Great post, I’ll save it to reference in future.
Kath´s last [type] ..Sorting Out My Head

I actually wish (esp. in light of the University of Ottawa incident with Ann Coulter) that the US had more bite to their hate speech laws the way Canda and the UK do.

Excellent point, Ang.

Everyone else, thanks for your comments!

The unthought-out ‘free speech’ defence was particularly prevalent during the Amanda Palmer debate. Ironically enough, I noticed that the very people who were shouting the loudest about how artists were being censored/their own free speech was being denied them as commentors, were also the most intolerant of people from the disabled community having our say. Too often, ‘free speech!’ as it’s used in debate simply means ‘free speech for people who agree with me!’

What really grinds my gears is what you allude to in the last part of your post; not only do these individuals defend their right to say whatever jacked-up garbage they say, but they also expect you to respect their opinion just because…it’s their opinion, I guess.

I was just having a “discussion” with someone the other day in a lecture on intimate partner violence. This individual would. not. stop. insisting individuals in abusive relationships “just need to leave”, and that was the only appropriate course of action. Period. Things got heated, and he finally said something like, “Okay, well, I know we have some strong opinions about this, but I am glad to see that even though we disagree, we still respect each others’ opinions.” I stared at him for a second before just saying, “No. We don’t.” I was just flabbergasted that despite the fact that he could not back up his opinion with anything other than more opinion, nor offer any cogent response to actual evidence showing IPV homicide is likeliest when trying to leave one’s abuser, he expected me to consider his opinion equally legitimate as someone’s life experience, research, and/or work.

Since you mentioned US-centrism:
In Germany, the corresponding article of the constitution is the right to have and express an opinion. (there are more “specialised” rights for freedom of the press, freedom of science and freedom of art). All of these have something in common: they are not absolute. Because whenever the rights of two people collide, there must be some cind of compromise. When it comes to freedom of expression and opinion, that means laws against libel (and slander). It also means that lies (about facts) are not protected, though this is only applicable when the lie can be proven, mostly in connection with those libel cases. There is also one specialised law that makes it illegal to openly declare that the Hollocaust never happened- everybody is free to present their opinions and interpretations of history, but outright denial is not allowed in a puplic media forum.

Regarding the people who think their free speach is endangered whenever someone critizised something they say, there are two options:
You can either think before you open your mouth, and try not to say something sexist/ ableist/ racist/ classist/ transphobic/ homophobic… and when you actually manage that, people will have nothing to accuse you of.
Or you can say whatever you want to say, with no regards to who might be hurt. And then people have the right to react to that. They can react by using their own right to free speach to critizise what you have said. Or they can use their right to not listen to you. That’s really what a comments policy is, the enacted right to not have to listen to people.

Freedom of speach does not mean freedom of responsibility.

Great post

But sometimes she’s trotted out the free speech – “Becky has free speech!” “Well then I have the freedom to respond!”

So glad to see this on here. I’m going to bookmark it for future “I can say what I want because I have free speech!” arguments.