Free speech for me but not for thee. It’s amazing to see the differential flexibility of free speech advocates manifest in real time (present company excluded of course).
I agree 100% with the spirit of your comment, but I need to throw a monkey wrench in it. It seems relevant to state that I’m a linguistic anthropologist; if not, no harm, no foul.
Here’s the thing: Speech is *always* behavior. Behavior is always communicative in social settings.
I’m not a legal scholar, but most legislation seems to presume that speech and behavior are mutually exclusive. They are not. What, if any, effect this bears upon the present discussion remains an open question.
1) A married couple are cuddling together on the couch watching a news broadcast about wildfires in Maui approaching an unusually beautiful house. One says to the other, “That’s a nice house. It would be a shame if it burned down.”
2) A witness against organized crime is preparing to testify against them in court. As she pulls into her driveway after working late, it’s already night time. Her cellphone rings. A deep voice on the phone says“That’s a nice house. It would be a shame if it burned down” and hangs up.
There’s a (bad) argument to be made that in (2), there’s less chance of harm than in (1). In (2), the speaker wasn’t even physically near her. In (1), their bodies are already intertwined, the speaker could, in principle, gravely harm the addressee in less than a second.
Of course that’s complete rubbish, we all know what their intents were. They used speech, as behavior.
I’m 99.9% sure that you and I are in the same page here. The very act of speaking is always a form of behavior. Incidentally, this is why I did a double doctorate program. I started in linguistics, and I got so fed up with no one acknowledging that human beings use these highly systematic things called languages that I added anthropology.
We agree, and I don’t see where any disagreement is, but there seems to one somewhere!
Gotta bow out right now, too, but I love this! This might be the first time in five years I’ve had an online disagreement with a decent person debating in good-faith who uses reason for solid arguments. And all that without accusing me of microagressions, or dismissing me for not being marginalized enough. This is awesome! Debate is back, baby!
My latest piece gets at the same point as Will Creely's in the Altantic, and I mention FIRE at the end! https://www.allsides.com/blog/should-students-have-free-speech-when-it-comes-pro-palestine-protests-left-and-right-switch
Free speech for me but not for thee. It’s amazing to see the differential flexibility of free speech advocates manifest in real time (present company excluded of course).
Completely agree!
We agree. We even hit that point quite a few times in the podcast/webinar.
I agree 100% with the spirit of your comment, but I need to throw a monkey wrench in it. It seems relevant to state that I’m a linguistic anthropologist; if not, no harm, no foul.
Here’s the thing: Speech is *always* behavior. Behavior is always communicative in social settings.
I’m not a legal scholar, but most legislation seems to presume that speech and behavior are mutually exclusive. They are not. What, if any, effect this bears upon the present discussion remains an open question.
That’s exactly the point, though, isn’t it? :)
Let’s look at two situations:
1) A married couple are cuddling together on the couch watching a news broadcast about wildfires in Maui approaching an unusually beautiful house. One says to the other, “That’s a nice house. It would be a shame if it burned down.”
2) A witness against organized crime is preparing to testify against them in court. As she pulls into her driveway after working late, it’s already night time. Her cellphone rings. A deep voice on the phone says“That’s a nice house. It would be a shame if it burned down” and hangs up.
There’s a (bad) argument to be made that in (2), there’s less chance of harm than in (1). In (2), the speaker wasn’t even physically near her. In (1), their bodies are already intertwined, the speaker could, in principle, gravely harm the addressee in less than a second.
Of course that’s complete rubbish, we all know what their intents were. They used speech, as behavior.
I’m 99.9% sure that you and I are in the same page here. The very act of speaking is always a form of behavior. Incidentally, this is why I did a double doctorate program. I started in linguistics, and I got so fed up with no one acknowledging that human beings use these highly systematic things called languages that I added anthropology.
We agree, and I don’t see where any disagreement is, but there seems to one somewhere!
Gotta bow out right now, too, but I love this! This might be the first time in five years I’ve had an online disagreement with a decent person debating in good-faith who uses reason for solid arguments. And all that without accusing me of microagressions, or dismissing me for not being marginalized enough. This is awesome! Debate is back, baby!