Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech • Hacker News Board

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#61

Post by noobermin » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 8:35 PM UTC

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…

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

I personally see very little utility in this thought experiment because this isn't reality. There is a reason why we have a government in the first place, and we risk loss to liberty and freedom by making the government too weak. It's a balancing act, and imagining the worst case should not be an argument for what reality requires.

For example, imagine the government was full of rational dictators who had my best interests in mind. Should I give them absolute power? That too is unrealistic, so why make arguments based on it.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#62

Post by colanderman » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 8:36 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #37

colanderman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 discriminat…

Both government and private parties can pose separate risks to free speech, but the value of freedom of speech in a society does not change based on where those risks are coming from. The point your are making is against the strawman argument that the first amendment should prohibit private companies editorial decisions. I haven't seen anyone making that claim. When the bill of rights was drafted, it was inconceivabl…

I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities. (Your 2nd paragraph seems against, but your 3rd paragraph seems for.)

Regardless, I'm not arguing either, I'm stating facts backed by case law as outlined in the linked Wikipedia article to support the thesis that the phrase "free speech" is used to mean many different things, often to deliberately confound discussion on the topic. If supporters of "free speech" clarified what exactly what flavor of "free speech" they are talking about (1st amendment prohibition of federal restrictions; imagined prohibition of private restrictions; ability to override rights of protected classes) I suspect we'd have fewer, and more productive, discussions.

Unfortunately such precision of language is hard to come by in this brave new world of emotion-driven discource and deliberately confounded communication.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#63

Post by s73ver_ » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

rothbardrand wrote: post #24

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…

Milo is referred to as a Nazi because of his actions and his statements. It has absolutely nothing to do with his race, or his husbands race, and to try and say otherwise is completely missing the point.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#64

Post by nickbauman » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

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…

Popper is indeed the best articulation of the caveat of the OP. We must be intolerant of intolerance. And intolerance is defined as ideas that attack others based on inalienable aspects (skin color, lineage and the like) or intrinsic to our understanding of self determination that does not impinge on the rights of others (religion, beliefs, sexual orientation and the like).

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#65

Post by michaelt » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

ggreer wrote: post #29

blowski wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

  It's usually pretty clear

Is it?

Seems to me if I wanted to preach hate I'd wrap it in allusions, hypotheticals and you-know-what-I-mean

Maybe letting that stuff through is the cost of free speech?

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#66

Post by s73ver_ » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

eradicatethots wrote: post #54

geofft wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, exactly. To be clear about my position, I believe that "free speech" is an impractical ideal, and we as a society need to be clear about what sorts of speech we value and what we don't, and if we don't do that, we're left with one of two bad options: either we have to err so hard on the side of free speech that we can't ban threats or incitement to violence or anything at all, or we let the government define "th…

As the OP says, if you ban speech you are marking it as permanently unthinkable.

In the case of, say, social media platforms banning violent threats against their other users, is that a bad thing?

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#67

Post by gozur88 » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

s73ver_ wrote: post #46

gozur88 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine for people to not want to read things online. What's not fine is giving them the power to prevent those things from being written.

In the cases I listed above, I cannot agree. I think it is perfectly fine to prevent rape threats from being written. I don't believe things like that fall under free speech. And while we're on the subject of preventing speech, realize that, if you're of the mind that we should allow those things, you're not preventing speech from being silenced. You're just changing the speech that is silenced. Someone who is consta…

There's a big difference between "I stopped contributing because people said things that upset me" and "I got arrested for saying something." I don't accept the premise that people who are upset by what they read are somehow shut out of the conversation.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#68

Post by geofft » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 8:41 PM UTC

eradicatethots wrote: post #54

geofft wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, exactly. To be clear about my position, I believe that "free speech" is an impractical ideal, and we as a society need to be clear about what sorts of speech we value and what we don't, and if we don't do that, we're left with one of two bad options: either we have to err so hard on the side of free speech that we can't ban threats or incitement to violence or anything at all, or we let the government define "th…

As the OP says, if you ban speech you are marking it as permanently unthinkable.

That's asserted by the OP, but I don't think that claim is supported by the OP or by his sources.

I argue that banning speech (as a speech act) and banning ideas are different things. To pick a sort of pedantic counterexample, banning me from yelling a racial slur at you in public more than once isn't making anything unthinkable. I can yell it once, other people can yell it at you, I can yell it at others, people can record the yell on YouTube, etc.

So, I agree with OP's argument that we should not ban ideas, and I do agree that speech is necessary to communicate ideas (of course), but I think that banning some speech acts can be entirely defensible.

(Also, remember that every functioning advanced society bans several forms of speech already - a good example is that I am banned from using a trademark without authorization from the trademark holder, or from reproducing copyrighted material, or from making defamatory claims.)

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#69

Post by eesmith » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 8:42 PM UTC

artsnail wrote: post #14

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 gove…

"Ex. free speech rights might be restricted in a library"

These are "Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time%2c+Place%... . These are pretty well understood.

You also don't have the right to go through a neighborhood at 2am with a bullhorn talking about your political platform in the upcoming election.

What's at issue is that most internet sites are privately held, and such things as "free speech", which is a prohibition on government interference, have no real meaning. Groups, including companies, also have the right of association, and that includes the right to kick people out.

The government has some ability to restrict that right of association, as with the various civil rights protections regarding businesses. However, none of that analysis applies to, for example, one's ability to post videos to YouTube. In the US, the government can't even prohibit private clubs from discriminating on basis of race.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#70

Post by wahern » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 8:43 PM UTC

leftistcensor04 wrote: post #53

rothbardrand wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Consider Ben Shapiro - one of the brightest political minds of this generation, and an orthodox jew. Regularly branded as a nazi white supremacist by leftist mobs. Hilarious.

Being Jewish, or adhering to Orthodox Judaism, doesn't prevent you from adopting or espousing fascist or racist ideologies. And smart people are often better than most at crafting self-serving rationalizations.

It's inexcusable the way some people on the left throw around the term Nazi, just like it's inexcusable when conservatives use it. But surely you understand that with both liberal and conservative usage the epithet Nazi has a much broader (not to mention often incoherent) connotation in modern culture.