Archives for posts with tag: Free Speech

You remember back in the day when white people were so upset that they couldn’t say the n-word, but black people could? Now they’ve grown up a little bit, I didn’t say matured, and decided that this is a free speech issue, and it is the single greatest threat to modern society. Everyone knows, or at least has the confidence of blind zealotry, that free speech is an unalterable human right. Human rights are funny things. They’re conceptual ideas that are basically made up, their only justification being that they sound nice, and then it’s claimed that everyone is entitled to them. Free speech can be a human right, sure, but so can healthcare. So can collective bargaining. If the entire basis of your demand for free speech rests on the fact that it’s a human right, wellllllll maybe look into the distinction between negative rights, positive rights, and collective rights, because odds are you’ll abandon the entire foundation of your argument, go back to saying the n-word, and just give up on trying to justify your racism. The tricky thing about human rights is that they are usually conceived in such a way as to benefit everyone, not just those with the loudest voices.

However, free speech is often seen as a human right even by those who roll their eyes at the Milo Yiannopoulos’ of the world, and so let’s look at free speech as a human right. If you’ve had access to literally any news source within the last few years, you’ll probably know that it is under attack… from the left wing of the political spectrum.


I’m here for your speech to redistribute it so that everyone has an equal share.

Everyone knows how the right cracks down on free speech. They use violence to enforce their rigid ideology, cracking down on any dissent. This turns into censorship, and fascist propaganda is used to replace alternative perspectives. Today, the tables have turned, and now you can’t even say women are chromosomally inferior at computer programming without some SJW calling you sexist. Antifa beats up journalists! Both sides!

So what’s the difference between universities not allowing certain speakers from lecturing, or Twitter users dog-piling on someone for a bad joke, or protests popping up against companies that discriminate against gay people, and the government torturing and killing journalists and academics? According to some, nothing. They are exactly the same. The smug self-righteousness of “centrists” claims that the left and right, after a certain distance from the reasonable centre, become identically insane. They both want to crack down on our free speech!

Let me stop you before you start talking about Stalin and his purges and pogroms, because a university declining a platform to someone whose claims are as dubious as a Flat Earther is not anywhere near the same thing. That’s what is known as a false equivalency. Don’t do that.


Stalin claimed to represent communism. Communism is on the left. Those who act on leftist principles must be harbouring Stalinist urges. See? Like that. It’s dumb.

Let’s look at an example of free speech. Imagine a company that has one black employee, and the rest are white. Within this company, there is a group that loudly makes racist jokes and comments. Whenever the black employee contributes at a meeting, this group laughs and derides whatever they contribute, regardless of its merit. The group can’t be silenced since any attempt would be censoring their free speech, nor can they be fired for the same reason. Reasonable discourse regarding the illegitimacy of racism goes nowhere because these people are buffoons. How long do you think before this black employee either stops contributing, or simply leaves the company? My guess is not that long. You can replace the black employee with female, homosexual, or whatever you like. When a majority group is allowed unregulated freedom to trammel the minority under foot, the minority will be silenced or excluded.

Free speech, as demanded by centrists and the right, is simply the demand to silence the speech of minorities by creating environments where they are not welcome. If a university allowed racist and sexist commentators, would ethnic minorities and women really be able to claim a place there? How safe would they be if those whose violence is only tempered by its social stigma are suddenly given legitimacy by reckless, but free, speech? When leftists claim that speech can be violent, they mean the violence of social exclusion, and actual, literal violence that is its logical consequence. Inciting a riot is an uncontroversial crime, as is uttering threats. When the violence is social, its causal network is more complex and the results are more ambiguous, but the link is there.

not welcome

A white supremacist who openly recognizes the link between speech and social consequences? Must be a utopia.

Free speech cannot be universal because unregulated free speech censors the speech of the less powerful, which means, ultimately, that it fails as a human right. You know how allowing the super rich to contribute as much money as they want to political parties essentially means that the average person’s voice no longer means anything in a democracy? That happened in the States, and the argument of “free speech” was the driving force behind it. This means that when the left challenges the “free speech” of racists and misogynists, they are not attacking a human right, or censoring a dissenting opinion, they are fighting for the voices that this “free speech” silences. They are promoting democracy, not defying it.

Is the solution to violently attack those who take advantage of their role as social censors under the irony of free speech? Is it morally permissible to punch Nazis, basically. Unfortunately, it’s a narrative that drives these attitudes, not facts and figures, which makes discourse a difficult endeavour. Disallowing that narrative to spread is one way to combat it, but it also needs to be replaced with a better one or it will lash out as it is backed into a corner.

Post-Script: Twitter is just fucking stupid at its foundations. It has real life consequences that are depressingly inane across the spectrum, and social media in general should be abolished. That’s my view of Twitter censorship.

One of the greatest tragedies of the modern age is social media: a technology that begs for greater human connection seems only to divide and isolate us. We have unprecedented access to one another, and we use that access to police behaviour and get in furious arguments about female Ghostbusters. Further tragedy is that the “debate” of the digital age is not about privacy and security since we all seem fairly blasé about that access being sold to advertisers and stolen by defense companies, but instead we “debate” free speech and censorship. I would be air-quoting the shit out of “debate” if I were vocally delivering this message, but this is text, so I hope the intense sarcasm that I’m intending is conveyed in regular quotation marks.

It’s not a debate. It’s idiots howling at one another in futile rage and impotence. It’s one side getting upset that they can’t publicly hate women anymore, and the other getting people’s lives ruined for a misinterpreted joke. The defendants of free speech are championing the hatred of women since to condemn it would obviously be censorship. The prosecutors of hatred see it everywhere, and use the public commons of social media to use their collective power to silence it, regardless of its legitimacy as actual hatred. They are warring groups of ravenous wolves that have a collective intellect smaller than those same groups of wolves.

I’ve written about free speech before, and don’t intend to dwell on it this time. I want to look instead at censorship as it relates to social media since the greatest attack on libtard regressives, feminazis, SJWs, and leftist cucks is their blind acceptance of the elimination of a basic human freedom: freedom of speech. The elimination of free speech is to some extent rightly decried as fascist, and so accusations of hypocrisy are leveled at those who use the same criticism against Donald Trump and his followers.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the left is promoting censorship. They are. It’s not a difficult assumption. But let’s assume it is censorship to such a degree that it is a fascist repression of hapless misogynists who have a God-given right to hate whomever they please. Censorship in the context of fascism is used to maintain the grossly imbalanced power structures of society. Dictators censor newspapers because they don’t want dissenting opinions contradicting their rule. If a ruler tried to discredit the media when they are critical of him, or tried to change the laws to reduce their effectiveness, that would be fascist censorship.

So what about those on social media? Fascism necessitates the clandestine perpetuation of power, so which power structures are being maintained by libtards on Twitter? What kind of power do ethnic minorities, the LGBTQ community, women, etc. have that they would use censorship to maintain? And I don’t mean shit like ‘Obama was president for eight years,’ because Obama is not the King of the Blacks. Since leftist cucks started oppressing poor, defenseless bigots, has the percentage of black people in prisons gone down? Have transgendered people gained a significant influx in senate seats? Are fewer women being grabbed by the pussy? How have poverty rates changed along gender and racial lines? What are the statistics saying? Given that hate crimes are on the rise against these demographics, I would say that the power that they’re perpetuating is depressingly inconsequential.

That’s not to say it isn’t completely negligible. On an individual level, people are losing their jobs. Their lives are being scrutinized, pilloried, and publicly shamed by a mob justice that relies solely on sensationalized stories that are very unlikely to be a reflection of real events or attitudes. This mob justice even has some degree of power on the mezzo level, as organizations will often pay the proper lip service in order to maintain appropriate PR. However, this mezzo level is only a veneer of appeasement. Companies and politicians will claim to be feminist or whatever, and might even put out memes to present an image of conformity to the ideological rigidity of the social media left, but in practice will continue as they always have. It does not take much to soothe the vitriol of morons if you get in early enough. Beyonce could shoot someone on 5th avenue alongside Donald Trump and lose just as many followers. Since the only demand is ideological conformity and not any significant change, most companies and leaders are content to say whatever the mob desires, since their behaviour will always escape unscathed.

You know, shifting the social dialogue to focus on SJWs on Youtube and Twitter and how they’re stamping out free speech instead of parsing the admittedly deeply buried subtext of what they’re trying to say could be a way of maintaining dominant power structures that are victimizing minorities in the first place. Which group holds power when we purposefully ignore what the disenfranchised are saying? If we found a way to distract from what the left is saying, rather than address it, then the status quo could very well continue unabated. Which censorship is thus the more fascist? The censorship, or the censorship of the censorship?

So no, fascist censorship does not exist on social media, sorry. If you’re worried about the stifling of intellectual debate, since the merits of white supremacy surely require that degree of respect, don’t fucking have an intellectual debate on social media.

You know that old saying, “When I criticize you it’s free speech, but when you criticize me it’s suppressing my free speech”? Well nobody actually says that because it would require an unheard of level of self-reflection, but it’s still an important thing to consider. What is a suppression of free speech, and is there ever a situation that would merit it? Obviously when society collectively tells you to shut the fuck up, that is not a suppression of your speech, but if you are prevented from speaking under threat of state violence, that is. Free speech is the right to speak; it’s not the right to be heard.

I want to look at free speech from its Classical Liberalism origins, and not from a Libertarian perspective for two reasons. Firstly, Libertarians, in the current definition of the term, aren’t actually supporters of free speech. They want to transfer power from democratically elected government who at least is partially beholden to the public to unelected autocrats in the private sector whose only obligations are to profit. They believe that if the government stifles speech then that is oppressive, but if a company wants to prevent their employees from even speaking about unionizing or blocks certain peoples from the rights given to others, well, that is their right! Transferring suppression from one sphere to a measurably worse one is not reasonable thinking, so I will ignore it. The other reason is that Classical Liberalism demands individual freedom so long as the individual does not commit harm against others. This is crucial to my argument. Libertarians think that if a company puts lead in their paint, then it is up to me to start up an entirely new industry of lead-free paint in a vicious, unregulated market with my extremely limited time and funds, as if that is somehow a possible thing. There is no worry over harm so long as the market is free to regulate itself. I prefer the world where we work to prevent unnecessary corpses, but maybe that’s just me.

How does harm fit in with individual freedom? It is fairly uncontroversial to assume that actively killing people is not okay, even under the most free of circumstances, so the idea is that individual freedom is great so long as nobody else gets hurt. Any impositions on the individual outside of these extreme circumstances are immoral. Harm is a difficult concept to nail down, which makes its application to speech tricky, but not impossible.

Consider the fact that uttering threats is illegal. It is nothing more than speech, but it projects an implication of harm that must be taken seriously, therefore it is not allowed. Or sexual harassment laws: it is generally agreed upon that a workplace feels unsafe if a woman experiences unwanted sexual advances, so laws exist to ban this type of speech. Bullying is a little more grey, but consider the case of Amanda Todd who was followed online by her harasser until she ultimately committed suicide, a clear indication that harm had occurred.

Now we’re working under the premise that we don’t want to commit harm to others. Murder is bad, remember. Harm to an individual via the medium of speech is regulated to some degree as seen in the examples I just mentioned, but what about harm to groups of people? This is where people defend free speech with the greatest enthusiasm because they’re fine with some restraints on their ability to harm an individual, but don’t you dare try to take away their right to harm black people. I hope that this appears starkly absurd to most people, and I’m sure those advocates of free speech don’t necessarily see it this way, but that is mostly due to the lack of self-reflection I was discussing earlier. If we accept that harm to individuals is unacceptable when it comes to speech, then we must accept that harm to a group is equally impermissible. Now there are those who will say that the harm that minorities face through hate speech is less than the societal harm that would come to be if absolute free speech (which already doesn’t exist) was leashed by regulations. It’s funny that it’s always disenfranchised groups that are the ones who have to suffer so that liberals can enjoy their free speech.

What about the slippery slope fallacy that curbing hate speech will result in cracking down on political dissent? That’s like saying that making jaywalking illegal will lead to the criminalization of walking on the sidewalk. Cracking down on a single aspect of something does not mean that universal suppression will naturally follow. I mean consider the despotic nations of Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, and many others with hate speech laws. Meanwhile the country that demands free speech to the point that it overtly encourages hate is doing just fine, right?

What makes an aspect of speech harmful toward a group? This is the biggest question, and the reason that I’m rewriting a previous blog is that now I have something of an answer (an answer that I actually gained from writing another blog! Ain’t it grand how much I’m getting out of writing this stupid thing?) The harm caused by hate speech is expressed through its criticism of an unchangeable aspect of a group instead of focusing on a group’s mechanisms to change. Let’s look at the examples I used from my the previous blog to explain:


Example A: Obvious Antisemitism

Criticism of Israel

Example B: Genuine critique of Israel which may be mistaken for Antisemitism

The first is critical of something that the group cannot change: their Jewishness in this case. The second is critical of the disproportionate response of Israel against Palestine which could be quite easily rectified. If someone were to say that Muslims are violent, uncultured, and irrational, it could be argued that Muslims could change this by being less violent, gaining cultural significance, and achieving rational enlightenment. However, by generalizing these behaviours, it becomes clear that it is the Muslimness that is being criticized, and not the behaviours at all.  If one were to look only at individual instances of violence and irrationality under the pretense of finding mechanisms for change, then we would be forced to seek the causes of those things rather than disperse the blame on the entirety of the group.

It’s not hard to distinguish hate speech from genuine criticism, just as it is not hard to suppress hate speech without suppressing dissent. Punching someone in the face is assault, but boxing is completely legal. Potentially harmful dialogue can certainly exist in regulated settings, just as violence can exist in a boxing ring with rules governing its exhibition, without allowing it to go unfettered in the streets.