Freedom of speech and the left

Smith - I expect the video above will be talking about corporate DEI initiatives, academic freedom and the culture of online left discourse.   Freddie deBoer has a book coming out soon I am curious to read along somewhat similar lines.   You can see a rough outline of his argument here (which i am sympathetic to):

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/whats-happened-with-the-socialist

"In 2016, it certainly seemed like the Bernie Sanders-Hillary Clinton split was defining a dynamic that would last for a long time: class-focused socialists bent on dramatic change opposed by centrists who weaponized identity politics to try and stop that change. It was very common for people to assume that this would be the battlefield for the American left-of-center moving forward. I did.

But that really hasn’t happened. The socialist left has almost entirely capitulated on its resistance to the dominance of identity politics in progressive spaces. Many of the identity-skeptical leftists I knew have adopted the identity language they once mocked. Some have simply gone quiet. And I think the reason is obvious: constantly being called racist for supporting Bernie really scarred them. It turned out that a lot of them really weren’t about that life. They were used to calling people racist, not to being called racist."

Mobo:   We've talked these issues before and we aren't on the same page.   I intend in this thread to post articles I find interesting on the topic of social justice, the left and freedom of speech.   Not here to debate core principles, and I'm not posting at you.    

Michael - first thread I've started here, somewhat of a random choice.   

Krop - I am really curious what you mean by post 7.   Could you elaborate as to what you think my intentions are?    

As I've said before, I am opposed to strong hate speech laws because I think they don't work to reduce hate.    And they are authoritarian, counterproductive and increase polarization.      The only option we have for peaceful resolutions to heated public debates is discussion.

I have heard support on babble in the past for participatory democracy, for bottom-up organizing, for some versions of anarchism.   I support those values.   I believe the more voices in a debate the better the result, the more brains working on a problem, the better the solution.     

I had thought at points in the past babble would be open to a discussion about class based politics versus liberal-led identity politics.   That class based solidarity is the best method of getting something of value for the working class from the powers that be.  I guess something changed.

Yes, it is nice to see you back Pondering.

In the OP for this thread I linked some discussions of freedom of speech by left/progressive public figures and writers, most of whom I admire.    In the first video there is a lot of agreement with Pondering's point in post 15, which I also very much agree with:   freedom of speech as a value for the left should be broad and strong -- including more than opposition to censorship, hate speech laws and cancel culture.   The reason for this support are in part based in humility, in part pragmatic and political.  The progressive left should model and work to create produtive discussions about contentious issues.   With humility because we need to recognize we may be wrong, that the other side has something important to say we have not considered.   And pragmatic because we will not win over anyone undecided with personal attacks/cancellation, accusations of dogwhistling or slogans.   And hate speech laws don't reduce hate.

There are many pressing issues around freedom of speech that relate to social media moderation policies, the elite-lead drive to define and purge "misinformation".  The new hate speech law in Ireland that may become a model for the EU, for example, and I will post more about it in this thread over time.

But for now:   There are progressive/lefty folks who passionately feel invocations of "freedom of speech" are, in the current cultural moment, mostly right wing dogwhistles from haters.   Maybe some babblers feel this.   If so, I ask that you consider this short essay on Orthodox Privilege:

http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."

Here is an example of Canadian censorship related to the war in Ukraine.   Opseu should support it's members freedom of speech about such an important issue.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/06/23/ncpt-j23.html

"OPSEU, in announcing to Lascaris that it was canceling his meeting without forewarning, told him that “OPSEU leaders and staff” had “received dozens of emails expressing opposition to the holding of the event, and that, based on those emails, OPSEU leadership became concerned for the safety of the participants and the property.”  

Thanks, I just saw it.   

There was some discussion on another thread about Karl Popper's "paradox of intolerance" which I'd like to bring here.   Perhaps the discussion was partially inspired by this comic, which has been passed around a lot on social media over the past few years:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/3qjNx69hsOAMp-5HQvxJZuEivfULW6mRlLdD77...

Fundamentally, what this comic is arguing is the opposite of what Karl Popper intended, and he did not write it as a defence of or argument in favour for hate speech laws.   

Good explanation here:

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/paradox-tolerance

"Meanwhile many on the far left have also misread Popper, again to no good ends. As stated here, and not altogether fairly, the paradox runs:

1. A tolerant society should be tolerant by default,
2. With one exception: it should not tolerate intolerance itself.

But Popper never believed anything like this. Rather, he wrote:

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

This is no warrant here for laws against hate speech. On the contrary, Popper appears to have called such laws “unwise.”

To Popper, intolerance is not to be deployed when the utterance of intolerant ideas might make you uncomfortable, or when those ideas seem impolite, or when they get you really mad. Intolerance – if that’s the right word for it – is only warranted when we are already facing “fists and pistols,” or, presumably, worse.

We know this not merely from a close reading of the passages I’ve quoted, but from a look at The Open Society and Its Enemies more broadly. The entire book is an exposition of intolerant ideas, a dissection of them, and a sustained, reasoned defense of pluralism. Here Popper proved himself liberal; his first resort was to make a rational argument. It was only in a footnote that he considered the possibility of using violence, and he did so with obvious disdain."

Edited to add - Note what Popper means by intolerance here: "they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."

The current discussions around the potential banning of Germany's AFD party are illustrative of a broader divide in liberal/left thought.

Probably no surprise to any of you, but I am opposed to banning political parties and opposed to intelligence agencies determining who has views eligible to be heard by the public.  In part because it is undemocratic and authoritarian, and in part because it is poor tactics.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-shouldnt-ban-the-afd/

"Even the influential political magazine Der Spiegel ran a leading article that called for the use of ‘the sharpest weapon available to a democracy ready to defend itself.’ Thomas Haldenwang, the head of the domestic intelligence agency, which would have to gather the evidence necessary for a legal ban, has also criticised the AfD in public, indicating that he would be happy to help pave the legal path towards such measures."

A recent survey even indicated that 10 per cent of the AfD voters want their party banned because they think they can gain a political advantage from this. If the party didn’t formally exist, it would be much harder to monitor the activities of its members and supporters. When Otto von Bismarck, Germany’s first chancellor from 1871 to 1890 banned the SPD, that was exactly what happened. Members formed underground networks, stood as independent candidates in elections and galvanised their support base.

But most importantly, a party ban simply would not address the problem. If the surveys are correct, up to 21 per cent of the German electorate would currently vote for the AfD. That means millions of people are unhappy with the status quo –­ the vast majority of whom will have voted for mainstream parties in the past. While the party is rapidly radicalising, its supporters cannot be written off wholesale as irretrievable extremists. Taking the political vehicle of their discontent away would do nothing to alleviate the discontent itself. As one German political scientist put it: ‘you cannot place a ban on opinions and attitudes.’

I think this is good and interesting analysis:  

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/07/13/rise-in-german-far-right-re...

"A negotiated end to the war in Ukraine would likely limit the successes of the AfD in Germany. It would reduce sanction-related inflation, climate-change related expenses and lessen tensions with Russia as well as the steep rise in military spending, both pushed by the Greens and both unpopular with much of the German public.

The Greens have become the most unpopular party in the coalition in part because of their bellicose stance toward Russia, as much of the German public still supports the country's pacifist political culture. Fifty-five percent of Germans surveyed in a national poll believe that diplomatic efforts to end the war have not been sufficient, demonstrating an openness to ending the war diplomatically rather than through continued fighting. "

Edited to add:
https://www.euronews.com/2023/06/14/should-germany-ban-afd-what-impact-c...

"The proposal to ban AfD has “backfired massively because the AfD took it upon themselves to paint a different picture in the media,” according to Una Ivona Titz, a journalist and researcher at the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, a group focused on extremism and the far-right.

“Right now, they’re garnering a lot of support on Telegram because they’re rallying their supporters and they’re painting themselves as a persecuted party within an unjust system which they’re fighting from within,” she told Euronews.

While the study aimed to increase awareness over the threats posed by AfD, “what we’re seeing is that it has emboldened them and actually helped them bolster the image of AfD,” Titz explained.

“Germany has upcoming elections in Saxony, and right now the AfD is somewhere around 30%,” she added. “We’re fearing that it will further embolden or that it might lead to people who are sceptical or withholding their votes to actually go vote for the AfD because they perceive them as the sort of underdog who is treated unjustly.”

Interesting interview with a professor of medicine at Stanford University, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who had his social media feeds blacklisted by twitter, without his knowledge, at the request of the Biden administration.   They discuss the recent judgement by the 5th circuit court that the Biden administration unconstitutionally coerced online censorship related to COVID policies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjnlThmMIVs

Mobo:    There are few subjects that need full and complete freedom of speech more than COVID policies (and health policies in general).   Public trust in health authorities is declining across the western world, in part because the public sees the political interference in the process.    In the western world, under capitalism, it's hard to imagine how it could be otherwise.   The profit incentive in medicine distorts both the science and the public trust in scientific authorities.

A relevant Canadian example:   The global and mail is reporting on an investigation into the reporting of adverse drug reactions, and reveals that in the past 3 years nearly half of Canadian hospitals have reported NO adverse drug reactions (despite a law requiring them to report).   

There is no profit in a hospital reporting adverse drug reactions.   There is no benefit to a pharaceutical company's bottom line for them to be reported.     And so there is a lack of evidence for scientists or the public to evaluate the risk with any particular drug.   

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-hospitals-adverse-...

I support both of these campaigns by the British Medical Journal and encourage babblers to take a look:

https://www.bmj.com/too-much-medicine

"In 2002 Ray Moynihan argued that modern medicine had undermined the capacity of individuals and societies to cope with death, pain, and sickness. He said the pharma industry had extended the boundaries of treatable disease to expand markets for new products. Barbara Mintzes blamed direct to consumer advertising of drugs in the US for portraying a dual message of “a pill for every ill,” and “an ill for every pill.” Elsewhere in the issue, doctors were accused of colluding in and encouraging medicalisation. Leonard Leibovici and Michel Lièvre wrote : “The bad things of life: old age, death, pain, and handicap are thrust on doctors to keep families and society from facing them.”

https://www.bmj.com/better-evidence 

"Patients are being let down by serious flaws in the creation, dissemination, and implementation of medical research. Too many research studies are poorly designed or executed. Too much of the resulting research evidence is withheld or disseminated only piecemeal. As the volume of clinical research has grown the quality of evidence has often worsened, which has compromised medicine’s ability to provide affordable, effective, high value care for patients. There are many problems. "

Back to freedom of speech:   

Here is a open letter opposing Denmark's new law against the mistreatment of religious symbols:

https://www.persuasion.community/p/stop-denmarks-new-blasphemy-ban

"We agree that the burning of books, or any other form of destruction of religious objects, is often a crude and ineffective means of expression and a poor substitute for reasoned debate. We also categorically distance ourselves from the anti-Muslim bigotry that has frequently accompanied such acts. Racism, religious hatred, and intolerance are grave issues that demand attention from all who are committed to freedom, democracy, and equality. Nonetheless, we argue that the values of freedom of expression and of tolerance are not mutually exclusive but are, in fact, mutually reinforcing. Laws that restrict freedom of speech in the name of preventing offense inevitably undermine the democratic ideals they claim to protect, and they legitimize oppression at home and abroad."