Note that this does not speak to the validity of the principled defense, it only speaks to the motivations behind those employing it.
If anyone was wondering how they determined if someone is prejudiced [here ya go.](https://condor.depaul.edu/phenry1/SR2Kinstructions.htm
). Judge for yourself, but this test seems a little bit wonky to me. It has 8 questions that seem pretty slanted toward a specific goal.
For example : "It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites."
Edit: Pressed save on accident before done writing.
Just because racist people want to speak their racism freely does not mean that everyone or even most of free speech advocates are racist.
Someone advocating free speech is not a condemnation or defense of offensive speech. Free speech is fundamental to free society.
When someone says free speech in response to some offensive speech then they are not saying what was said is correct. They are saying they have the right to say those things without government prosecution. Their specific speech can and should be condemned by people. They can be fired by employers. It should not be controlled by a government.
Its frightening to see people say free speech is a defense of offensive speech. It is a defense of their right to say offensive things. It is not a defense of the speech itself.
So, most people are unprincipled.
Does that have any bearing, at all, on whether principled behavior is a good thing, or whether freedom of speech is a good thing? Does it prove that when the founders of the country enshrined freedom of speech, it was because they wanted to be racist, and not because they had principles?
Of course not, and of course the founders enshrined freedom of speech because they believed it was essential on principle.
So maybe the country is now so unprincipled that we want to throw that out, but I hope to God that's not the case.
This is not science. It's window dressing a political stance. The full data is behind a pay wall, but just from the abstract, it seems they were looking for a certain result. They claim that because people who harbor prejudice believe in free speech, free speech arguments must equal racism. The fact that they frequently use the word "hate speech" is telling as well. "Hate speech" is neither a technical nor a legal term. It is as amorphous term used by many people to describe many things, and it has a very different definition to different people. It's just a buzz word with no true legal definition.
What a bunch of nonsense. This is bad science. And just the kind of thing which leads to the more rigorous sciences looking down upon the social sciences.
I guess my question is.... So what? Why does the motivation even remotely matter?
Not sure on the relevance of this study? Doing the right thing through bad motives is still doing the right thing? We're not even discussing means either simply the opinion behind the conclusion.
Protection of unpopular speech is what has lead to the current climate of tolerance and acceptance. Why does it matter that some advocates for free speech do so from a flawed opinion?
Probably true, but it in no way invalidates the *"freedom to speak to willing listeners on your own property"* argument.