> I think parent was pointing out that the question of "where should the line be drawn and who should draw it" has already been settled. Those things are already illegal, so we don't need to impose further restrictions on speech in order to prevent those things.
I'm skeptical that such a line can ever be truly "settled." Sure, it can be settled in a particular social and technological context, but when those latter things change, the line may need to be adjusted.
See Trope 9: "This speech may be protected for now, but the law is always changing."
TLDR: yeah, the law can change, but it's highly unlikely because "the United States Supreme Court has been more consistently protective of free speech than of any other right, especially in the face of media sensibilities about "harmful" words"
> See Trope 9: "This speech may be protected for now, but the law is always changing."
It's worth noting that no legally forbidden censorship has been happening with regards to the recent insurrection against congress.
> TLDR: yeah, the law can change, but it's highly unlikely because "the United States Supreme Court has been more consistently protective of free speech than of any other right, especially in the face of media sensibilities about "harmful" words"
But that's not a fixed fact of nature, it's a reaction to a particular social and technological context.
For instance, if someone discovers an idea instantly turns 10% those who hear it into murderous zealots (sort of like the poem in "The Tyranny of Heaven" by Stephen Baxter), that idea is going to censored hard and the Supreme Court will be like "yup, ban it."
Likewise, if some social change or technology renders the legal regime that the Supreme Court has created a cause of serious dysfunction, then Supreme Court is going to have to change that regime to accommodate. Idealism's great, but not when it doesn't work.
> no legally forbidden censorship has been happening with regards to the recent insurrection against congress.
Yes, this is true as far as I am aware as well. But I find myself in a conundrum; had this "inciting" speech taken place in the town square or a public park, much of it likely could not have been censored because it would have been protected by the 1st amendment and the last 100 years of case law. Where, then, is the town square and public park of 2021?
Despite the fact that the legal protections of public speech haven't changed much in decades, the practical protections of public speech (as I discuss in greater detail in [1]) have indeed been eroded, because social media platforms and, apparently, web hosting and device makers are now the arbiters of the vast majority of speech. Free speech that only applies where virtually noone can hear you is a very limited free speech indeed.
The town squares and public parks are still there.
The existence of Twitter, Facebook, etc. have accustomed people to the ability to air their opinions globally free of charge, however that is a very novel phenomenon. It's hard for me, having come of age in the 1980s/1990s, to see this as an inalienable right.
Of course they are still there! But the conversations increasingly aren't taking place there. If free speech is essential to a liberal democracy, we're moving to a place where the majority of speech takes place in non-free-speech areas, and that does not bode well for the health of our democracy.
> Of course they are still there! But the conversations increasingly aren't taking place there. If free speech is essential to a liberal democracy, we're moving to a place where the majority of speech takes place in non-free-speech areas, and that does not bode well for the health of our democracy.
You have a right to speak, but not a right to reach.
The majority of speech always took place in areas with some kind of limits. For instance: in some guy's tavern or in the pages of a local newspaper.
Furthermore, what's happening to Parler could also be conceived as a kind of self-defense exception: the factions it embraced have recently attempted to literally attack (in the name of a selfish demagogue) the heart of the liberal order that enables free speech, and they cannot be tolerated if toleration is to survive.
> If free speech is essential to a liberal democracy, we're moving to a place where the majority of speech takes place in non-free-speech areas, and that does not bode well for the health of our democracy.
The majority of conversation in democracies has always taken place in private venues that were free to control who had access and did absolutely do so based on political viewpoint.
That these private spaces are now virtual rather than physical doesn't change the essence of that fact.
I'm skeptical that such a line can ever be truly "settled." Sure, it can be settled in a particular social and technological context, but when those latter things change, the line may need to be adjusted.