It's fine for Keir Starmer to be proud of our history in regard to free speech if by 'our' he means the people of these four nations and not the Labour Party. But the problem isn't history, it's the present and, God help us, the future. Both of which do not bode well for freedom of speech. We need these authoritarian out.
"Free speech is so embedded into American culture that it has been relatively immune to the illiberal trends we have seen developing elsewhere. "
This is only true if we see the threat to free speech as coming exclusively from the state as opposed to private actors (e.g. employers). One of the main and most worrying illiberal trends is the large amount of self-censorship that people engage in. Non-crime hate incidents/ hate crime is certainly an important part of that, but the threat of loss of livelihood is equally if not more important to the average person and in this the UK/Europe is way ahead of the US. For example, the First Amendment would not have protected Maya Forstater because the US constitution sees free speech purely in terms of citizens versus state and not citizen versus other powerful non-state actors.
I'm also not convinced that free speech is really all that embedded in the culture that gave us micro-aggressions, the idea that words are violence (and also silence is violence), that asking for evidence of racism/sexism is itself evidence of racism/sexism etc. These are not ideas that would take root and thrive in a community genuinely committed to the free exchange of ideas. I think rather what is embedded is a peculiar strain of libertarianism that is deeply suspicious of the state but believes that might makes right in the private sphere.
Which is not to say I don't recognise the serious problems with free speech in the UK, just that I'd be very wary of looking to the US for the antidote.
Yes, but those ideas you describe were never popular in the US. At its height, the woke movement had 8% of the population’s support. The First Amendment acted as a firewall against the woke. The Democratic Party’s anti First Amendment overtures were one of the reasons they were so resoundingly rejected by the electorate. We don’t have a codified constitution and so are far more vulnerable.
Yes, woke is undoubtedly unpopular in the US, but is this because of an abstract commitment to freedom of expression or just a recognition that the ideas are really, really bad? If we forget about woke for a minute and look at US attitudes more broadly I don't see much consistency. A solid majority of republicans and substantial minority of democrats are in favour of criminalizing flag-burning, for example.
American in New Puritan Massachusetts here, where woke-ism is very much resurgent post election! Schoolchildren are being scolded with police presentations on anti-bias and hate speech and warned their lives and futures could be ruined if the wrong person overhears them and gets offended. I fear a tsunami backlash from Trump's aggressive actions, with moderate gay, feminist and Jewish Americans left stranded between the orange devil and the deep blue sea.🌊
A thoughtful if occasionally blinkered take on the current US government’s ‘tactics’ - bearing in mind it was the hope of a return to a ‘free speaking’ world that brought Trump into office. This all does encourage a dissembling narrative amongst the morally unscrupulous, of which this Republican mass number many. But it is different, and change is often a bridge to better things.
NB. Could you find something less pejorative than ‘woke’ as a collective term for those who might support eliminating hate for minorities? Political correctness for its own sake is beyond irritating, but slaying an ideology that has much to commend it might not be the answer. Baby. Bath water.
I know you dont want to cast it in such a bipolar way but how we can accept a lecture (albeit one I largely agree with) from JD Vance without accusing him of hypocrisy when this was within an important context that you didnt mention. Namely America is siding with and admires the leader of a deeply oppressive regime where there are considerably greater challenges to free speech that those in western Europe.
It's fine for Keir Starmer to be proud of our history in regard to free speech if by 'our' he means the people of these four nations and not the Labour Party. But the problem isn't history, it's the present and, God help us, the future. Both of which do not bode well for freedom of speech. We need these authoritarian out.
"Free speech is so embedded into American culture that it has been relatively immune to the illiberal trends we have seen developing elsewhere. "
This is only true if we see the threat to free speech as coming exclusively from the state as opposed to private actors (e.g. employers). One of the main and most worrying illiberal trends is the large amount of self-censorship that people engage in. Non-crime hate incidents/ hate crime is certainly an important part of that, but the threat of loss of livelihood is equally if not more important to the average person and in this the UK/Europe is way ahead of the US. For example, the First Amendment would not have protected Maya Forstater because the US constitution sees free speech purely in terms of citizens versus state and not citizen versus other powerful non-state actors.
I'm also not convinced that free speech is really all that embedded in the culture that gave us micro-aggressions, the idea that words are violence (and also silence is violence), that asking for evidence of racism/sexism is itself evidence of racism/sexism etc. These are not ideas that would take root and thrive in a community genuinely committed to the free exchange of ideas. I think rather what is embedded is a peculiar strain of libertarianism that is deeply suspicious of the state but believes that might makes right in the private sphere.
Which is not to say I don't recognise the serious problems with free speech in the UK, just that I'd be very wary of looking to the US for the antidote.
Yes, but those ideas you describe were never popular in the US. At its height, the woke movement had 8% of the population’s support. The First Amendment acted as a firewall against the woke. The Democratic Party’s anti First Amendment overtures were one of the reasons they were so resoundingly rejected by the electorate. We don’t have a codified constitution and so are far more vulnerable.
Yes, woke is undoubtedly unpopular in the US, but is this because of an abstract commitment to freedom of expression or just a recognition that the ideas are really, really bad? If we forget about woke for a minute and look at US attitudes more broadly I don't see much consistency. A solid majority of republicans and substantial minority of democrats are in favour of criminalizing flag-burning, for example.
I think people underestimate the Human Rights Act. Article 10 protects free speech and I think we need to look at using it more.
Dusty
American in New Puritan Massachusetts here, where woke-ism is very much resurgent post election! Schoolchildren are being scolded with police presentations on anti-bias and hate speech and warned their lives and futures could be ruined if the wrong person overhears them and gets offended. I fear a tsunami backlash from Trump's aggressive actions, with moderate gay, feminist and Jewish Americans left stranded between the orange devil and the deep blue sea.🌊
A thoughtful if occasionally blinkered take on the current US government’s ‘tactics’ - bearing in mind it was the hope of a return to a ‘free speaking’ world that brought Trump into office. This all does encourage a dissembling narrative amongst the morally unscrupulous, of which this Republican mass number many. But it is different, and change is often a bridge to better things.
NB. Could you find something less pejorative than ‘woke’ as a collective term for those who might support eliminating hate for minorities? Political correctness for its own sake is beyond irritating, but slaying an ideology that has much to commend it might not be the answer. Baby. Bath water.
Keep up the good work.
“it was the hope of a return to a ‘free speaking’ world that brought Trump into office”
Does that not support my point rather than refute it?
I don’t use “woke” as a pejorative or to describe those who wish to eliminate hate for minorities. Never have.
I think I'm in love, Dr Doyle!
I know you dont want to cast it in such a bipolar way but how we can accept a lecture (albeit one I largely agree with) from JD Vance without accusing him of hypocrisy when this was within an important context that you didnt mention. Namely America is siding with and admires the leader of a deeply oppressive regime where there are considerably greater challenges to free speech that those in western Europe.
Well done the American Terfs but very frustrating for us Terf Islanders that we are stuck with Labour ( and the EU) !!
Have cross posted.
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/but-youre-so-damned-ugly
Dusty
Watch how coercive relationships play out. That’ll give you an idea of what comes next on a societal level.