I guess I just disagree with the OP on this. ‘Free speech culture’ or values is an important concept, if obviously murkier than formal free speech rights. This argument that ‘freedom from speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences’ just seems incredibly tendentious.
Generally, the US (and most counties) are very polarized. Neither ‘side’ can truly deplatform or shutdown the other ‘side’. You can see this with Disney caving on Kimmel. I am genuinely baffled that some liberals seem to think they can somehow effectively de platform MAGA-ish voices in a country that elected Trump.
On the OP’s ‘First Speaker Problem’, I don’t see this as a problem. We do place different expectations on proponents and respondents. The whole idea of thesis/antithesis/synthesis requires responsive arguments stay within certain parameters. Mainly that it is substantively responsive. There’s nothing truly discriminatory here since anyone can be a ‘first speaker.’
EDIT: While not framed this way, I think the OP is basically right that right wing people have co-opted (or tried to co-opt) ‘free speech culture’ as a cudgel. Again tho, this circles back to it being baffling that liberals thought (and apparently still think!) free speech culture isn’t important. Like why would we cede open expression to the right, even at a rhetorical or conceptual level??
Jimmy_McNulty2025 on
I think the left got spoiled de-platforming people in 2020 and beyond and thought it could last forever. Like, I remember Matt Yglesias saying that kicking Trump off Twitter was great and would have no negative consequences.
Sometimes, pushing speech below the surface just causes it to fester.
3 Comments
I thought this was the pitchbot for a second
I guess I just disagree with the OP on this. ‘Free speech culture’ or values is an important concept, if obviously murkier than formal free speech rights. This argument that ‘freedom from speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences’ just seems incredibly tendentious.
Generally, the US (and most counties) are very polarized. Neither ‘side’ can truly deplatform or shutdown the other ‘side’. You can see this with Disney caving on Kimmel. I am genuinely baffled that some liberals seem to think they can somehow effectively de platform MAGA-ish voices in a country that elected Trump.
On the OP’s ‘First Speaker Problem’, I don’t see this as a problem. We do place different expectations on proponents and respondents. The whole idea of thesis/antithesis/synthesis requires responsive arguments stay within certain parameters. Mainly that it is substantively responsive. There’s nothing truly discriminatory here since anyone can be a ‘first speaker.’
EDIT: While not framed this way, I think the OP is basically right that right wing people have co-opted (or tried to co-opt) ‘free speech culture’ as a cudgel. Again tho, this circles back to it being baffling that liberals thought (and apparently still think!) free speech culture isn’t important. Like why would we cede open expression to the right, even at a rhetorical or conceptual level??
I think the left got spoiled de-platforming people in 2020 and beyond and thought it could last forever. Like, I remember Matt Yglesias saying that kicking Trump off Twitter was great and would have no negative consequences.
Sometimes, pushing speech below the surface just causes it to fester.