Free Speech: Difference between revisions
| Line 1,540: | Line 1,540: | ||
=== 2024 === | === 2024 === | ||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1819614767205544140 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=I stopped at 240 Characters on this one, just so that it would all be displayed. Feel free to add your own kayfabrication examples. Many of us can finish each otherâs thoughts at this point and would come up with the same basic lists: | |||
|quote= | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=BuckTurgids0n-profile.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/BuckTurgids0n/status/1819613316802572368 | |||
|name=Gen. Buck Turgidson | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/BuckTurgids0n | |||
|username=BuckTurgids0n | |||
|content=Facts vs FactCheckersâ˘</br> | |||
Truth vs TheNarrativeâ˘</br> | |||
Elite Achievement vs Elites⢠| |||
|timestamp=5:52 AM ¡ Aug 3, 2024 | |||
}} | |||
|thread= | |||
{{Tweet | {{Tweet | ||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |image=Eric profile picture.jpg | ||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1819612397851890007 | |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1819612397851890007 | ||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |name=Eric Weinstein | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=For me, this has little to do w/ Kamala. It's: | |content=For me, this has little to do w/ Kamala. It's: | ||
| Line 1,549: | Line 1,571: | ||
Science vs TheScienceâ˘</br> | Science vs TheScienceâ˘</br> | ||
Privacy vs TheTermsOfServicePrivacyPolicyâ˘</br> | Privacy vs TheTermsOfServicePrivacyPolicyâ˘</br> | ||
Free Speech vs OurFreeSpeechâ˘</br> | '''Free Speech''' vs '''OurFreeSpeechâ˘'''</br> | ||
Academic Freedom vs USAcademicFreedomâ˘</br> | Academic Freedom vs USAcademicFreedomâ˘</br> | ||
Diversity vs DEIâ˘</br> | Diversity vs DEIâ˘</br> | ||
Professional Agreement vs TheExpertConsensus⢠| Professional Agreement vs TheExpertConsensus⢠| ||
|timestamp=5:52 AM ¡ Aug | |timestamp=5:52 AM ¡ Aug 3, 2024 | ||
}} | |||
|timestamp=6:02 AM ¡ Aug 3, 2024 | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 05:48, 10 October 2025
Eric Weinsteinâs perspective on free speech is neither absolutist nor dismissive; it is contextual and anchored in concerns about institutions, norms, and unintended consequences. While he upholds free speech as a foundational element of open societies, his primary concern is with its erosion through cultural norms, institutional pressures, and platform policies. He advocates for vigilance about how free speech is mediatedânot only legally, but socially and technologically.
Eric recognizes free speech as indispensable for science, democracy, and open inquiry, but rejects the idea that it can be pursued as an unqualified good. The legal protections of speech are relatively straightforward; the more difficult challenge lies in the cultural, institutional, and normative domainsâthe informal pressures that shape who can speak, how, and with what consequences.
Weinstein distinguishes between defending speech that is deliberately provocative and defending speech that is substantively important yet vulnerable to suppression. His preference is to protect the latter: speech that advances truth, dissent, or reasoned discourse, rather than speech intended mainly to offend. At the same time, Eric is skeptical of platforms, advertisers, and regulators coordinating to set the boundaries of acceptable speech. He sees this as a form of captured control that risks undermining genuine civil liberties. His repeated invocation of dualitiesâFree Speech vs. âOurFreeSpeechâ˘ââreflects his concern that institutional rhetoric can hollow out the original principle.
Weinstein is a cautious defender of free speech: committed to its centrality, but wary of absolutism, sensitive to cultural forces, and focused on precision in defining its scope so that defending speech does not inadvertently empower those who would curtail it.
On X
Eric Weinstein has said a lot about free speech on X/Twitter. Below is a partial collection.
2010
'Free markets', 'tolerance', 'pacifism', 'free speech' etc.. are what physicists call 'effective theories' and require warning labels.
Obscenity charges against Gonzo pioneer John Stagliano are dropped! Miller v California remains a menace to free speech http://bit.ly/aVTowv
2011
The "Free speech zone" = X was invented & named in the USA = Y in 1988. Q: Name its even more important set-theoretic complement Y \ X.
2016
Confused by people promoting free speech by being deliberately offensive when you can offend many more people by simply thinking clearly.
If you don't define free speech movement goals carefully, you end up complaining about the free speech of others that inhibits yours.
I'm not as focused on free speech as I am around the "Don't worry, contrarian intellectuals. You'll still have a job on Monday."-movement.
2017
While often tempted, I'm not a free speech absolutist. I'm an anti-utopian w a commitment to keep our world safe from well meaning utopians.
Most of my friends who are free speech absolutists have never run the simulator forward to see the dystopia total free speech would create.
I like free speech but not absolute free speech. The US is the finer but not the latter.
Conclusion: my engagement patterns changed. Some of it is likely algorithmic. We should have a free speech option: time ordered, no filters.
We're standing up to mob rule to fight for universal civil rights, academic freedom, science & free speech. Safety NOT guaranteed.
Want in?
Many have urged me to follow @jordanbpeterson's lead these last 2 weeks--friends, students, strangers. I'm listening
VOICE OVER: We've secretly replaced Free-Speech America w new improved Sharia-compliant blasphemy-free America. Let's watch folks' reaction!
Berkeley used to be Free Speech Center! Now KPFA Cancels Richard Dawkins talk because he criticizes Islam? Shame!
Clay, you weren't in a comedy club & your right to free speech wasn't infringed. You just put a colleague in a no win situation...& she won!
Here's @cnn video of me saying I love the first amendment and boobs that nearly shut down the network. So great:
1/ You bet I do: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mn5crhTusSA
Let's analyze why a sports guy like Crash Davis got to be pro-pornography & talk about body parts. https://x.com/EuroPork/status/908809213165604871
2/ Sarandon's character was host to two men. But it was she who turned the conversation sexy. Costner was offended (not outraged) & strong.
3/ Sarandon wouldn't let him stay private crossing into his space. He responded to her as a sexual woman and an equal not a delicate flower.
4/ He also was leaving her space and not remaining on her couch. This gave her choice without having to have her shut him down. A key issue.
5/ My point's simple. These issues are tricky & we've all screwed them up. But we don't just get to say any old thing. There are rules here.
End/ This isn't the crime of the century. But it's also not fair. There are implicit rules about jokes & flirting that aren't "free speech."
On the death of @hughhefner, I had to remind myself of how a lost thinking US-Left playfully championed free speech:
I believe @facebook, @Twitter, @Google are now deploying effective new measures & standards for securing US democracy against a repeat of unwanted involvement by unacceptable outsiders.
What I just canât shake is fear that those outsiders are our own dissenting fellow citizens.
I should point out that unlike many friends, Iâm *not* a free speech absolutist. Not a Trump voter. Not opposed to *some* discretion by the private sector as to whom it can deny service. But these are now utility like companies and something feels too...coordinated?...something.
2018
How is it that from a vast number of public speakers in the extended @SamHarrisOrg family you @EricRWeinstein seem to be the the first one to bring up the marvelous Marshall Rosenberg and #nonviolentcommunication #nvc ???
I don't know that I am. But it seems weird to me that I haven't heard it from anyone else given the amount of attention to "hate speech" and "speech as violence". If I have this wrong, point me to others discussing this in the context of free speech/hate speech. Thx!
âSo, quick summary: There is no campus free speech crisis, the kids are all right, those that say otherwise have lost all perspectiveâ -@JeffreyASachs
But we do have some lovely parting gifts for our contestant Jeffrey here on âLetâs-Build-a-Strawman!â
1/2 The free speech community is itself divided as to whether the case for free speech is better made focusing on speech specifically intended to offend, or necessary speech deemed outrageous & attacked by authoritarians wishing to control & stigmatize reasonable civil discourse.
2/2 While I understand and can make *both* cases, I'm solidly in with the latter. It's now so easy to be attacked by a vengeful mob by simply saying true, reasonable things, that I can't find any advantage in confusing the story with being mean or teasing the weak & vulnerable.
Oh this is good: "Free Speech Grifters"! Let me save you time Mari. Everyone needs to be very very afraid of: @BretWeinstein, @clairlemon , @DouglasKMurray, @CHSommers, @jordanbpeterson, @RubinReport, @joerogan, @SamHarrisOrg, @benshapiro, me etc..
Why? We're not MSM compliant. https://x.com/mariuyehara/status/975754244904161281
There is not one single word or phrase in any language ever spoken that is without potential wholesome legitimate use by anyone living anywhere.
No language-level bans can withstand scrutiny. Not one.
And, for the record, Iâm not even a free speech absolutist...
Advertisers vs Riskvertisers:
An advertiser is a company commandeering attention to promote a product. A riskvertiser, by contrast, would be a courageous firm that underwrites important speech others wish to ban, and asks the public to consider its product in return for courage.
We the public and the creators need to stop supporting advertisers who buckle to sanctimonious mobs out of cowardice when the charges are frivolous.
More importantly, WE need to lead and build the Riskvertising industry. Letâs reward those companies that treat us as adults.
The following is an (unauthorized) RISKVERTISMENT for @DrBronner.
I love DR BRONNER soap! Their luxurious Castille soaps are no less amazing than their corporate bravery in support of Psychedelic Research on substances which are currently illegal!
#RewardCourage #Riskvertise. If you know of other firms that donât buckle under pressure and who are interested in underwriting free speech, psychedelic research, and other unpopular worthy causes, please let me know! Letâs experiment with paying it forward until we find underwriters who donât cut &run.
And note: this isnât about Tucker. Itâs about general ambient pressure that seems more about sanctimony than ethics.
1/ The Christmas Thread.
First off, Merry Xmas to all.
Iâm asking for your help. I want to know whether any of you know about any quiet working groups or meetings involving but not limited to Visa/MC/PayPal/etc working on the issues of âpopulismâ/âradicalizationâ as euphemisms.
2/ This would be organized by by some group like CFR, NAS or some other blue chip institution. It would be looking to figure out how to handle the âproblemsâ of popular nullification of institutional objectives. In short it would view Brexit, Trump and restrictionism as âhateâ.
3/ This quiet meeting would bring together the major âstakeholdersâ(?) which would not include the public. The twin problems the meeting would actually be trying to solve are âfree speechâ and âdemocratic choiceâ which the public generally doesnât want solved at all.
4/ The meeting would explore the question of how to use the existing anti-terror programs & platform level controls to handle garden variety dissent contributing to popular nullification as if it were âhate speechâ, which it would claim was akin to, or a gateway for, terror.
5/ Iâm not asking b/c I have any information that such a meeting occurred. I, in fact, have NO such information. However, I am well aware of how coordinated action has been made to look more âemergentâ, in the past & I now think weâre at a very dangerous juncture between 2018-20.
6/ This all now looks way off to me. Patreon is just the window through which we are glimpsing it. Why? Because theyâre clumsy. I fear weâre seeing some plan to reestablish the former power of the Gated Institutional Narrative well above Patreonâs paygrade using payment networks.
7/ I hope this is wrong. But if itâs correct, âimproperâ bitcoin transactions will start to carry serious criminal penalties. Further @jordanbpeterson will not deliver a technological fix as indicated.
Watch @datasociety, @nytimes coverage & payment channels.
Happy Holidays.
Free speech isnât a fascinating topic.
At least to me, itâs more like âair hungerâ: when youâre being choked, itâs always super important to you above everything else, even if simple breathing isnât really something upon which you ever expected to focus your intellectual energy.
2019
1/ Iâve been noticing a ubiquitous technique recently upon which I have seen little commented. âPunchable faceâ, #killallmen, âOpen Bordersâ, âTax is Theftâ, âBelieve Womenâ, âFree marketsâ, âFree Speechâ and uptalking are examples. I want to explain here what I see linking them.
2/ The technique involves bundling an attacking position and a retreating position where the retreat is low cost and reasonable while the attack is wildly simplistic, irresponsible and generally too expensive to maintain. The attack is frequently literal & the retreat figurative.
3/ As @ezraklein pointed out for the attack position #KillAllMen dripping with sexism & misandry, the retreat position is âit would be nice if the world sucked less for womenâ. Likewise âOpen Bordersâ can collapse all the way down to âI donât want to see immigrants scapegoatedâ.
4/ Uptalking seems to be a speech pattern that has, among other benefits, figured out how to make an aggressive statement which would normally be costly in the underlying text for the price of just kinda maybe sorta asking a much less expensive (leading) question with oneâs tone.
5/ âTax is theftâ is a broad clean insane attack on nationhood, but if you bring up the problem of military protection as a well known public good & market defect, you get told that âTax is Teftâ is just a plea for smaller more prudent government. Okay. So why are we doing this?
6/ In the previous examples, the literal position has been the aggressive one, but thatâs not even always true. Sometime I hear âFeminism is simply the proposition that women are equal.â which would be the retreat position with which only a loon would be tempted to argue.
7/ Letâs call amalgams of attack and retreat Split-Level Arguments. We need to stop allowing these gambits to go unnoticed. They are like Navy SEALS dressed up as adorable toddlers. If youâre advancing âFree Marketsâ, pay the price for the simplicity you just bought when pressed.
End/ Letâs come up with language to make it very expensive to repeatedly push for something simple, clear & wrong as if we were just saying something reasonable & nuanced.
If youâve noticed this trend, send me examples or anyone elseâs name for it. Thx! đ
#SplitLevelArguments
POST/ Deepity and Motte & Bailey are definitely examples of this kind of phenomena as people are pointing out. Question: do they cover the âUptalkingâ example to your satisfaction? Iâm looking for one universal label that covers them all. Thanks.
Also, in Motte and Bailey, the Bailey is being maintained. Itâs not an attacking position. The lord is not questing to conquer the lands of others. I donât know whether people make that distinction. Eager to learn more.
The one that interests me is Free Speech, which (after your intro) you didn't mention again in your main thread. Because I am in favour of free speech, I'm curious to know in what way you think it can be considered aggressive. (No sarcasm here - genuinely curious!)
@rjheathfield Kiddie porn, military secrets, fighting words, etc...
Riley Reid Really?
Huh? Sheâs great as a human. Donât know her work much. Why? Very generous with her time and insightful on free speech and business harassment involving web commerce.
.@SamHarrisOrg & I are coming to Cambridge/Boston as arguably the most important academic metropolis in the world. What is it that must be, yet canât be, discussed w/ the Mass Ave. Institutions?
Asian quotas?
Undischargable student debt?
Activist studies?
https://bochcenter.org/samharris
What about cryptic public funding of private institutions through âoverheadâ?
The use of âpost-docsâ and âTAsâ as cryptic labor posing as training?
Student unions?
The explosion of tuition/administrators?
Research Gerontocracy?
Free speech vs safe speech?
Let us know? đ!
Things important to me in a true progressive agenda:
Free Speech
Normalization of Intersex
Median Family Formation/Security
Economic Recognition of Kin Work
Neuro Diversity/Inclusion in Schools
Ending Labor Subsidy for Employers
Ending Race Based Incarceration
Stakeholder Value
No. đ.
Gay Marriage & rights. Workplace safety. Breaking Appalachian slavery of the coal Barons. Interracial marriage. Civil rights issues. Free speech movement. Cannabis acceptance. Vietnam War protests. Etc...
The history of the Left has no shortage of high points @prageru.
Assume I already get that some gender fluidity is highly conserved and that some of gender is socially constructed. Assume I got that a million years ago. What is the function of pretending that all gender and sex in a k-selected species is abiological and socially constructed?
Where is any real payoff coming from taking social justice and making it bigoted, anti-science, anti-free Speech, radically relativistic, non constructive, blood thirsty, authoritarian, intolerant and utopian?
Where does the benefit of the âupgradeâ to cultlike behavior reside?
When we ban people from spreading conspiracy theories we can no longer discuss conspiracies.
In 2017, I spread a conspiracy story.
Q: Should I be deplatformed for alleging that the US has a proven ability to destroy lawful US citizens by planting fake news in mainstream media?
1/ US Deep-State use of "Fake News" in Main Stream Media to Destroy Inconvenient US Citizens: A tweetstorm in honor of Black America & MLK. https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/27071821434064897
Think about this: the US has had a proven history of conspiring repeatedly against its own citizens and destroying lives. Our check against that tyranny is FREE SPEECH/PRESS including the freedom to discuss & test wild hypotheses that begin as...wait for it...conspiracy theories.
Right now, EVERY major platform (@Google, @Apple, @facebook & @Twitter) both spreads and profits from hate, violence, misinformation and offensive speech. I will defend them in the same terms I defend all those they deplatformed pretending that they have a zero tolerance policy.
Furthermore I will again spread my own researched conspiracy theory: the H-1b & the Immigration Act of 1990 were created from a conspiracy inside the @theNASciences & @nsf complex to target and betray our own STEM professionals on behalf of STEM employers: https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/Weinstein-GUI_NSF_SG_Complete_INET.pdf
Ending conspiracy theories means ending investigative journalism: no My Lai. It means banning Howard Zinn. Not discussing the McCollum memo. Not talking about the Dulles brothers / Kermit Roosevelt. Forgetting the untreated syphilis victims of Tuskegee.
Me to FB: Drop dead. /End
P.S. In honor of FB's zero tolerance, I joined a pro-violence hate group on FaceBook. It has an ideology of supporting violence by Kurdish Women against ISIS, its hated target. Come join me and dare FaceBook to shut us down. We are called "Kurdish Freedom Fighters Against ISIS" https://t.co/5cHOZ0NzhV
To be clear: I'm not a free speech absolutist. Nor is the US absolutist. Companies are not the govt...etc..
What I oppose here is *simple* statements from Tech Utopians about how they are against *all* Hate, Violence & Misinformation while *selectively* enforcing & profiteering.
As Goldwater (should have) said: Extremism in defense of liberty is no friend of liberty. I know no other country where irresponsible speech is as protected as in the US. Grownups know that every freedom has limits. @michaelbd @BrianLehrer @JonahNRO @nytdavidbrooks @RubinReport
I am not a free speech absolutist.
I also introduced the IDW term. Get it right.
Well this is cool. @CIGS_INET is starting off a YouTube channel with a bang: @SamHarrisOrg interviews @NAChristakis on the evolutionary pressure on free speech after the digital revolution. Subscribe on YT to get them to continue making more great content! https://youtu.be/2oNLoPAf1hg
No, Iâm saying that the IDW, having declared themselves fearless free speech warriors, are actively involved in policing the limits of debate.
So Iâm not welcome in front of your audience on your upcoming dates to discuss this or show some solidarity and any coming together?
Can you also direct me to your sources of fact? It doesnât sound like you became familiar with my stance on free speech in the course of writing your book unfortunately. You are beginning by making incorrect assumptions and inferences it would seem.
[My audience isnât exactly clamoring for me to interview Billy Bragg. It was supposed to be a reciprocal show of solidarity in the face of four more years of Trump on the horizon if we donât come together. Youâre not wrong whoever you are. Nothing to do w/ âgladiatorial combatâ.]
[And thank you for trying @BluesClown. After hearing about being a âfree speech warriorâ (false), trying for gladiatorial confrontation (false) and having heard that Iâm an âinvestment bankerâ (false), the public mischaracterization feels infinite. He can always find me in DM.]
Stop whispering Eric, we can all hear you. If the âchallengeâ of debating me on your podcast is withdrawn, then maybe you should change the name of your club to the Intentionally Dark Web, and stop getting upset when people say you wonât debate them.
Cut it out. I wasnât looking to debate you on your stage. Just play two songs that came out of two adjacent counties in Appalachian Kentucky we lost to Trump in 2016 in solidarity w workers & boost your book tour on a podcast after your show. Then you said âno thank youâ. So Ok!
It was about solidarity w decent people getting screwed over by both political parties & the Left not eating itself, but actually doing something to come together. But you werenât interested and I accepted that. Okay. Move on. But Pete Seeger would have shaken my hand. As he did.
Iâm happy to shake your hand. I just donât understand why youâve withdrawn your initial invite to debate the issue on your podcast? Was it conditional?
Yes and no. I wasnât looking to debate you. You wanted that. Iâm not a free speech warrior. You said that, not me. Iâm not an investment banker. I heard you think I am.
That sounded fishy. But you have been a person of integrity for a long time. 1/2.
Music to me is like breaking bread. I wonât have a man to my house who wonât have me to his. I wouldnât invite a man playing the Saul Alinksy ridicule game. My audience isnât going to like the Internationale. But I would have stood up for you. DM if you like for a call. Peace 2/2
And it would be an honor to shake yours. Thanks for standing up for the voiceless during the dark times. Even if we disagree.
âFreeâ has multiple meanings. The strategy of using oneâs own free speech for the simple pleasure of driving the costs of free speech of others (here by a claimed order of magnitude in security costs) is a very serious parasitizing of the simplistic free speech position.
Damn.
It appears that my event with @MaximeBernier on September 29th has been cancelled due to threats from Antifa and this insane piece in the local paper. The school is now demanding 10 times the original security costs and could demand more before showtime: https://www.thespec.com/opinion/contributors/mohawk-college-should-have-declined-to-rent-space-to-maxime-bernier/article_5d148f52-de95-5d2d-b117-33d100679574.html
I will be honest in saying that I donât see a way to solve this problem within the simplistic âgood ideas beat bad ideasâ view held by various of my friends.
Thereâs a sizable number of white supremacists who latch onto legitimate free speech, meritocracy, islamofascism & immigration issues like free-riding remoras. If these are issues you discuss you *must* piss these folks off regularly as if rubbing against a reef to dislodge them.
2020
I think the Left has reached a hard fork. Those that want to explore extreme wokeness, open borders, anti-whiteness, apologizing to homophobic/misogynist theocracies, worlds w/o men, reparations for slavery, cancel culture, etc need to branch off. And good luck: Youâll need it. https://x.com/rosemcgowan/st/rosemcgowan/status/1212976832544460801
Emboldening the Iranian Government like this is insane. I donât care how traumatized you are by the US or how much you hate Trump or how much of Noam Chomsky youâve read. It just doesnât matter. Just get a hold of yourself.
The rest of us for markets, democracy, liberal values, modest social safety nets, tolerance, content of character over color of skin, due process, free speech, etc. have to go back to defeating our loyal friends across the aisle & squashing newly emboldened neo-fascists. #Enough
#HardFork #ForkOff #GoForkYourself https://t.co/Pa6mfYYNU4
I am going to be increasingly *ignoring* various issues, campaigns & provocations on Twitter.
If you are determined to screenshot the fact that I blocked you, Iâm now much more happy to accommodate. We mere mortals with flaws have a right to be protected from our betters here.
I tried civility. I tried engagement. But this platform is engineered to allow all sorts of problems. One of them is anonymous networks of accounts/bots engaging named humans. Another is privacy based attacks. A third is bigoted intimidation. The controls are just insufficient.
Further, Terms Of Service have concentrated *discretionary* enforcement w/ âTrust & Safetyâ.
So, I donât have a solution. I doubt Twitter does. Until they do, I will be using what exists: Block, Mute and Non-engagement as I, in my sole discretion, see fit until there is change.
I tried to engage before & do very little of this (e.g. Blocking or ignoring). But the danger to named individuals from the Platform, the bots, governments, law and mobs has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with a tilted playing field encouraging personal destruction.
Weâve got to talk about these relentless lying & distorting anonymous / pseudo-anonymous accounts whose function is to psychologically harass actual people from behind a wall of anonymity into silence & division.
Why are such unaccountable accounts mixed w/ actual humans? @jack
Why is @antihero_kate gone and @uberfeminist still here? Is cruelty about someoneâs deceased sibling the free speech we defend while we chill meaningful speech?
Is that account a paid for troll? Is that an instituon? Someone who needs help with trauma? What is it? Why anonymous?
2021
The Lesson of The Obama Era âOperation Chokepointâ:
There is something hidden in our collectivist do-gooding Impulse that too often starts with secretly wanting control over others and only then seeking altruisms to justify it.
The 1st amendment is an advanced check on this.
NEW: Amazon is booting Parler off AWS, its web hosting service, knocking the pro-Trump social network offline until it finds a new host.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws
Level 0: This is an attack on free speech in the public square.
Level 1 rejection: This is not the public square but a matter of for profit companies and the freedom to do what they please.
Level 2: Level 1 only works if there is a public sector of the internet for all to use.
The Portal invited Ashley Mathews in advance of the election to discuss this specifically outside of politics. This is not about politics, but about a class that wishes to use business to impose control over other lawful human beings. We cover it directly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHNBCVGH34c
Every business must now assess refusal-of-service as a fundamental risk. (There is zero reason to assume the targets of this trend will remain limited to "them.") On-premise will get renewed attention.
Let me put this in the starkest terms. Our genius in the US is to NOT have our infrastructure nationalized. But laws like âFree Speechâ donât immediately carry over to the private sector. The idea of getting Tech-Finance-Universities-Media to shut down thought and speech is here.
These new authoritarians are trying to make commerce & the market do what the government legally cannot: make life impossible for dissenters. For the first time, to preserve freedom we will either need to regulate or nationalize. Both of which are terrible options. Weâve lost it.
Taken to its extreme conclusion, you will be free to bark ideas in a public park, only not to access banking, credit, electronic communication, education, the media. My old joke âShould Republicans be allowed to use the roads & phone system?â doesnât seem all that funny in 2021
I actually thought about this more...here goes.
What is going on is this: mainstream media and tech are co-creating an illusion. The illusion is this: the entire Left has gone stupid, corrupt & insane. And the way it is accomplished is by collective institutional make-believe.
WHERE ARE OUR INTELLECTS ON THE LEFT SCREAMING ABOUT THE SHUT DOWN OF FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA? Have we such a failure in education that we have forgotten the value of our freedoms? WHATâS HAPPENING IS DIRE! WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!
All the civil libertarians are still here. The âfree speech for ideas we hateâ crowd is still here. The âWoke doesnât make any analytic senseâ crowd is here.
Ironically the Left leaning institutions are âmanufacturing our consentâ w forced âdiversity & inclusionâ loyalty oaths.
Now, individually, we object. But Iâm told weâre âthirstyâ by the internet if I say: âNPR, I used to have John Ydistie on speed dialâ or âNYT I would talk to Robert Pear or Dennis Overbye or others with some frequency.â until something about 8-9years ago: Our lines went dead.
This was about the time of the Obama Era âDear Colleagueâ letter that converted the Universities to indoctrination factories. This is the era of the DOJ âOperation Chokepointâ. And many of us who objected were suddenly just frozen out. More or less completely with no explanation.
Now, via you, Iâm seeing this differently. I donât need NPR/NYT or any of these outfits to talk to me. But they stopped taking to ALL of us. Effectively center Left media ghosted EVERYONE who didnât sign on to the new extra crazy version of identity politics and safety culture.
And this is leads to several illusions:
A) The Left is insane & wants the police abolished so some can riot, firebomb courthouses, suspend policing at will.
B) The Left hates borders.
C) The Left is all in on collective guilt for slavery.
D) The Left is done w due process.
E) The Left has traded in Free Speech for Safety culture.
F) The Left wants equity as a cover for new discrimination and racism.
Etc.
But that is not what is happening AT ALL. The true Left HATES this institutional strategy. So institutions have settled on âSmear & isolateâ.
We just donât exist if media never talks to us. And if we manage to poke through using podcasting we are classified by the zealots running this strategy as Alt Right despite an enormous number of Jewish surnames and prominent black intellectuals in our ranks. As if we vanished.
What I now see is that I allowed the internet hyenas to push me off. The point isnât that I need to speak to the press, but that the press has to speak to the Left who HATE the direction of our modern Democratic Party away from equality & fairness for all independent of identity.
With smear&ghost, they have simply disappeared an enormous wing of the party. Vanished without a trace.
So if you are here and sick of our insane tech-media-academic-political âleadershipâ undoing our civil liberties, add your name?
With numbers, they canât gaslight us all. đ
2022
Is this anti free speech, is this really happening?
I think you have to decide that for yourself. I see it as an internal conflict document. The school has a faction that wants free speech and an army of caring administrators that wants to know if you feel harmed by that free speech.
2023
Because our institutions decided that they outgrew the free society they serve.
What is a âFree Speech Zoneâ to a free people? [Since 1988]
What is a âreputation scoreâ and why am I still throttled?
NEWS: The Twitter team continue to find shadowbans buried deep in the Twitter code.
Just last week they found a measure that stopped accounts assigned a low 'Reputation score' from trending.
This shadowban even applied to Elon's account and prevented his tweets from trending.
What is ESG and how does it work exactly?
NEW: From S&P Global to the London Stock Exchange, tobacco companies are crushing Tesla in the ESG ratings. How could cigarettes, which kill over 8 million a year, be deemed a more ethical investment than electric cars?
One answer: Tobaccoâs gone woke.𧾠https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/how-tobacco-companies-are-crushing-esg-ratings/
What is âControlled Sponteneityâ?
Is there a more Orwellian oxymoron among oxymorons?
What was Project DEFUSE? Seriously.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066966-defuse-proposal/
Why is this so anti-interesting?
Just search on âFurinâ, âSARS-CoVâ âSpike Proteinâ, âWuhanâ and âDTRAâ for @doddtra. Wouldnât you **want** deep public hearings if this was all a super unfortunate coincidence? Right??
Coincidence theory puts conspiracy theory to shame.
If you want to understand Trump & RFK, make it very simple. Ignore the errors and issues for a moment. ALL of them. Theyâre the only 2 major candidates working at the scope of âMaybe almost EVERYTHING important/weird that weâre told by institutions is potentially totally wrong.â
2024
For me, this has little to do w/ Kamala. It's:
Democracy vs TheDemocracyâ˘
Science vs TheScienceâ˘
Privacy vs TheTermsOfServicePrivacyPolicyâ˘
Free Speech vs OurFreeSpeechâ˘
Academic Freedom vs USAcademicFreedomâ˘
Diversity vs DEIâ˘
Professional Agreement vs TheExpertConsensusâ˘
I stopped at 240 Characters on this one, just so that it would all be displayed. Feel free to add your own kayfabrication examples. Many of us can finish each otherâs thoughts at this point and would come up with the same basic lists:
Facts vs FactCheckersâ˘
Truth vs TheNarrativeâ˘
Elite Achievement vs Elitesâ˘
I was recommended to join this space on X last night during a drive to meet friends.
I was told that Iâd find it âinteresting.â
I found it interesting. We are here, after all.
Still processing.
An interesting waste of time? Not being a smartass, what's the point.
Maybe just listen to 5 minutes at random? Itâs as much about X and the state of free speech as it is about the topic.
2025
This Kimmel thing is really disturbing to me.
I have no idea how our late night hosts became soâŚuhâŚumâŚclosely coordinated.
But FCC pressuring ABC is chilling. Yet no one seems to see free speech non-politically.
Iâm for free speech. Even though I see the coordination here:
And please spare me the idea that this is just all so simple. There are laws, and then there are norms. And the norms have culture around them. There are also understandings.
Those who follow me know, I believe the easy part of free speech is the law.
The rest is the hard part.
They have a broadcast license and thus are subject to regulation. This isn't complicated.
A free country, a free press, free markets, free and fair elections, and a free people arenât so easy to pull off or everyone would have done it.
We never had all of those things. Ever.
But we got closer than I ever could have imagined. And it wasnât because it was all simple.
Related Pages
- Anonymity
- Canât vs Mustnât
- Degraded State
- Intellectual Dark Web
- Loyal Opposition
- Oral Torah vs Written Torah
- Regulated Expression
- Totalizing Ideologies
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.