We Need To Fight For Free Speech More Than Ever

from the free-speech-is-what-we-have-left,-protect-it dept

The American people have spoken. And they’ve chosen to hand the full power of our military, the nuclear codes, and the courts to a petty, vindictive man who wants to punish anyone who disagrees with him.

I’m not going to say much directly about the election this week, because what is there that I can actually say? I’m not a registered Democrat and am not particularly partisan (I criticize Democrats all the time for dumb policies), but it was entirely clear that in this election there was one choice who was going to keep fundamental rights in place, work for the entire country, and focus on building a better society.

And there was one option who is a convicted criminal, guilty of sexual assault, who made it clear that his campaign was based on hate and spite. He has all but shouted from the rooftops that his next administration (with the guardrails off from last time) will be a vengeance tour of punishment, destruction, and grift for himself and his friends.

And America chose that latter option.

It’s all kinds of fucked up, and it will cause tremendous harm and totally unnecessary, totally avoidable pain. But it’s what we have to deal with now.

Yes, I am sure that there will be a few dipshits in the comments gloating and mocking. Because, really, that’s all they have that motivates them in their pathetic lives. They are not here to work to improve anything. They are just here to tear people down, and they get off on hate and spite. Ignore them. They have to face themselves and their own darkness in the mirror. And you know full well it will haunt them.

If you want some sort of broader thoughts on what to do, I recommend Ken White’s writeup of “what should we do now” which has some excellent suggestions.

But I want to focus on just one point: we need to fight to protect our free speech rights more than ever. Soon, we will have the most anti-free speech Presidential administration in anyone’s lifetime.

Yes, some will say that he was President before, and it wasn’t that bad, but that’s wrong. First of all, it was bad. He spent much of his time as President attacking the free speech of anyone who criticized him, including the media. And, unlike last time, the general infrastructure and institutions that protected free speech are much more at risk and prone to be dismantled by this administration.

In his “acceptance” speech, he has already signaled that he views the press as an enemy within, and he has encouraged violence and attacks on the press. His soon-to-be head of the FCC has talked about removing the (non-existent) licenses of TV channels he doesn’t like, and you know that this is only signaling an intent to punish any outlet that speaks critically of Trump and his cronies.

In the US, we still have a functioning First Amendment and historical precedents that protect free speech. However, both parties have spent years trying to whittle that away. As we’ve covered here on Techdirt, Republicans and Democrats alike have been pushing a variety of anti-speech laws that keep getting rejected by courts. But the Republicans have built up a new set of institutions that, in a break with the past, are equally against free speech, and willing to rewrite a century of First Amendment jurisprudence, so long as it’s in support of the MAGA agenda (“it’s okay if Trump and his supporters do it, but it can be stopped if anyone else does it.”)

Of course, it is particularly annoying that Democrats have been eager participants in the efforts to curb speech, and that needs to stop. Here in California, the courts have (correctly!) tossed out multiple Gavin Newsom-endorsed laws for clearly violating the First Amendment. The California legislature along with Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta need to stop fucking trying to undermine the First Amendment.

Ditto for efforts in Congress. Too many Democrats have fallen for bullshit moral panics that were nothing more than GOP-driven attempts to censor speech they don’t like.

For now, the Supreme Court has actually been pretty good on the First Amendment. However, Justices Alito and Thomas (along with Gorsuch) have indicated a real openness to ruling in favor of whatever Trump wants. So far, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett have actually been surprisingly strong on still protecting the First Amendment, while Justice Jackson has been surprisingly weak.

Either way, the point stands: we need to protect our free speech rights more than ever. Trump and the MAGA crowd are going to gleefully try to stomp them out. They will push to repeal Section 230. They will push to outlaw all kinds of content they dislike (if you thought existing book bans were bad, just wait). They will push to outlaw all sorts of things.

And Democrats are going to fall for bullshit moral panics and agree to help them.

Don’t let them. Speak up and protect free speech rights.

I know that some people will incorrectly claim that Trump was only elected because he and his supporters were allowed to lie with impunity about basically everything. But that’s bullshit, first of all, and giving up your free speech rights won’t help.

Shutting down free speech rights is capitulating in advance, because you are handing over the very tools that Trump and his censorial cronies will use to shut up anyone who criticizes him.

In the coming years, there will be many efforts to try to protect the US against growing authoritarian and fascist plans. None of that will be possible if we don’t protect our free speech rights first.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “We Need To Fight For Free Speech More Than Ever”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
167 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

They have to face themselves and their own darkness in the mirror. And you know full well it will haunt them.

No, they are so infused with propaganda that they believe an entirely different reality. In their reality Trump is the underdog fighting for freedom and the Soros-funded Lügenpresse, er I mean election-interfering traitors are pushing lies about him. There is no having to come to terms with reality because their reality will continue to bend and twist as necessary to exalt Trump and demonize those who stand up to him.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Take a breath

Overreact much? You will be fine.

You may not like Trump and his policies, but the amount of hyperbole above is quite amazing; at least I’m hoping it is mostly hyperbole.

Please spare me the consternation about how we are going to be in a fascist utopia for 4 years. Over exaggerating things is what makes people not want to listen more to your statements/arguments.

The sky is not falling.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

Overreact much? You will be fine.

The article isn’t arguing that TD/MM won’t be fine; it’s arguing that free speech as a concept won’t be.

Just last week, Trump sued a news organization for making editorial decisions. With a government behind him, he can do much worse.

It’s fine not to agree with the article, but don’t try to brush off just how badly Trump and his cronies can fuck with (currently) free and legal speech for the next four years.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Overreact much? You will be fine.

I’m sorry that you are so full of self-obsession that you cannot think about the pain that will be inflicted on others. It must be quite lonely to only think of yourself.

You may not like Trump and his policies, but the amount of hyperbole above is quite amazing

Which part was hyperbolic? If anything, this article seems to downplay what is about to happen.

Please spare me the consternation about how we are going to be in a fascist utopia for 4 years

I see no mention of fascism in the article. And certainly not “utopia.” Did you actually read the article or are you responding to the voices in your head?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You don’t know what it takes to amend the constitution, do you?

No amendment to the Constitution required. Trump will simply sign an Executive Order and the Supreme Court will eventually confirm its rightness–and then no more detestable anchor babies.

Can’t wait for all the Third World scum to start self-deporting.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Three things.

  1. If you believe in fascism or support fascists, and you don’t want to be called a fascist, there’s a simple solution to your problem: Stop believing in fascism or supporting fascists.
  2. If your biggest problem is being called a “fascist”, you actually have a bigger problem: a lack of compassion for the marginalized and the vulnerable.
  3. If and when you need those kinds of people on your side, and all you do is belittle them or ignore their suffering or openly welcome their deaths, you’re not going to have many people on your side when the fascists come for you⁠—and on a long enough timeline, they will come for you.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

… Los Angeles suspending air quality standards so the crematoriums could burn the COVID dead quickly enough, federal law enforcement grabbing American citizens off the streets and into unmarked vans, unauthorized and secret medical procedures on prisoners. Just so much freedom and goodness.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Welcome to this round place we all call the World.
Wars appear regularly with often a lot of waste.
Economy fluctuate with often a lot of waste.
Energy is exploited with often a lot of waste.
Layoffs often allow rich people to produce a lot more waste.

Even for two centuries, US have not be able to stop the World from spinning because Americans represent about only 4% of the population.
It would be the kind of miracle expected for two millenniums and you really think that an elderly man can do it in four years?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

And his solution for any current wars are “let the aggressors win”. Do you really think he’s going to give a shit about Ukraine or Gazan Palestinians? Hell, do you think he’s going to give a shit about NATO countries if Russia attacks one?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Yeah, lets think it through.

If I’m a terrorist, I’m willing to die for my cause. Hiding in someone’s house to get them killed together with me sounds like a good idea – especially since the guy in the house has been so supportive of killing innocents that is in the way so he should be totally supportive of any action that blows him skyhigh together with a terrorist.

Did you think it through? Apparently not.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Focus on the good and you’ll always make things sound better than they were. That holds true for nostalgia, ignorance, and delusion. People suffered under a Trump presidency⁠—not the least of which were undocumented immigrants who had their children stripped away from them and lost in the system. You not caring about their suffering doesn’t erase that suffering from having happened.

The atrocities of the first Trump administration are well-documented. Remind yourself of them now. When his second term begins, those atrocities will be much worse thanks to the lack of guardrails on his second term, the cowardice of a press that is already obeying in advance, and the violence that his followers will be more than happy to inflict on his behalf. You can make yourself believe those four years were great years for everyone. You can even make yourself believe that those who suffered and died as a result of the Trump administration’s actions “don’t matter”. But one day, you or someone you love will be affected by the Trump administration. Don’t come here looking for pity or forgiveness; you will find none here, at least not for you.

Congratulations on your victory. Enjoy the feeling while it lasts, because even victory has its price.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

No new wars.

Plenty of existing ones but they don’t matter right?

Cheap energy. Affordable housing… Affordable goods.

But the companies that provide these things are making much bigger profits now! Isn’t that what you’re supposed to be in favor of? Why aren’t you cheering on their successes?

Low unemployment.

And after a spike caused by a worldwide pandemic (which apparently caused the greatest impact on “ma freedumbs!” ever and can be completely ignored when talking about how great the Trump years were) unemployment is now even lower. How exactly is that a problem?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Literally none of that is true other than the no new wars, but seeing as how he made some existing wars worse, I don’t see that as the win you’ve lied to yourself that it is.

But he had no real economic policy beyond tax cuts for the rich and give corporations whatever the fuck they want. He just took credit for an economy he inherited.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Yes, I am sure that there will be a few dipshits in the comments gloating and mocking. Because, really, that’s all they have that motivates them in their pathetic lives. They are not here to work to improve anything.

We improve America by doing our praxis and finding ways big and small to discourage you libs.

Telling you that you’re midwits, ridiculing your hopes and dreams, pointing out your mediocrity and life fails, laughing at you when your bad ideas explode.

We’ll miss no opportunity to mock and jeer because a politics of discouragement undermines your remaining institutional control.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

So. Rather than wanting to build a community and bridge the gap between people with ideological disagreements and focus on the common problems of the working and middle class, you’re effectively saying “I don’t give a shit if Trump and his pals kill people unless they’re people he’s not supposed to be killing”.

When all of Trump’s enemies are either dead, in jail, or effectively silenced, do you really believe you’ll be safe? When people like you have everything you ever wanted, do you really believe you’ll be satisfied enough to let everyone else live in peace? You can say “yes” all you want, but the real answer is “no”, and your problem is that you will never be able to figure out why.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I want to ridicule and undermine my ideological enemies (i.e., Democrats & other progressives), diminish their authority, erode their social status, refuse to accede to any sort of consensus, and make it almost impossible for them to feel good about themselves or anything they’re doing.

They are psychically fragile and they become very agitated and unwell if the grandiose stories that they tell to celebrate themselves aren’t affirmed.

A politics of discouragement – maximizing psychic costs, minimizing enjoyment and (self) satisfaction, and making victories seem as small as possible – is a great way to neuter libs and make America great again.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The fact that you believe all this is a sign of sociopathy. I mean, consider the following: Even if you get everything you want⁠—all your favorite cultural boogeymen either dead or imprisoned in concentration camps, all the power you can dream of, all the riches in the world⁠—you will never be satisfied because your ideology is built on a foundation of “making others suffer is a good thing”. When all of your Repugnant Cultural Others are “taken care of”, you will keep looking for someone to make suffer. This is why fascism, authoritarianism, and other right-wing ideologies are an ouroboros: Their adherents all eventually eat themselves as they look inward for enemies that once only existed in outgroups.

Every bit of pain and misery you cause, or you want caused, to marginalized and vulnerable people only makes the head of the snake that will eat you that much bigger. And when the jaws of the ouroboros open to swallow you, you will plead for help from what few people remain that might help you. They will all turn their backs to you so they won’t be eaten alongside you.

You will be alone. You will be helpless. You will deserve that fate.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

One “side” of the American populace is made up of the marginalized, the vulnerable, and those with privilege who want to protect and raise up the first two groups. We’ll paint that side as the “left”. Another “side” is made up of those who don’t give a fuck about the safety, civil rights, or general well-being of the “left”⁠—sometimes to the point of openly expressing the desire to hurt or even kill the “left”. We’ll paint that side as the “right”.

Trying to bridge the gap between two people who, say, like different sports teams is one thing. Trying to bridge the gap between a gay person from the “left” who wants to live in peace and a conservative Christian from the “right” who thinks gay people should be executed by the state? Not exactly an easy task. That besides: The “left” is always asked to do the work of bridging the gap with the “right”, but the “right” is never asked or expected to do that same work. If the “right” truly wants to bridge political divides and unite the country together in common cause and generally be friends with people on the “left”, why aren’t they being more friendly?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

“Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man. You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.” — A.R. Moxon

Can you take a guess as to why people on the “right” have been maligned, fairly or not, by such labels? Maybe it has to do with…

  • …the fact that the “right” has been aligned with, for at least the past 40 years, a bunch of bigots who have used their power to worsen the lives of the marginalized and vulnerable
  • …how conservatives keep supporting Donald Trump, a man who admires fascist authoritarians and “jokes” about being a dictator on the first day of his second term
  • …how the religious leaders within the “right” keep pushing an ideology that (among other things) paints women as objects to be owned/slaves to be kept instead of respecting them as individuals with a mind of their own⁠—and keep trying to force that ideology into secular law
  • …how the one of the most popular figures in the mediasphere on the “right” is Andrew Tate, who openly advocates for men to commit rape
  • …how men on the “right” see a phrase like “toxic masculinity”, which is meant as an attack on certain toxic behaviors and attitudes associated with masculinity, and consider it an attack on masculinity/all men instead of a chance to consider whether they exhibit those behaviors and attitudes
  • …how the “right” tries to strictly police how people dress, what people can read, and what reproductive care women can seek

…but sure, maybe it’s just because the “left” wants to be a bunch of assholes for no reason at all~. 🙃

And before you think to say it: Yes, the “left” has problems of its own. (Leaders on the “left”, for example, often struggle with communicating positions and controlling narratives.) But every time the idea of bridging the gap between the “left” and the “right” comes up, the “left” is always expected to reach out and do the heavy lifting of befriending the “right”. No one ever demands that the “right” opens their minds to the possibility that they’re being assholes or that their beliefs are harming others or anything like that. The “left” is always asked to consider the feelings of the “right” and placate those feelings by being “nicer” and ignoring abject bigotry and whatever else makes the “right” happy.

You speak of “identity politics” and divisiveness, but you fail to notice the identity politics of the “right”. You fail to notice how a right-wing mediasphere sets white people against people of color, cishet people against queer people, men against women, and basically sets up the vulnerable to be attacked and beseiged by the privileged and the powerful. The “left” tries harder to unite people than the “right” ever will because the “right” lives in a media cocoon that tells them “you’re the majority, but you’re losing power to all these Others, and you have to stop that”. Is the “left” perfect in those efforts? No. In fact, the issue of the right-wing radicalization of men is one that the “left” (or the primary political leadership therein) has a big problem with addressing. But that radicalization is a big problem, and trying to blame it on the “left” and “identity politics” ignores that the radicalization is itself a form of identity politics.

The “left” has every right (ha) to ignore the “right” as it calls for unity. That kind of unity isn’t actual unity⁠—it’s a demand for obedience to their power, to their beliefs, to a world order that (among other things) calls for the marginalizing of queer people like me. For what possible fucking reason should a queer person do all the work of trying to befriend an anti-queer bigot if the bigot won’t do the work of opening their mind and thinking of that queer person as anything but a target for violence?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

You can start by thinking of people as people instead of black and white queer and straight etc… People are people.

I don’t know what color you are and there is no need for me to know. I don’t need to know if you are bi or trans, quit telling us and then trying to make a big deal of it saying it is us who is obsessed with genitals. If you didn’t tell us we wouldn’t know.

There is one human race. It isn’t on a spectrum

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Ah, a variant of the “color blind” argument!

Sorry, but that shit doesn’t work on me, and there’s one quote that sums up why:

“I’m in an interracial marriage, and I’ve learned a lot I would have never known. I one time told Brandi, ‘I don’t have a racist bone’⁠—I said, ‘I don’t see color.’ And she said, ‘Well then, you don’t see my experience.’ And I thought, ‘Oh, that’s…you’re right. I can’t just say that.’ You need to be able to see that experience and at least understand it.” — Cody Rhodes

When you don’t see color, you can’t see patterns⁠—and in terms of humanity, that means you can’t see patterns of bigotry even as they surround you. You are effectively demanding that the marginalized stop griping about being marginalized whenever you ask them to shut up about their race, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.

If you don’t care about the lives of marginalized people, say so. But don’t ask them to be quiet about their lives. That’s censorious, sociopathic, and just plain rude.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

This. When it comes to people of ethnicities different to my own, I of course see that difference, but ignore it in relation to most of their interactions with me, including negative. However, I always pay attention to it when they speak of their experiences of marginalization as a member of their particular ethnic/cultural group.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

If the most progressive policy points can’t win them, there must be something in the middleground that will.

Money.

It’s really very simple, the vast lump of middle-of-the-road voters cite their finances as their main concern when choosing who to vote for. It’s tempting to think of every voter as driven by partisanship or culture war issues, but really they just want cash, and will generally vote for whomever makes the most believable promise to ensure that they get it. Even if that promise never pans out.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 If the Dear Leader says 2+2=5 then for true believers 2+2=5

You answered your own question.

It goes completely against all rational understanding of how things actually work.

If the people you’re talking to have no understanding on the subject at hand but have been conditioned to believe anything that the authority figure in front of them tells them, even if it contradicts observable reality, then whether something has a basis in rationality or even reality matters less than what they’re told.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

It isn’t, and here’s why: Every time anti-trans bigots like you talk about trans people, y’all never talk about trans men. But y’all always talk about trans women and the threat they pose to cis women. Y’all go off about “men in women’s locker rooms” and “boys playing in girls sports” and all that, but you never once talk about such situations where the genders are switched.

It really does come down to an obsession with penises⁠—or, more specifically, who is allowed to have penises. To you and your bigot brethren, the penis is a symbol of masculinity, and therefore a symbol of leadership and power and even sex itself. Y’all see a trans woman with a penis as a threat to the “natural order” of “men being in charge”, an intrusion of unwanted sexuality, and a slap in the face of the notion that gender identity is as immutable as biological sex. That last one is also why y’all love to go after drag shows and police how people can express themselves: Queer people show everyone that gender is something you can take off and put on⁠—a costume, a social construct, a false reality held up by societal expectations and physical violence from people like you.

You have strong feelings about penises. Stop having those feelings and you’ll find yourself obsessing less and less about the genitalia of trans people⁠—and trans people in general, really. The average trans person is less of a threat to you than you are to all trans people; until you accept that fact, you will never be anything more than a penis-obsessed bigot.

In the meantime: Have fun thinking about trans women’s dicks!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Trump added $7.8 trillion dollars to the national debt during his presidency that the taxpayer has to pay for in the end, and you want him to set economic policy?

Compare that to Kamala’s private election campaign that has allegedly $20 million dollars in debt that no taxpayer will ever have to pay.

But please do compare potatoes and apples, it shows that thinking isn’t your strong suit and you should stop saying stuff based on that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Honestly, Section 230 being repealed and porn getting banned or otherwise chased down was already on the table and in the courts under Biden, and Kamala was following his politics. Even if she’d won those would still be a likely thing, especially considering she did openly endorse KOSA – what’s scary with Trump is what new horror crop up alongside all tha.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

The left is a broad coalition of “me first!” single interest groups. They can’t rely on their base to turn out because most of those groups insist they should be the main plank of the platform, and they feel disrespected or “without a voice” if they aren’t put there. They get discouraged and then they don’t show up.

The right on the other hand is motivated by the idea of an all-encompassing conservative “movement” which is largely defined by denying power to non-conservatives. And they always turn out.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Burning down your house vs 'Thoughts and prayers' while they watch

Each party is their own worst enemy.

The republicans are highly motivated but also happen to to be deranged and hold damn near every negative personality trait in high regard, driving away anyone with a working moral compass and/or principles that aren’t ‘fuck you, got mine’.

The democrats on the other hand generally have good principles and moral compasses but damn if they don’t tend to be spineless and/or painfully naive, allowing anyone to run circles around them with minimal effort since fighting back would be rude or take work.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Voter apathy did more to sink Kamala’s campaign than any mistakes Kamala made

She had one option to win.

Invoke the 25th, declare Biden incompetent and start doing what she wants to do as president, as president.

Border crossings dropped by half after trump won.
NY cancelled the credit cards of illegals a couple days after he won.

By the way, how many of you here are housing these displaced people? I bet you have no room in your house to house anyone but you want everyone else to take care of them.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Invoke the 25th, declare Biden incompetent and start doing what she wants to do as president, as president.

The VP doesn’t have that option unilaterally. Either Biden or a majority of his cabinet would have to agree.

Border crossings dropped by half after trump won.

[citation needed]

NY cancelled the credit cards of illegals a couple days after he won.

A state cannot unilaterally cancel credit cards. States do not issue credit cards.

By the way, how many of you here are housing these displaced people? I bet you have no room in your house to house anyone but you want everyone else to take care of them.

No, just the government, temporarily, then they buy their own homes like everyone else.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

TKnarr (profile) says:

I think we need to not fight for more free speech. In fact we need to fight to suppress free speech as much as the laws will allow us. Specifically, suppress the free speech of the MAGA faithful and the politicians they support using the very laws they pass to try to suppress our free speech. For instance, they pass laws banning books containing “obscene” or “pornographic” material? OK, we do what someone already did and use those laws to demand that all copies of the Bible be banned from libraries and cite the “obscene” and “pornographic” passages from it such as the Song of Solomon. They pass laws trying to ban “fake news”? OK, we sue to suppress any news story they like where there’s any debate about it’s basis as “fake news”. They try to restrict who’s considered “the press”? OK, we go after their bloggers and podcasters who aren’t employed by major news outlets.

We let them set the rules, and then we play by those rules as hard as we can until they regret ever setting them.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

we need to fight to suppress free speech as much as the laws will allow us

Yes, because being morally and ethically worse than the people you want to fight will surely never backfire and leave things worse off than they were before the fight~.

(And people think I’m fucked up for supporting the rights of right-wing dipshits to speak their mind…)

TKnarr (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Why is playing by the rules they set morally or ethically worse?

As far as wanting to fight, I’d be just fine with letting them have their free speech. The problem is that they don’t want to allow anybody else their free speech. Merely explaining why this is a bad idea hasn’t worked, so a practical demonstration of what happens seems to be in order. If they don’t like the consequences of their own rules, they’re free to change them any time.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Why is playing by the rules they set morally or ethically worse?

If you want to roll around in the muck with a pig, fair play to you, but all it’ll do is get you as dirty as the pig⁠—and the pig will enjoy it regardless.

Look, I understand the impulse of what you’re suggesting. If I didn’t hold the beliefs and principles that I hold right now, I might even agree with you. But the road to Hell is paved with the best of intentions, and yours are looking a little singed.

Teka says:

Re: Re: Re:

Even without all the other ethical problems, your plan is based on rules being applied evenly, perspectives being equal, etc.

MAGA et. al. have shown no problem with any level of hypocritical behavior as long as it serves their needs. This is right out of the fascism playbook where it comes to ingroups protected but not restrained by laws and outgroups restrained but not protected. Don’t count on a judge finding equal merit in equal cases.

Bruce C. says:

The constitution

..at some point in the next 4 years, our freedom will come down to someone, somewhere making a decision whether to blindly follow orders or to stand by their oath to defend the constitution. I pray that there remain enough people of integrity in the government to keep the incoming wave of toadies and sycophants in check.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Free Speech, Well Done

Free speech convinced over 75 million people that voting for Trump would be good for them, and they must be right — otherwise all the counter-balancing “more speech” would have changed their minds, right?

I will guarantee you that the “Freedom of Speech” will be just as healthy after January 20th as it is right now.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

You say that, but you seem to have forgotten that conservatives have been banning books from school and public libraries all across the country. Trump being in the White House will give those book banners all the courage they need to empty out libraries of pretty much anything other than the Bible. Sure, in the short term future⁠—let’s say the first month of Trump’s second term⁠—“free speech” will probably be fine. But let’s see how confident you feel about that notion when a year or two passes and the Trumpist censors have had a real chance to fuck around without worrying about having to find out.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The Diary of a Young Girl (aka The Diary of Anne Frank), in its most complete form, contains Anne’s writings about explorations of sexuality and menstruation. Would allowing a first grader to read that be a good idea? No. Would allowing a high schooler to read that be a good idea? Yes. And yet, its place in school libraries (and in curriculums about the Holocaust) is consistently challenged on the basis of those subjects.

And Tango Makes Three is a children’s book based on a real story about two male penguins who help hatch an egg. Despite the fact that it contains no mentions or explicit depictions of sex acts, it is commonly challenged because it is an allegory for same-sex marriage/relationships and the acceptance of gay people.

These two books, both alike in dignity, are regularly challenged on the basis of being “unfit” for children. But whose children are they unfit for⁠: everyone’s, or those who are being raised by parents who consider any discussion of sex/any depiction of non-hetero love to be offensive and obscene (to them)?

Some books are suitable only for more mature audiences; that, I won’t deny. As I said, reading Anne Frank’s diary to a first-grader is a bad idea. But book banners who go after that book want that book hidden from teenagers of all ages⁠—including ones who were the same age as Anne Frank when she was undergoing puberty and exploring her sexuality.

If a parent doesn’t want their kid to read And Tango Makes Three (or have it read to their kid), that’s their choice. If a parent doesn’t want any kid to read And Tango Makes Three, that’s censorship, and I’ll never be okay with that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Are there books with graphic sex scenes in libraries? Yes. Are those books suitable for all ages? No. That said: The presence of a sex scene or any mention of sexuality should not, on its own, be enough to take a book out of a public library⁠—or a high school library, for that matter. Hide sex away from teenagers out of prudishness and they will make worse decisions about sex when they finally start exploring their sexuality. Giving them the space to learn about sex⁠—not just the mechanics of sex, but the consequences of sex and nuances of consent and the nature of sexual attraction⁠—is a much better idea.

I’m not here to advocate for the presence of straight-up hardcore pornography in libraries, either school or public. I’m not here to advocate that children of any age, including teenagers, be given pornography. My advocacy lies in the idea that knowledge and curiosity should be welcomed and encouraged instead of belittled and punished. Teenagers should have the right to read books that talk about sex and sexuality, even if those books are fictional stories. Those children will soon be adults. For what reason should they be kept ignorant about sex (or so adults think) until they’re 18?

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Then why not read it at the meeting if that is what it means.

Because that might give the game away?

Keep in mind, intellectually challenged commenter, it isn’t the parents calling it too obscene to read aloud.

In many cases, it is, but even accepting your assertion, that doesn’t actually dispute what they said. On the contrary, that would be entirely in keeping with their claim.

Drew Wilson (user link) says:

When both websites I worked for shut down, I had a choice: do I go it alone and build a website from the ground up or do I just give up on the fight for free speech, privacy, digital rights, and more? I chose the latter knowing full well that it is entirely possible that the website I built would never succeed. I also braved legal threats that I would have to deal with myself because someone out there with lots of money didn’t like what I had to say and actively wanted to silence me (and I have faced those threats). Yet, I chose to keep going in probably one of, if not, the biggest acts of bravery in my life. Not only did I choose to carry on the fight, but I carried it on for a whopping 11 years which I’m sure is FAR longer than anyone would’ve expected me to last.

The situation today is FAR different. You have a president who is basically above the law, has unlimited power, and has an axe to grind on everyone he feels wronged him. America is heading towards a fascist dictatorship and nothing can be done to stop it at this point, plain and simple.

Things like free speech is basically going to be non-existent soon in the US. By all means, take a stand against it. I applaud you and anyone else out there willing to stand up for your rights like that. The thing is, I don’t see how that is going to change the outcome of the situation other than putting yourself at considerable risk of jail or worse.

Trump has said it himself, he wants to jail journalists. Personally, I’m going to wait and see if he does manage to follow through with that. If the mass arrests start happening, I don’t know if I have the will to keep going. Call if cowardice. Call it defeatist. Honestly, continuing the fight even as the arrests, jailings, and killings are happening feels like all I’d be doing is trying to go out in a blaze of glory.

I’m happy to continue the fight for as long as possible, but when shit hits the fan, I seriously don’t know. I might be better off if I’m out. If someone out there wants to take the baton and carry on knowing full well the risks, by all means, you’d have my support. I’m looking at things right now and thinking that I’m seeing the end of the road coming up for me.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Drew Wilson (user link) says:

Re:

He created a website, did a metric tonne of research, analyzed court documents, analyzed the various laws and legislation going around, informed the public on what is going on, withstood legal attacks, examined what’s going on internationally for added context, and encouraged people to take part in the fight for free speech among other things.

Meanwhile, you leave an anonymous comment on his site that he built. I don’t think that’s the zinger you think it is.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Your free speech is fine

You need to get over this fetisisation of free speech. The richest man on the world has a mega decibel PA system and you’re using two tin cans with a bit of string between them and you think as long as you’re allowed to keep using your cans everything will be fine. The problem isn’t speech, it’s how far that speech reaches.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Your article summarizes nicely why Trump won: the lack of an opponent worth mentioning

American have made the wrong choice. They choose trump over “the entire democratic party” for president? It’s choice like even you felt deep down you didn’t even get to choose it was either trump or a nameless individual. And deep down you knew people would not chose someone that not even you felt is worth mentioning despite how important it was to “not choose trump”

David says:

You are looking at the wrong culprit

And there was one option who is a convicted criminal, guilty of sexual assault, who made it clear that his campaign was based on hate and spite. He has all but shouted from the rooftops that his next administration (with the guardrails off from last time) will be a vengeance tour of punishment, destruction, and grift for himself and his friends.

Trump is who he is. And for better or worse, a significant part of the electorate does what it is told to do because of not having the erudition to judge the consequences. Only long-time education has a chance of quelling that tendency.

The one person who had the power to make a difference and the insight of knowing its importance and who chose to invite everyone to look away until it became too late was Mitch McConnell.

If he had chosen to take responsibility, the U.S. may not have taken the turn (or even arrived) at the crossroads it now has had and that will, make no mistake, determine the fate of the U.S. for more than the next half-century, like the political developments in 1933 did for Germany.

It is anyone’s guess how much of the U.S.’ constitutional republic will remain afterwards, and how much of the current world order, and how much of the U.S.’ global relevance.

There will never be a shortage of populist grifters. But the choice of deliberately restructuring the political system for enabling one of them to work a national audience of susceptible victims (Trump would not be where he is without his well-known track record of fleecing the gullible) was made by people both with the power to do it and the knowledge of the consequences.

This is on McConnell’s conscience, first among others. Because Trump never had one he could have cast aside.

bobqoq says:

When/if the time comes like you described it will be up to each person to follow their own conscious. There will be people that ahead of time state I will stand my ground and fight, or they might say instead I will run away. Truth is, nobody knows for certain what they will do until the moment comes and it really is life or death.

Making a decision or preparing to make a decision ahead of time can help you be more likely to follow a specific path, but it is no guarantee you will follow through.

I believe everyone can have an influence on someone else. Sometimes a bad thing happening to someone you know motivates you to act. Sometimes it will require the multiple bad thing happening to multiple people to cause you to act.

I am reminded of the movie “V for Vendetta”. It took multiple things to get the citizens to rise up and actually overthrow the chancellor.

Hopefully America won’t require too much to get out of the hole it has dug for itself.

Peter D. Pebble says:

We need free speech for real. We also need to be civil. Nick Fuentes getting doxxed for saying “your body, my choice” which spread like wildfire and lead to a large amount of women and girls being harassed online and offline? Well, doxxing people is bad, so the people who doxxed Fuentes are a bunch of big meanies who are exactly as evil as him!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...