Seems to me the elephant in the room here is the fact that we can presume almost everyone will apply whatever standard we adopt in a biased manner.
I think that's the argument to favor really crisp, harder to disagree over rules. And that's all anyone means when they make claims about defending free speech. We all make judgements about others based on their speech but I fear that the more we try to formalize such rules the less well we apply them.
For instance, consider microaggressions. I think we all know there is something in that area -- little verbal choices you can use to make someone feel unwelcome or not part of the group (tho it goes way beyond just the std political identities). And I think we all had a good grip on when they'd happened and reacted appropriately for the most part (most ppl don't like rudeness).
Then people tried to give rules for what counted as a microaggression to use as a basis for interventions (eg by DEI/HR/etc) and instead of a good grip on when people were being assholes we ended up with acrimony over stupid rules like don't say "land of opportunity".
And it's not an isolated problem. Anytime we try to move beyond our immediate personal reaction (not going to hang out with him) to more formal intervention some people will abuse the system and they'll be understandable pressure for fair warning about what draws punishment -- but language is too subtle for that to work.
It's the same problem schools have punishing bullying when they aren't willing to just defer to teacher judgement. You can bully someone just as effectively by telling them "I respect you and your differences" as you can calling them a faggot or nerd.
At the end of the day you have to rely on people's judgement and the more you try to formalize responses the more that becomes another place people can do hurtful things and you haven't made much progress.
But free speech is a necessary precondition to any even remotely free political system. And those who want a less free political system will always find ways to claim "harm" as an excuse for limiting speech so as to get their less free way.
Seems to me the elephant in the room here is the fact that we can presume almost everyone will apply whatever standard we adopt in a biased manner.
I think that's the argument to favor really crisp, harder to disagree over rules. And that's all anyone means when they make claims about defending free speech. We all make judgements about others based on their speech but I fear that the more we try to formalize such rules the less well we apply them.
For instance, consider microaggressions. I think we all know there is something in that area -- little verbal choices you can use to make someone feel unwelcome or not part of the group (tho it goes way beyond just the std political identities). And I think we all had a good grip on when they'd happened and reacted appropriately for the most part (most ppl don't like rudeness).
Then people tried to give rules for what counted as a microaggression to use as a basis for interventions (eg by DEI/HR/etc) and instead of a good grip on when people were being assholes we ended up with acrimony over stupid rules like don't say "land of opportunity".
And it's not an isolated problem. Anytime we try to move beyond our immediate personal reaction (not going to hang out with him) to more formal intervention some people will abuse the system and they'll be understandable pressure for fair warning about what draws punishment -- but language is too subtle for that to work.
It's the same problem schools have punishing bullying when they aren't willing to just defer to teacher judgement. You can bully someone just as effectively by telling them "I respect you and your differences" as you can calling them a faggot or nerd.
At the end of the day you have to rely on people's judgement and the more you try to formalize responses the more that becomes another place people can do hurtful things and you haven't made much progress.
"Sacred?" I don't really do "sacred."
But free speech is a necessary precondition to any even remotely free political system. And those who want a less free political system will always find ways to claim "harm" as an excuse for limiting speech so as to get their less free way.