I have struggled with the limits of free speech since the Nazi march in Skokie. What I find most difficult about the substack and online hate mongers is their ability to not have to respond to their vitriol face to face. In the real court of public opinion. In the past this was a more personal endeavor and you needed your ducks in a row. when you faced those that disagreed. Now it's just say whatever you want and forget facts or reality. Louder you shout, more you are followed by the disaffected. When the concept of free speech/hate speech is opened to the light of day as with the Harvard, Penn and MIT presidents there is clarity and personal responsibility.
It really irks me how the anti-ethno-state people don't seem to realize that essentially every country in Europe is an ethno-state and that even where there is no ethno-state, there are often autonomous ethnic regions within the country. Indigenous reservations in the US would be an example of that. And the whole "Israel is actually Palestine" crowd is, unbeknownst to themselves, I guess, calling for a Palestinian ethno-state. No consistency. So annoying.
And I wish it was only a Substack problem. With digital and social media firmly embedded within our communication tool box, society and individuals have simply weaponized information/misinformation. And as you very accurately point out Michael, in the absence of face to face exchanges the normal social checks and balances against taking the debate too far are negated. Add to that the ability to instantly access viewpoints simply to reinforce our own fears and anxieties, well confirmation bias only catalyzes the pathology. Add a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance (i.e. "Christians for Trump", "Queers for Palestine", "Cows for McDonalds") and it's hard to be optimistic. I do know that as we see levels of anti-Semitism rising to a place I have not experienced in my 62 years, the Seattle Jewish Community will become increasingly unified. There will always be divisive voices at the extremes, but as long as we appropriately marginalize bad actors and take care of each other during crisis, well that gets me to be a little more optimistic. A little. ;)
How best to amend the constitution to protect free speech
"ChatGPT
Amending the constitution to protect free speech involves careful consideration. A clear and concise amendment could affirm the right to free expression while addressing potential limitations for public safety. Seek input from legal experts, scholars, and the public to ensure a well-balanced approach."
But what to do in the face of so much disinformation being passed off as freedom of speech? Conspiracy theories are being presented as gospel truth.
Common sense and critical thinking cannot be legislated. It's incubant upon all of us to be more suspicious of being manipulated by becoming better educated.
I agree. We need to protect free speech. But don't believe everything you read.
I have struggled with the limits of free speech since the Nazi march in Skokie. What I find most difficult about the substack and online hate mongers is their ability to not have to respond to their vitriol face to face. In the real court of public opinion. In the past this was a more personal endeavor and you needed your ducks in a row. when you faced those that disagreed. Now it's just say whatever you want and forget facts or reality. Louder you shout, more you are followed by the disaffected. When the concept of free speech/hate speech is opened to the light of day as with the Harvard, Penn and MIT presidents there is clarity and personal responsibility.
It really irks me how the anti-ethno-state people don't seem to realize that essentially every country in Europe is an ethno-state and that even where there is no ethno-state, there are often autonomous ethnic regions within the country. Indigenous reservations in the US would be an example of that. And the whole "Israel is actually Palestine" crowd is, unbeknownst to themselves, I guess, calling for a Palestinian ethno-state. No consistency. So annoying.
And I wish it was only a Substack problem. With digital and social media firmly embedded within our communication tool box, society and individuals have simply weaponized information/misinformation. And as you very accurately point out Michael, in the absence of face to face exchanges the normal social checks and balances against taking the debate too far are negated. Add to that the ability to instantly access viewpoints simply to reinforce our own fears and anxieties, well confirmation bias only catalyzes the pathology. Add a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance (i.e. "Christians for Trump", "Queers for Palestine", "Cows for McDonalds") and it's hard to be optimistic. I do know that as we see levels of anti-Semitism rising to a place I have not experienced in my 62 years, the Seattle Jewish Community will become increasingly unified. There will always be divisive voices at the extremes, but as long as we appropriately marginalize bad actors and take care of each other during crisis, well that gets me to be a little more optimistic. A little. ;)
Do you read Critical Rice Theory by Diane Yap? You are kindred spirits.
Very good article.
I asked chatGPT the following question.
How best to amend the constitution to protect free speech
"ChatGPT
Amending the constitution to protect free speech involves careful consideration. A clear and concise amendment could affirm the right to free expression while addressing potential limitations for public safety. Seek input from legal experts, scholars, and the public to ensure a well-balanced approach."
But what to do in the face of so much disinformation being passed off as freedom of speech? Conspiracy theories are being presented as gospel truth.
Common sense and critical thinking cannot be legislated. It's incubant upon all of us to be more suspicious of being manipulated by becoming better educated.
I agree. We need to protect free speech. But don't believe everything you read.
Nice article. Well done.