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

21–30 of 118 posts

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#21

Post by rothbardrand »

noobermin wrote: post #16

But really, who is advocating the government do anything other than the fringes? The discussion around "Free Speech" is the concept, not the government's role in regulation of it or lack there of.

Are you saying that "hate speech" is a concept that is only adopted by the fringes? Doesn't seem to be that way to me.

20 years ago, it was the fringe. Now it seems like if it isn't mainstream, it is close. Certainly we see Canada and the UK passing laws eliminating free speech for political minorities.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#22

Post by rothbardrand »

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #10
sparkzilla wrote: post #4

Free speech is part of the natural right of individuals to live and think without being oppressed by society.

Without being oppressed by law or legislation, not by society. It seems like a crowbar of distinction, I know, but it's an important distinction. You can still be ostracized for your speech and chided, as certain ideas should be given what the society values, but you shouldn't be jailed or prevented from speaking on public grounds, given proper permits/clearances.

It's also important to recognize that government is not society. Government to my mind is a mafia. A group of thugs that enforces its will and buys good will with a little charity while sucking the life out of the country (eg: massive inflation, taxation, regulation to favor their allied businesses, perpetrating drug wars and wars in other countries despite society opposing them, etc.)

If government represented society, we would not have a drug war, we would not be in so many wars, etc.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#23

Post by geofft »

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.

> You misunderstand me. I thought it was clear that I was talking about ideas, not threats or inciting mobs.

And who decides what's an "idea" and what's "threats or inciting mobs"?

Would you be happy for the British government to say that of course the colonists have the right to free speech, but many of them are advocating threats and inciting mobs, which isn't allowed? Or for the king of Thailand to say the same thing about those who insult the king? Or for the Spanish government to say the same thing about Catalonian politicians? Or for Trump to say this about the women's march?

What is a threat or a mob? Is a group of Nazis in Nazi uniforms marching down the street saying Nazi things somehow not a threat or a mob? The ACLU believes they have a right to free speech!

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#24

Post by rothbardrand »

leftistcensor03 wrote: post #12

the constitution is a construct of white supremacy. abolish now. impeach now. flag this post now. all republicans and conservatives are nazis. everyone who disagrees with me is hitler and must be silenced before people hear them, because I am the sole arbiter of virtue.

This comment deserves more upvotes, because even if you don't agree with it, it accurately distills the perspective of those who are aghast that liberals increasingly seem to be unable to tolerate the idea of a jewish dude who is married to a black dude being allowed to speak (and worse, calling him a Nazi. If a gay, "race traitor" jew is a Nazi then who isn't?)

I'm a liberal, who years ago really worked to champion free speech.

I think what's going on now is the rise of a puritan neo-liberalism.

PS- the post I'm replying to is comprised of concepts or statements that I've actually seen people express.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#25

Post by jbpetersen »

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.

There does need to be some sort of sane standard for determining whether something counts as a threat/incitement if they're not going to be permitted.

Say I'm very popular on twitter, and say I don't like somebody for whatever reason. If there's a reasonable expectation that this will result in them being mobbed by my less personable followers, does that count as incitement?

Or at what point does aggressive banter in good faith become an actual threat in [favorite multiplayer video game]?

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#26

Post by woodruffw »

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.

I understood you, but I think that you conflated freedom of conscience with freedom of speech. Freedom of conscience seems pretty uncontroversial, and it's what Paine is talking about in the quote you gave (on my interpretation).

I think everybody agrees that freedom of conscience is both good and necessary in an open society. However, it's incorrect to think that absolute freedom of speech necessarily follows.

> You'll have a hard time finding any self-described free speech absolutist who thinks those should be permitted.

I've debated people who believe this. You and I don't have to agree with them, but they exist.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#28

Post by s73ver_ »

rothbardrand wrote: post #18
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 ti…

"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."

That we, the people, choose (a least in non-dictatorship countries).

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

Taken to extremes, that means that hiring a hit man, or ordering someone in your cult to kill someone isn't responsible. And yet, as a society, we've said otherwise.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#29

Post by ggreer »

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?

It's usually pretty clear, and if it's not then it's best to err on the side of free speech. Declaring one's desire to overthrow western society is not a threat or an incitement to violence. Here's an example of what counts as free speech in the US: "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J."[1] It has to be a true threat. Likewise, inciting a mob only applies to actual mobs on the verge of violence.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_t...

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#30

Post by s73ver_ »

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.

I think you'll find a lot of people who will disagree what constitutes "threats or inciting mobs".
Post reply on HN