Is it possible liberal societies can't survive in the presence of unrestricted f

[dutch508]

Girard442 (5,411 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216298937

Is it possible liberal societies can't survive in the presence of unrestricted free speech.

I've been a free speech fanatic for as long as I can remember and I pretty much still am. I keep having this gnawing feeling that some real-life Hari Selden (Isaac Asimov's fictitious master psychohistorian) will be able to conclusively demonstrate that free speech in a technological society inevitably leads to a Fox News or a Facebook and the resulting tsunami of mendacity turns the society Fascist.

I really, really hope this is not so.

 

Star Member brooklynite (75,595 posts)

1. Is every Democracy in the world turning fascist?

If the answer is "no" (not cherry picking the US, Hungary, Poland, etc) then you have you answer?

Star Member mucifer (20,618 posts)

2. I think a lot of it is the unrestricted campaign donations

Star Member viva la (1,142 posts)

3. I heard a expert on fascism

Anne Applebaum. She pointed out that fascist leaders arise out of democracies because free speech and open elections make it possible for a fascist to be elected, and hard to get them out.

Demagogue and democracy.

Star Member viva la (1,142 posts)

33. Populism is a tool of demagogues

Those who gain power from personality as much as force. Huey long is a great example.... his power lasted another generation.

Huey Pierce Long Jr. (August 30, 1893 – September 10, 1935), nicknamed "the Kingfish", was an American politician who served as the 40th governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932 and as a United States Senator from 1932 until his assassination in 1935. He was a populist member of the Democratic Party.

unblock (49,875 posts)

7. It's more greed and corruption than a free speech issue

"Free speech" may gavecrewuired Donnie to be heard in 2016, but it didn't require the media to give him 75% of the airtime. Nor did it require 75% of the remaining airtime giving to Hillary harp on the email and Benghazi pseudo-scandals.

The problem is greed and corruption, which led our pathetic media to abandon journalism in favor of right-wing propaganda.

People have been sounding the alarm ever since hate radio and foxnews became prominent, but those voices rarely made it on to the scene.

It's not that fascist voices get heard. It's that greed and corruption allow them to be amplified and promoted.

Star Member jrthin (4,622 posts)

9. Greed and corruption is the problem, but the media gives

wings and allow greed and corruption to soar. Without the fuel of the media and the different outlets, greed and power would be fledgling.

Star Member DBoon (19,319 posts)

8. We don't realize how much the media was controlled prior to deregulation

and the Internet

We had 3 major broadcast networks, all regulated due to their use of public airwaves. They were required to present alternative views to their editorials.

We had restrictions on ownership of other media outlets which tended to make them more responsive to community standards

Barriers to entry were high. It took money to set up an alternative press, and by its nature the backers were visible and hence somewhat accountable.

Mass media had some sense of public responsibility which while flawed also served as a check

Alternative publications were available but generally presented thought out viewpoints and not hysterical falsehoods.

I can recall the LA Free Press being shut down in the late 1960s for publishing personal information on undercover narcotics agents ("doxing" ) . This type of thing was unusual then, but is commonplace and completely unsanctioned now.

Buckeye_Democrat (13,672 posts)

14. I remain a supporter of free speech, even with...

... the disturbing misinformation that quickly spreads on the internet.

I tend to suspect that big corporations like Facebook would like to limit free information on the internet, with them creating a problem that causes political action which limits information as they still hold an established position in controlling it.

Not to mention that fascists in the minority can take over by limiting free speech. That was the key to Nazi power in Germany long ago, when it was made illegal to criticize Hitler and the Nazi party. Then there was the inevitable militarized people willing to enforce the law, making some anti-Nazi family with a few guns a moot point anyway. (I mention that because of the common myth among right-wing gun fanatics in this country, that it was a loss of personal firearms that was the main reason that the Nazi tyranny happened. Good luck with our AK-47's against a drone strike!)

Nancy Waterman (6,407 posts)

15. Freedom should have boundaries ori t becomes destructive

You can drive anywhere in the country, but you have to have a license and abide by the traffic laws: speed limit, stop at lights, drive on the right side, etc. In other words, regarding traffic laws, we have freedom with some restrictions so we do not cause harm.

Likewise, free speech should have some restrictions that are enforced. No inciting a riot, no agitating treason, no spreading purposefully harmful lies (e.g. covid is harmless or TFG won the election), no drowning out other people's rights in the process. (If use of money is considered a form of free speech, then you should not be allowed to contribute so much that you drown our my much smaller donation. This concept should lead to campaign finance restrictions.)

But you raise a really good question. Does free speech inevitably lead to autocracy. Perhaps the answer is that if the speech is unrestricted, with no limits, it can be used by demagogues and their minions to end democracy.

Star Member Mr. Ected (7,921 posts)

16. Help me understand: is categorizing opinion as news and presenting it as such

A proper application of free speech?

If so, then I would submit that it's not a foregone conclusion that a society would succumb to fascism under the circumstances, depending on the education and abilities of discernment of the population.

We have a lot of people in our country that can't get past the survival mechanisms in their brains. Too much reptilian brain, not enough empathy. Combine that with a triggering mechanism and danger ensues.

We would be wise to separate straight news from news opinion programming, label it as such, and hope that it helps people understand the veracity of the information being reported or peddled.

Buckeye_Democrat (13,672 posts)

22. I remember my old teachers attacking misinformation from a student with great ferocity when I was a kid. Those kids might as well have been called "complete dumb asses", but it didn't quite go that far. And the teachers explained why it was wrong, so it wasn't like dictatorial control of information. There was a REASON why the teacher's counterpoint was widely accepted in academia, and it certainly wasn't like "faith-based" nonsense.

I doubt that modern parents could accept their precious children getting their egos smashed like that anymore, but I could be wrong.

 

Star Member jrthin (4,622 posts)

23. There are a lot of "educated" people who are

tfg supporters. There were also a lot of "professionals" at the Jan6th insurrection.

Star Member Irish_Dem (19,945 posts)

26. The educated ones know they spout lies for political gain.

If GOP leaders tell the truth they would never get elected again.

Star Member jrthin (4,622 posts)

29. No all. Many of my doctors are hard core republicans.

Many "professionals", including engineers and the like are republicans, and if pressed, have no problem with today's republicans.

Star Member Irish_Dem (19,945 posts)

30. I think it is greed and racism.

They know that most of the crap they hear are lies.
But greed and racism cause them not to care about the propaganda.

 

cadoman (643 posts)

28. prior to 2016 I would have thought the answer to this question was so obvious

There is a famous quote that used to ring true, but now sounds downright disharmonic:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Now, as we here all know, there is so much more nuance to what free speech is, and regulations are needed to define and control it. Just as the French have three words for "freedom" (Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité), we in America now have two words:

Freedom, and Freedumb

Freedom of speech is the right to say any nasty old stupid thing you want to say, and anyone here would die for your right to say it. Speech made with hateful or misinformational intent will be designated to be illegal because it is harmful to society as a whole. That is, your "freedoms" become "freedumbs" when they impede on our collective freedom to live safely and securely in a health structure designed by science.

And yes, freedumb is a form of fascism, and logically the forces of fascism must be fought with force.

 

Star Member Patton French (336 posts)

36. Sigh....

The fascists would love to be able to censure speech.

Star Member Hekate (73,634 posts)

38. Everything in a democracy comes with restrictions, i.e. social responsibilities...

That’s where we go so wrong in fetishizing the 2nd Amendment, for instance.

The 1st Amendment has always had boundaries, but somehow in the age of mass communications, from Father Coughlin at the dawn of radio onward, we ignored our responsibility to the truth — until over time the guardrails were not just broken but smashed up and used as kindling by FOX. And appallingly, FOX’s claims have been upheld by the Court.

One section of the 1st Amendment has become as fetishized as the 2nd Amendment itself.

As far as the technological age goes, it didn’t have to be this way. If we had been paying attention in the first place… If…

It was not inevitable, but here we are.

Star Member Silent3 (11,910 posts)

42. I think we need both education and some limited restrictions

The education part is vital, but it's also slow and won't fix anything right away. Then there's a question of how effective it can be. I don't know if there are any solid studies on how well children can be taught to recognize and resist logical fallacies, propaganda techniques, and unreliable sources of information.

Plus opposition to such education might be fierce, because many politicians, religious leaders, and advertisers depend on exploiting the faulty the logic that comes naturally to most people.

There's also the issue of freedom of reach vs. freedom of speech. We could limit a lot of damage done by misinfo and disinfo by putting the most responsibility on those with the biggest platforms.

Ideally people should still be able to discuss any idea, even ugly ideas, with friends and family with no fear of legal retribution, so long as nothing being said is threatening or defamatory.

Of course, to me this sadly seems all very academic, because we're in a big mess caused by misinfo and disinfo already, and I just don't see us digging out before things get even worse than they are now.

 

[franksolich]

It's interesting how the authentic primitive "Hekate" shows up on most of Lord Marblehead's made-up threads.

[USA4ME]

For a group who claim they love free speech, their solutions always involve restricting speech to only what they find to be acceptable. And they say it out loud like it’s normal; like they don’t even see the contradictions in what they say. And chances are they don’t. For all their claims of being intelligent, they are anything but smart.

.

[DLR Pyro]

For a group who claim they love free speech, their solutions always involve restricting speech to only what they find to be acceptable. And they say it out loud like it’s normal; like they don’t even see the contradictions in what they say. And chances are they don’t. For all their claims of being intelligent, they are anything but smart.

and yet they dare to start posts like this one...https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216298573

[ADsOutburst]

Hey DU, you know who has claimed that their misinformation is protected speech? Rachel Maddow. The media's so-called """fact-checkers""". And probably others.

3. I heard a expert on fascism

Anne Applebaum. She pointed out that fascist leaders arise out of democracies because free speech and open elections make it possible for a fascist to be elected, and hard to get them out.

Demagogue and democracy.

So when the Nazi party and their publication were banned after the Beer Hall Putsch, that stopped them, right? Right?!

[DUmpDiver]

Free speech is all well and good but democracy dies when there are mean tweets.

[SVPete]

Girard442 (5,411 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216298937

Is it possible liberal societies can't survive in the presence of unrestricted free speech.

  Nice strawman, but slander/libel laws have always been in place in the US (and dating back to when the states were colonies). Criminal conspiracy - criminal plan using speech - has been illegal for a long time in the US, with roots in English Common Law (which forms the basis for the laws almost all US states). Inciting to riot has long been illegal in the US. Absolute freedom of speech has never existed in the US.

That said, I suspect that what Girard442 is leaning toward - and which many DU-folk have openly advocated pretty much since DU came into existence - is making criminal or restricting speech that disagrees with their ideological views.