Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

geoff.greer.fm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 118 posts

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#11

Post by colanderman »

woodruffw wrote: post #7

I think a common failure (intentional or not) in discussing free speech is isolating free speech absolutism from the sort of free speech that we'd be happy to accept in a liberal, open society. Speaking practically and from the absolutist perspective, there should be no legal penalty for inciting others to violence. However, I think that (nearly) all of us recognize the importance of motive in cases -- we rightfully…

Though tangential to the points in the article, there's also a common failure to distinguish between freedom from infringement of speech by the government, and freedom from infringement by private parties. The former is guaranteed by the federal government; the latter is not (though some states provide limited protections [1]).

Not to mention failure to distinguish exercise of free speech (permitted) from discrimination against protected classes (prohibited). (The old "I'm exercising my right to free speech by refusing to provide gays/blacks/etc. services" argument.) "My rights end where your rights begin" is an important pillar of modern society that really precludes any sort of absolutism about free speech.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#13

Post by kyleblarson »

pmoriarty wrote: post #6
colordrops wrote: post #3

This is spot on. Most people who are calling for censorship don't have an ideological backing behind their stance and just want to violently shut their opponents up, while somehow believing they are righteous.

"Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos." -- Walter in The Big Lebowski

You're not wrong Walter you're just an asshole.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#14

Post by artsnail »

This also of course raises the question of what the rights of the audience are in terms of their choice to listen or not. This becomes especially complicated with situations like the internet (where the barriers to engaging in conversation with other people are lower), or on property which isn't a completely open public forum all the time. Ex. free speech rights might be restricted in a library, even though it's government property, where that interferes with the ability of other people to use it.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#15

Post by shkkmo »

When we "suppress speech", we aren't actually suppressing the utterance but rather limiting the audience.

This may seem like a good way to limit the spread of an idea and it will definitely reduce the spread in the short term.

However, people will always find a way to communicate (e.g. side channels and dog whistles develop). This means that eventually you've now only removed from the audience those who are the least susceptible to the idea and have the best tools for refuting it.

At this point, the idea is actually better able to spread within it's audience because dissenting voices have been isolated.

As you broaden the criteria for what is suppressed (used to be use of the N word, now includes mentioning any genetic component to differences in distributions of traits between genders), you end up driving more and more people into this isolated audience and encouraging the spread of very objectionable ideas to people who used to just have mildly objectionable ideas.

The more we allow private companies with monopolistic or oligopolistic products to push these voices out of the mainstream the worse off we will be in the long term as these ideas become more entrenched, isolated and difficult to remove.

The more we rely on shunning, ostracizing and public shaming as tools to battle objectionable ideas, the more we encourage the creation of communities that are fertile ground for those ideas to grow in.

[edit: minor grammar fixes]

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#17

Post by blowski »

ggreer wrote: post #9
woodruffw wrote: post #7

I think a common failure (intentional or not) in discussing free speech is isolating free speech absolutism from the sort of free speech that we'd be happy to accept in a liberal, open society. Speaking practically and from the absolutist perspective, there should be no legal penalty for inciting others to violence. However, I think that (nearly) all of us recognize the importance of motive in cases -- we rightfully…

You misunderstand me. I thought it was clear that I was talking about ideas, not threats or inciting mobs. You'll have a hard time finding any self-described free speech absolutist who thinks those should be permitted.

Is it always clear when it’s one or the other? If I say “western society is decadent and as such should be overthrown” is that an idea or an incitement to violence?

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#18

Post by rothbardrand »

woodruffw wrote: post #7

I think a common failure (intentional or not) in discussing free speech is isolating free speech absolutism from the sort of free speech that we'd be happy to accept in a liberal, open society. Speaking practically and from the absolutist perspective, there should be no legal penalty for inciting others to violence. However, I think that (nearly) all of us recognize the importance of motive in cases -- we rightfully…

You are operating/arguing from the neutral reality perspective-- that is to say, that "we as a society" exists as a concrete entity that can pass laws. But that's not the case. We are not the government, far from it. The government is a collection of people who have power over us.

Many of them are corrupt and will do evil-- just imagine the worse member of the political party you disagree with as a dictator.

Every time you want to give government power to the government, imagine that guy as a dictator wielding that power.

Any limitations, as we have seen, on human rights become the camel nose under the tent, and then you eventually end up with government violating the right wholesale. (eg: secret courts and secret rulings, National Security Letters an the like, illegal surveillance and wiretapping.)

While inciting a mob to violence can be considered immoral, it is the violence that is the crime... the action.... not the opinion.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#19

Post by s73ver_ »

colordrops wrote: post #3

This is spot on. Most people who are calling for censorship don't have an ideological backing behind their stance and just want to violently shut their opponents up, while somehow believing they are righteous.

I really don't think so. I don't think persons of color not want to be constantly assailed with racism online fall into that category. Women not wanting to be assailed with death and rape threats on line don't fall into that category.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#20

Post by [deleted] »

blowski wrote: post #17
ggreer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand me. I thought it was clear that I was talking about ideas, not threats or inciting mobs. You'll have a hard time finding any self-described free speech absolutist who thinks those should be permitted.

Is it always clear when it’s one or the other? If I say “western society is decadent and as such should be overthrown” is that an idea or an incitement to violence?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN