> But the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the MOI or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves…
Some things never change - this could have been written verbatim in 2021, and would still have been accurate.
If only I had a dollar for every time some apologist said "This is not censorship because it's not the government's Thought Police", or "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" whenever a large minority was silenced.
I always wonder why there is such a large and vocal support for thought police in these enlightened times. Do these supporters believe that they are exempt?
"For example, he offers us a significant insight in the passage above. The censorship he had to address was not a conspiracy or even a campaign; it was spontaneous. Every right-thinking intellectual somehow knew that a candid assessment of Soviet rule was, well, just not the done thing!…"
If freedom of speech is anything, that's freedom from consequences, it doesn't have any other meaning.
Even in the most repressive state you can definitely say anything, it's the consequences for saying it that make the difference. The first amendment of the US protects citizens from consequences from the state.
There is a related discussion to be had about social media and reach, but it pales in comparison to how easily people tend to dismiss freedom of speech. It's rather fitting that the expression "Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences" is so Orwellian.
> So, should we introduce freedom from consequences then?
I upvoted you because you make a good point with that question.
However, my point is that "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is a meaningful expression used primarily by people who want to police the thoughts of everyone.
My point is not that everyone should be forced to associate with everyone else.
IOW, that expression is useful as an indicator that an individual is in a mob.
Whenever you think of something, ask yourself this "Would I be in favor of the KKK being able to do this to black people?" If the answer is no, then you shouldn't be in favor of doing it to the KKK.
Replace either of those groups with whichever groups are relevant and emotionally impactful to you.
The idea that tolerance 101 is about who you are able to discriminate is quite amusing. Especially in a thread about Orwell, doublethink and all that.
Either way, yes, if you actually care for freedom of speech you ought to respect that which you find abhorrent. You are supposed to trust that worthwhile ideas prevail while the rest don't. That in this scenario, since the KKK has terrible ideas and yours are better, you benefit from both being out in the open, since yours should surely win over.
> The idea that tolerance 101 is about who you are able to discriminate is quite amusing. Especially in a thread about Orwell, doublethink and all that.
"discrimination" in the literal sense isn't bad, it's just making choices. The amusement stems from the very different things people mean when they say "discrimination". And being clear about what people mean with these terms is part of the 101.
But more relevantly, I didn't use that word, which is a very easy way to avoid any possible doublethink related to it!
> That in this scenario, since the KKK has terrible ideas and yours are better, you benefit from both being out in the open, since yours should surely win over.
I didn't say I want them to hide their ideas. I don't.
> Either way, yes, if you actually care for freedom of speech you ought to respect that which you find abhorrent.
Respect what, specifically? I respect their ability to speak. Do I need to go beyond that?
Anyway in this scenario do I have to allow customers to personally insult me too if I want to maintain free speech, or is that different from saying that groups deserve nothing and stole everything they have?
Some things never change - this could have been written verbatim in 2021, and would still have been accurate.
If only I had a dollar for every time some apologist said "This is not censorship because it's not the government's Thought Police", or "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" whenever a large minority was silenced.
I always wonder why there is such a large and vocal support for thought police in these enlightened times. Do these supporters believe that they are exempt?