Is this an accurate quote depicting truth?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: I agree with my Perplexity chatbot 100%

The claim "free speech is only relevant if we allow people that you don't like to say things that you don't like" is oversimplified for several reasons:

1. Narrow focus: The claim reduces the complex principle of free speech to a single aspect - protecting disliked or disagreeable speech. While this is an important element, it's not the only relevant factor[5].

2. Ignores broader scope: Free speech encompasses more than just controversial or disliked speech. It also protects popular speech, neutral expression, and various forms of communication[5].

3. Oversimplifies justifications: There are multiple justifications for free speech that go beyond protecting unpopular views. These include promoting individual self-fulfillment, advancing knowledge through the marketplace of ideas, and enabling democratic self-governance[5].

4. Neglects nuances: The claim doesn't account for the legal and ethical nuances of free speech, such as existing limitations on certain forms of expression (e.g., direct incitement to violence)[3].

5. Overlooks positive aspects: By focusing solely on "disliked" speech, the claim neglects the positive role of free speech in fostering open dialogue, critical thinking, and societal progress[1].

6. Misses contextual factors: The relevance and application of free speech principles can vary depending on the context (e.g., public forums vs. private platforms), which the claim doesn't address[4].

7. Equates different types of speech: The claim may lead to false equivalencies between different types of speech, potentially equating harmful hate speech with other forms of protected speech[3].

In essence, while the claim captures one important aspect of free speech, it fails to encompass the full complexity, nuance, and breadth of free speech principles and their applications in various contexts.

Citations:

[1] https://miscellanynews.org/2015/11/18/opinions/student-indictment-of-free-speech-proves-oversimplified/

[2] https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2565&context=lawreview

[3] https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1290&context=falr

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/29/free-speech-in-the-fog-of-scientific-uncertainty/

[5] https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/84/

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey Jules.

@JulesKorngold

People are free to not listen.

Though people thrive on what is referred to as offence.

just_sayin

It was scary that a 'reporter' asked the White House spokesperson if there was any way they could shut down the interview with Musk and Trump.  I saw this kind of speech control in Cuba, but I never thought I'd see it here.  Unfortunately, wherever leftists dominate there is very little free speech allowed.  College campuses have become places where conservatives can't even invite someone like a Ben Shapiro to speak because leftists want to riot and burn the school down.

MayCaesar

I think Elon is using a somewhat unclear language here. What exactly is meant by "we allow"? Does it just mean that the government is not going to prosecute someone for speech that the ministers find reprehensible? Or does it also mean that there will be no push-back against the speech, that the person will be entitled to speaking from any private platform of their choosing?

I think that bad ideas should be challenged, and people promoting them absolutely should be discredited. And owners of private platforms are absolutely within their right to deny anyone they dislike them. If I start a club of discussions of history, I absolutely will not invite there anyone who propagates one of the crazy "alternative histories": I want to discuss history with people serious about the subject, and wasting all the time explaining to some conspiracy theorist why not having Julius Caesar's corpse in our possession does not compromise the claim that Caesar was a human and not a lizardfolk would defeat the purpose of the club.

However, I think that it should be highly contextual. Sure, it would be wise to not allow a Holocaust denier to speak at a Holocaust memorial event. But preventing a medical professional who questions mask mandates from speaking on a college campus? There is nothing about higher education that says, "Only those who approve of the current governmental response to a pandemic further its purpose". If I were a student on said campus, I would absolutely want to hear all sides of the issue represented by medical professionals, and if there is a professional who has something to say in defiance of the orthodoxy, then I absolutely will want to hear them out.

So... Do not do silly things like invite a bunch of flat-earthers to an astrophysics conference, but otherwise do not go out of your way to silence others. Say what you think about them and move on, and let other private individuals decide how to respond to their message.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Yeah I get the sense he was insinuating "we allow" to mean without any form of retaliation strictly because of what's said. Like in police, military and journalist terms of "off the record".

Very excellent points on school free speech rights and the need for commonsense. 

We do not need government defining free speech as that defeats the purpose of free speech. At the same time we do need anti riot laws. If we only had more commonsense! 

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I think that one of the problems of the culture of speech on the West right now is that people conflate specific statements with the general quality of one's character. Suppose someone believes in something outlandish and widely considered as offensive: that all other humans have evolved from apes, but Jews have evolved from pigs. Sure, this is a weird and nasty belief, and it should be called out - however, it does not warrant calling the person all matters of names. People can hold terrible and misguided beliefs for a large variety of reasons, many having nothing to do with the quality of their character. However, the default reaction of a certain segment of society on things like this is to immediately portray the author as some kind of an evil and broken human being.

You mentioned common sense, which I think in this case would be the acknowledgement that one bad belief does not make one a bad person. Binary thinking is all too common: people hold others up to unreasonably high standards when they themselves do not meet these standards. People who say that offensive speech should not be tolerated - often have no trouble making offensive speech towards those they find to be reprehensible. Mother of ironies is crying!

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

You mentioned common sense, which I think in this case would be the acknowledgement that one bad belief does not make one a bad person.

Indeed I do.

Bogan

@JulesKorngold ;    Getting your chatbot to do your thinking for you again, Jules?   How pathetic.     I would be embarrassed to have a machine do my thinking for me.   Bit at least it explains how thinking straight is beyond you.  

Bogan

Leftists are composed of the socialite socialists who really do believe that their brahmin caste are intellectually and morally superior to every other demographic in society.      That is why they absolutely hate Elon Musk.     Musk is one of the smartest people on planet earth and the elites expect him to be one of them.     The fact that he supports Trump, himself considered a traitor by the upper elite patrician class, means that their claim to intellectual superiority is looking a bit shaky.     

Bogan

Hey Jules!   I know you haven't got much going for you upstairs, but consider this.     When the Right gets back into power, and it will get back into power because the pendulum always swings, what is to stop the Right from declaring all speech advocating for Leftist causes "hate speech" and imposing censorship on you and your brainless bud-dies?      Get your chatbot to explain that, since you are too du-mb to think for yourself.   Perhaps your chatbot could explain to you how censorship of political speech is a two way sword?    It cuts both ways.