Laura Perrins doesn't agree with right-wingers who lament Jimmy Kimmel's cancellation.
Was Kimmel cancelled? It's not entirely clear. It seems to have been a commerical decision made by the network, based on how many viewers he offended.
At the same time, I don't think conservatives should be celebrating anybody being punished for having an opinion. We certainly shouldn't be engaging in the same "free speech has consequences" argument that progressives have made so long.
("Free speech has consequences" could be used to justify any restriction of free speech.)
Laura's article seems to come close to a philosophy of "to the victor goes the spoils", which doesn't seem very civilized. I agree with most of her articles, but not this one.
I'm not a free speech absolutist (is there even such a thing?). But I'm definitely a free speech maximalist.
Edward Feser is, in my view, more sensible.
For any political discussion rule #0 is "is it in good faith?" If one's interlocutor actually believes what he says he believes and isn't just trying to manipulate people or argue or parrot something, then you can talk over the issue.
ReplyDeleteBut after you have good faith, the second issue is that the concept of free speech has become so confused that in many cases people are even themselves muddled.
For instance, one common (implicit) definition of free speech is purely negative. Everything is allowed, except for certain restrictions. But that is the opposite of how people actually think about free speech. I'm not sure if anyone really believes in that type of abstract free speech (as opposed to using it for the purpose of arguing). People start with an idea of what kinds of speech are good and then things outside that are either restricted or outright banned.
I left two comments on free speech saying similar things over on Edward Feser's free speech post, which he linked to in the post that you linked (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2023/11/what-is-free-speech-for.html).
I agree with you that this seems to be the basic tendency of all defiinition-making: we have an intuitive idea of what we mean (by free speech, for instance) and then come up with definitions to fit those intuitions.
DeleteBut maybe it's not a bad thing that definitions take on a life of their own, because that might actually guard freedoms better than the inuitive view. Just a thought.
I'll have a look at that other comment, thanks!
"we have an intuitive idea of what we mean (by free speech, for instance) and then come up with definitions to fit those intuitions"
DeleteI agree with you about that. I was not criticizing definitions versus intuitions.
What I would say is the issue with how free speech is often spoken of, is that the definition is not a crystallization of the intuition but at odds with the intuition.
In the Edward Feser post you linked to, he explains what he means by free speech and how he thinks of it. That is the right way to write about free speech.
The problem with many of the discussions either online or in public about free speech is that people either are in bad faith (they don't believe in any principle of free speech, they just want to advance some cause of their own). Or, they are not clear on what they mean by free speech. I suspect in many cases even to themselves.