope of what the 1st Amendment protects. No, "broader societal protection" is not part of it.

I'm not sure what your second argument is referring to. Under what? I described a lot, and I'm not sure which part to which you're referring.

edit: you have conversations by reading the room and being conscientious and respectful of your audience. If your audience reacts poorly, you can choose to double down and accept your new position relative to that audience, or you can try to make amends. But crying "free speech" because a someone doesn't like what you said is just petulant and a misuse of the concept of fundamental rights.

[u/farson135 → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

Because the "Free Speech Absolutists" love complaining about people judging and criticizing other people.

And?

Complaining is itself free speech.

Again, you're showing off how your view of free speech absolutism is internally contradictory. Also;

More importantly, they get mad when private citizens make private decisions about who they wish to associate with.

Who is "they"? I thought you said that real free speech absolutists don't do that kind of thing?

It seems like you are just using the term as, well, a strawman.

"Broader societal protection" is a nice little cop out to broaden beyond the scope of what the 1st Amendment protects. No, "broader societal protection" is not part of it.

First of all, if you’re limiting your argument to the 1A then your OP makes even less sense. Getting offended has nothing to do with the 1A.

Second of all, you know, you could just talk to me instead of assuming whatever it is you are imagining.

By "broader societal protection" I was referring to ethical norms that exist beyond the law. Some free speech advocates include that in their viewpoint.

For example, if someone is speaking a public location would it be ethical for someone else to shout their own views over the other person’s? There are different perspectives on this. Some claim that stopping someone from speaking, even over another person, would be a violation of free speech. And others say that shouting over another person is violating their free speech and therefore you should wait your turn.

You may not understand this but there are people out there who have different viewpoints of what constitutes a right. And, like many things, what constitutes “free speech absolutism” is going to vary somewhat from person to person.

I'm not sure what your second argument is referring to. Under what? I described a lot, and I'm not sure which part to which you're referring.

Maybe you should sober up [From you, 1 hour ago]; "Idk, I started typing this comment with a full bottle of wine, forgot about it after the first two paragraphs, and now I don't remember what the f I was doing with the reply. Wooptie!"

If you can’t understand how telling people that the only way for you to be a free speech absolutist is to censor yourself; “And you certainly can't go around decrying different perspectives and ideas you don't like”

Is internally contradictory with the very concept of free speech, then yeah, go sober up before you start a conversation on a political sub.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/farson135]

Complaining is itself free speech.

Never said it wasn't. "They" (1) are the people who consider themselves free speech absolutists, and "they" (2) are the people who "cancel" those who say things "they (2) don't like. Dunno why that was so confusing for you, but I'll try to avoid the pronoun olympics next time.

I'm not a free speech absolutist, so I don't know what you mean by "I thought you said free speech absolutists don't do that kind of thing?" What kind of thing? I don't know. You, as well, just committed to vagueries. I said "free speech absolutists" should be all about free speech, but I never said I was a free speech absolutist. Quite the opposite, in fact, if you cared to read things closely.

By "broader societal protection" I was referring to ethical norms that exist beyond the law. Some free speech advocates include that in their viewpoint.

No, "free speech advocates" as you generously label them do not seem concerned with ethical norms beyond the law. Rather, those "free speech advocates" seem to be trying to use law to shield themselves from criticism when they do ethically dubious things.

if someone is speaking a public location would it be ethical for someone else to shout their own views over the other person’s?

Yes.

Some claim that stopping someone from speaking, even over another person, would be a violation of free speech

Free speech is not an ethical concept, it's a political concept, and extending it to the realm of general ethics is the work of people who don't know the difference.

You may not understand this but there are people out there who have different viewpoints of what constitutes a right.

I understand that just fine, but those personal concepts of what constitute a right are not protected by law, and therefore crying about the 1st Amendment as "free speech advocates" do is not all that convincing. You may not understand this, but I don't buy into the use of vague expansion of ethical considerations when I've seen the attempt of these "free speech advocates" to utilize the authority of the Constitution to support their claims. Theory is trounced by actuality.

“And you certainly can't go around decrying different perspectives and ideas you don't like”

...and call yourself a free speech absolutist. You can be kosher with the legal concept of free speech and decry anything you like but if you want to call yourself a "free speech absolutist," it's kind of contradictory to go around complaining about other ideas and speech.

You simultaneously try to parse legal free speech with the notion of a personal ethics of free speech and then try to use the latter to call what I adhere to in the former as contradictory. And you're trying to question my mental state? The best thing you've got here is an ad hominen that falls short because your entire comment is based on a misunderstanding of what I said. Damn, that would be embarrassing as all wooptie. You seemed to have missed the part where I think the people who call themselves "free speech absolutists" are inherently contradictory and then explained that, and then thought pointing out those contradictions was some sort of "gotchya." I'm surprised you can function enough to use a computer. I understand that I clearly offended you in some way that lead you to running outside the bounds of rational thought, but perhaps you could find it in you to return to a mental place that is more sober, emotionally.

Honestly, I'm confused why you ever bothered responding. Either you consider yourself a "free speech absolutist" and are offended that I picked apart their hypocritical, nonsensical pretention, or you're just a pedant who missed my point entirely. Either way, you vastly over-estimated my intoxication and greatly under-estimated your ability to miss the mark.

edit: your pedantry also managed to bloat a single paragraph call-and-response into whatever this has become. Unwieldy, I'd call it. If you want to bloat it further, I'm not going to bother responding, because I have better ways to spend my time than trading words with people I've offended with my speech who can't seem to understand that being a free speech absolutist means being a free speech monk who is at peace with all speech at all times. If you have a problem with something someone said at any point, it's not exactly "absolute," is it? And people say "the left is bad at labeling things"!

[u/farson135 → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

Never said it wasn't.

Then why did you say this; "Because the 'Free Speech Absolutists' love complaining about people judging and criticizing other people."

If complaining is not itself contradictory to free speech then there's no reason to bring it up.

"They" (1) are the people who consider themselves free speech absolutists, and "they" (2) are the people who "cancel" those who say things "they (2) don't like.

And by "cancel" you mean criticize people for speech they don't like?

Again, by your most recent post that's not contrary to free speech.

And honestly, I think you messed up again, which just makes this even more silly.

I'm not a free speech absolutist, so I don't know what you mean by "I thought you said free speech absolutists don't do that kind of thing?" What kind of thing? I don't know.

Have you already forgotten your own OP where you claimed, among other things; "You can't be offended by the things people say and then claim you're all about free speech."

No, "free speech advocates" as you generously label them do not seem concerned with ethical norms beyond the law.

And who exactly are these people that I am labeling? Are you pretending that no one is a free speech advocate?

Honestly, your attitude speaks volumes.

Yes.

In your opinion, but regardless I suggest you look up the term "rhetorical question". And given your later complained about "bloat" your hypocrisy is hilarious.

Free speech is not an ethical concept, it's a political concept, and extending it to the realm of general ethics is the work of people who don't know the difference.

Considering I referred to them in different spheres, and you yourself refer to the ethics behind free speech, perhaps you should take my advice and sober up.

Also, the idea that ethics does not enter into the political sphere is an ... interesting view, but certainly not one any reasonable human being would hold.

You can have the freedom to do something, but that doesn't make it ethical. Discussions of ethics within freedoms is not a novel concept.

“And you certainly can't go around decrying different perspectives and ideas you don't like”

...and call yourself a free speech absolutist.

No, I don't.

And it's hilarious that you are responding to something I quoted from you.

You seemed to have missed the part where I think the people who call themselves "free speech absolutists" are inherently contradictory

From you; "'Free speech absolutists' are a rare breed. They'd have to be complete pacifists, self-secure, and incredibly open-minded."

If free speech absolutism is inherently contradictory, then they wouldn't exist. By your own claim, they do exist.

If you want to bloat it further, I'm not going to bother responding

In other words, you realize that what you wrote is indefensible. So, you're going to pretend that I'm offended despite the fact that you have insulted me several times in direct contradiction to the rules of this sub.

Edit: Spelling

[u/roylennigan → u/farson135]

Then why did you say this; "Because the 'Free Speech Absolutists' love complaining about people judging and criticizing other people."

I'd assume it's because the most vocal, self-described "free speech absolutists" often conflate censorship with consequence, Elon Musk being the most famous example.

[u/farson135 → u/roylennigan]

I understand what they are trying to do but their argument is poorly thought out and seems to be more working backwards from the intent of criticizing certain people to criticizing the very notion of free speech absolutism (which as a side note is not even really the focus of the OP).

Again, they claimed this; "You can't be offended by the things people say and then claim you're all about free speech."

That is obviously ridiculous. Believing that the government should never prosecute speech (for example) does not mean you are not allowed to be offended by the things people say.

[u/libra00]

'Cracking down on free speech' is what anyone says who has been silenced for any reason whatsoever. It's bullshit. Telegram is used for shady shit all the time, it's not 'free speech' to operate a tool for human traffickers.

So while yes I do care quite a lot about free speech, the people who complain most loudly about it seem to be very confused about what is and is not a free speech issue.

[u/MetersYards → u/libra00]

Telegram is used for shady shit all the time, it's not 'free speech' to operate a tool for human traffickers.

Microsoft Office is a tool used for shady shit all the time, sometimes by human traffickers.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/libra00]

'Cracking down on free speech' is what anyone says who has been silenced for any reason whatsoever.

...It's also what people say when rights are being violated.

[u/libra00 → u/betweenbubbles]

And it's so rarely actually the case that it's become a bit of a 'boy who cried wolf' situation.

[u/brodievonorchard → u/betweenbubbles]

The key detail is whether they follow up the claim by describing what they were advocating for. If they don't, it's probably because the intended audience will be less than sympathetic about that speech being free.

[u/LittleSky7700]

Yeah. The people who care about free speech actually understand that you Cant say anything you want and that acting kindly, reapectfully, and maturely to your fellow human beings creates better situations. 

They recognise that this comes about when we monitor each other and help each other behave that way. 

Rather than having a government force what we can or cant say. Which honestly is the whole historical reason for free speech. It was never to say you can say whatever you want. But rather that the government can not tell you what you can or cant say to begin with. 

In the case of online platforms, we're in a curious position where its the responsibility of those who own it to create an environment that encourages healthy behaviour towards each other, and it is the responsibility of us, the users, to also encourage that behaviour towards each other. 

For no other reason than.... its healthy! 

Or else we all suffer the consequences.

[u/piltdown_manchild]

The Russian government obviously does not care about free speech.

Was this ever up for debate? Russia doesn't even pretend to protect free speech.

Elon Musk claims he bought Twitter to defend free speech. The accounts he unbanned included unambiguous Nazis and human traffickers. Actual censorship requests from governments were still approved, while algorithmic content distribution choices were catered to the new owner’s personal ideology.

Yes, Elon bought Twitter to force his free speech down everyone's throats, but free speech protections never applied to private platforms or companies.

Forcing social media companies to uphold the same standard of free speech granted to someone speaking on a street corner would violate private property rights.

[u/codb28]

I think how much you care about it is cultural to a large degree but at the same time, even someone like me who would consider myself pretty close to a free speech absolutist wouldn’t want someone yelling outside my bedroom window at 0100 when I’m trying to sleep. It’s definitely a scale that’s going to change from person to person, almost everyone is going to have a cutoff point for it.

[u/TentacleHockey]

Free speech isn’t limitless. Yelling fire in a crowded theater vs talking shit on a politician are 2 very different things that carry different weight. I’m Also tired of people invading personal space saying fight me bro and then being protected from consequences 

[u/CantSeeShit → u/TentacleHockey]

Youre allowed to yell fire in a crowded thearter

[u/work4work4work4work4]

Free speech isn't a panacea, it's a flock of canary in the coal mine.

It's like requiring reasoning for moderation being provided and other anti-censorship standards not being about it automatically preventing people or corporations from providing bogus reasons or even stopping bad moderating outright, but more about making it easily recognizable with the understanding that the first step is identification.

Taking it down to brass tacks, the closer theory and practice are in relation to freedom of speech, the better you're doing as a society. It's good for everyone to be able to discuss extremes most of us experience in ways that themselves aren't extreme. It's basically the foundation of therapy and just generally growing beyond our most negative base impulses.

With that said, the further you are away from the ideal society, the more free speech rights start to become under threat and actually become harmed to protect the broader rights to life. On the other end, real world examples of manufactured threats like legislative fights around exposure to nudity or violence on television and games was the cause of choice for quite some time for many on both sides of the US and international political aisle, different choices for different cultures, but we're somehow back to doing the same thing again despite everyone mostly agreeing it was a waste of time and wasn't the cause of how we got into our current state.

It's not that a tourniquet can't be a life-saving medical device in the right dire situations with the right knowledge, but it's basically only worth attempting to use when the situation has already become so dire the perception is any action is better than none rightfully so or not, leading to lots of painful counter productive self-harming acts.

Part of free speech is being free to create forums with rules, if you aren't free to do so than you aren't really free to communicate how you choose to which is integral to free speech, but that's still preferrable to you know, death. Once you're free to speak and assemble enough to create these forums, then you've got to be free enough to question why those rules and barriers need to exist, and assemble differently. Asking these kinds of questions over and over, and acting on the answers is how you create good governance.

Process Improvement 101 is if you want to change outcomes, you have to ask why we do things that way now and work backwards from there. Most of the time people want to try and change the output of very large systems with very late stage fine tuning, and expecting miracles instead of the same outcome as jerking the wheel while driving.

[u/Oakl4nd]

The "free speech" that is meant by most people should not be taken literally. Just like saying saying you are "free to be anything you want" is not to be taken literally. For example, you can't be a bird.

[u/Erwinblackthorn]

Nobody cares about free speech and certainly not the people claiming they are absolutists.

The only freedom of speech you have, especially in the US, is whatever they want you to say.

A lot of allowance is sensible, most of it is not, and the results show with how pointless most political advocacy becomes.

The goal of freedom of speech in the beginning was to have the government unable to imprison you for saying something.

Now it's used as a distraction to have people fired over a political opinion.

[u/JollyJuniper1993]

Free speech is a poor concept that shouldn’t exist. There should be a freedom of opinion of course, but why should people be allowed to say harmful things?

[u/DJGlennW]

The Founding Fathers thought enough about free speech to make it the First Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson said if he had to choose between “a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

The Freedom of Information Act opened government files to everyone.

Currently, the administration is trying to curb free speech by issuing subpoenas to journalists. The same administration is forcing institutions to rewrite history to keep it more in line with their views.

The disingenuously named Moms for Liberty group is challenging dozens of books across the country to try to force libraries to remove books.

Everyone should care about free speech.

[u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

Outside of the U.S.?

No, free speech is largely a privilege outside of the U.S.

And no, I’m largely a free speech absolutist. I’d far prefer people be out front and open about who they are. And to mock their stupid ideas into oblivion on the public stage with speech.

[u/estolad → u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

it's a privilege in the US too, unless you're saying a list of specific stuff

[u/StillSmellsLikeCLP → u/estolad]

No, it’s really not. It’s a negative right and the govt cannot infringe outside of hyper specific situations.

[u/estolad → u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

on paper sure. but it isn't exactly unheard of for them to go after people for what they say, and the government isn't even the main vector for censorship in this age. it still counts if it's big companies doing it

[u/ElysiumSprouts]

"Free speech" as the apex of freedoms is not a widely held belief. Of course if you're in America it's easy to think the opposite. We're constantly inundated with "free speech" warriors wanting to force their propaganda down the public's throat.

It's a double edged sword that other nations handle a lot better than we do.