46 Comments

Thank you for this article, Ken. You have made the areas of free speech much more understandable. I hope more people read this.

Expand full comment

Every time I read a column by Ken White, I recognize his ability to say what I think. He finds ways to clarify my own thoughts, in ways that I often cannot.

Expand full comment

I will never not upvote pleas for widespread disambiguation of terminology.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, the people who most need to understand this can't.

Expand full comment

Admirable clarity. It feels as if you really worked on this (that's a compliment). Please put it on all platforms. It would help discussion everywhere if people adopted these categories and, of course, could manage to distinguish them. Not a given.

Expand full comment

Great article! Your comment on the core bargain of free speech is excellent. But it looks to me like many modern discussions are intentionally blurring the FSR/FSC/SD lines in quite a goal-oriented way.

Many people make clear that by "free speech," they mean: "I should be free to say whatever I want, and you should be free to write that down." And they aren't too fussed about whether it's a legal, utilitarian, or ethical argument that convinces others that this proposition is OK.

Expand full comment

This is quite literally one of the best arguments I have ever encountered on behalf of anything. I’ve been obsessively thinking about this topic for decades and reading this short piece makes me feel like I was wasting my time that whole time.

It’s going to be tempting from now on to tell people “please don’t say one more fucking word about free speech before reading Ken White’s article”

Expand full comment

I am always astounded at how well you write. I am linking to this on my social media. I encourage all to do the same.

Expand full comment

A good discussion. An additional complication is where rights and culture interact in government owned spaces like public universities that can become really unclear.

Expand full comment

Great insights, Ken. Thank you for distinguishing and providing examples, to provide perspective and call us to be accountable for our own behavior. We can forget, from day to day, that we’re not just applying principles bequeathed to us, we’re defining and redefining them for ourselves and future generations. That’s one consequence, I think, of clarifying values we debate, as we debate them. This paragraph nails it:

“Debates that clearly identify FSR, FSC, and SD are useful and sometimes even illuminating. They have the potential to teach people about their civil rights and about American government. They can persuade our fellow citizens about how to balance different interests, or at least clarify how we reach our personal outcomes on difficult social and cultural questions.“

Expand full comment

Great article. So glad you try to educate the public. Wish your pieces were required in high school civics classes.

Expand full comment

Ken, A model of clarity. Thank you for this. Hope you are posting promos for your newsletter to John Mastodon's website! :)

Expand full comment

Thanks for the interesting article. I enjoyed the thoughtful discussion of a subject which seems to be widely misunderstood. Too many folks have the attitude that if they don’t agree with something then you can’t say it.

Expand full comment

I think this is great for clarification of the speech issue, and a lot of conservatives and libertarians will find it useful. Sadly, fewer on the left are likely to see its utility, which is a great pity.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this! It's helpful.

Expand full comment

Please forward to Adam Schiff, your regional neighbor. For changing 230, in a very serious voice. Due to Twitter boloney. Junior Dick Durbin. What a tool.

Expand full comment