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

81–90 of 118 posts

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#81

Post by blowski »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #74
michaelt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

He's not saying "it's clear when someone is preaching hate" (it is certainly often couched in oblique language to avoid attracting ire and opposition), he's saying, "it's pretty clear when someone is making a threat or incitement to imminent, actual violence." Neither "The Jews will not replace us" nor "euthanize the rentiers" constitutes an imminent threat of violence.

How imminent and serious does it need to be for us to ban it?

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#82

Post by eesmith »

eradicatethots wrote: post #51
eesmith wrote: post #48

"It’s commonly assumed that freedom of speech is about the right of the speaker to express their ideas" ... without government interference. However, it is fully within the rights of the audience to condone, chastise, avoid, and laugh at the speaker. To prohibit the audience from that reaction would be to suppress their free speech. Freedom of association also requires that a group be able to prevent speech in the co…

The point they made doesn’t just apply to government

I know that's the argument, but it's not true.

The US First Amendment isn't just the right to free speech. It also includes the freedom of assembly. There is a necessary balance between these two. Or, to go back to John Stuart Mill:

> This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived.

That "liberty of expressing and publishing opinions" is the the freedom of speech. The "freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others" is the freedom of assembly.

The freedom of assembly - often seen as synonymous with the freedom of association - means that a group must be allowed to expel people from the group or prevent people from joining the group. A group must be allowed to control who speaks at a group's meeting or uses a group's resources. (This is not absolute, as you can see in civil rights laws prevent businesses from certain behaviors.)

Without this freedom, a minority group can easily be overwhelmed by a majority who decides to use the heckler's veto.

For all of the people who say that "free speech" is not restricted to government restrictions on speech, why do you want to weaken the right to assembly?

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#83

Post by noobermin »

ggreer wrote: post #57
woodruffw wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I understood you I'm sorry but you don't. (Also, don't I get to decide that, not you?) > Freedom of conscience seems pretty uncontroversial, and it's what Paine is talking about in the quote you gave (on my interpretation). Paine and Mill weren't just talking about freedom of conscience or thought. Paine thought it crucial to hear others' ideas so that he could avoid being wrong. That requires the ideas be expresse…

I am going to discuss the concept of "free speech", not government regulation, because I don't think anyone at Charlottesville was arrested for just marching.

The issue I have with the whole rational argument thing is that having to argue constantly and entertain every other opposing view requires me to expend time and energy to understanding viewpoints I disagree with. Why is the onus on me to understand others instead of them having to convince me?

This is a debating tactic: you put the other chap on defense, forcing them to respond, which puts them in a weaker position. White supremacists, racists, climate deniers, and the like use this tactic online all the time, they pose dumb questions and make challenges, citing obscure sources that take time to prove false, all the while, they get what they want: they put you on defense taking time to defend the consensus while they have to demonstrate nothing in the meantime. These arguments get nowhere, because the people who posed them never were genuine in the first place. The intent was always to spread FUD and convince the uninformed that there's enough doubt to at least entertain the idea, and by the time you post your multi-paragraph reply (like I am here), most of the crowds' eyes have glazed over and the trolls already accomplished what they set out for.

It gets to a point where these tactics are so tired that internet communities silence these voices wholesale, like here on HN, we don't rehash emacs vs vi or things like that over and over again and admins generally flag political threads. I know dang says they do it to keep the community from turning toxic, but the reason it gets toxic is because ideologues aren't really interested in an honest conversation, toxicity is their goal as I alluded to above. On a more personal level, you learn to not really entertain people when they bring up the Bell Curve or how "global cooling became global warming", and that isn't being close minded, that is not choosing not to feed the trolls.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#84

Post by shkkmo »

eesmith wrote: post #82
eradicatethots wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point they made doesn’t just apply to government

I know that's the argument, but it's not true. The US First Amendment isn't just the right to free speech. It also includes the freedom of assembly. There is a necessary balance between these two. Or, to go back to John Stuart Mill: > This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; libert…

"Free Speech" is a valuable trait of a society. Government restrictions on that speech were (and still are) the largest threat to that freedom when the bill of rights was written.

We have reached a point where government is not the only entity with the power to severely restrict the freedom of speech in our society.

Is the solution to this to pass a new law or make a new amendment curtailing freedom of associated? I personally don't think we have the political capability to write that law well, (even if it wasn't a horrible idea.)

But that doesn't mean we should should pushing, encouraging and shaming these private entities into doing MORE censorship and doing our best as private entities to limit the freedom of speech that exists in our society.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#85

Post by eesmith »

shkkmo wrote: post #84
eesmith wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that's the argument, but it's not true. The US First Amendment isn't just the right to free speech. It also includes the freedom of assembly. There is a necessary balance between these two. Or, to go back to John Stuart Mill: > This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; libert…

"Free Speech" is a valuable trait of a society. Government restrictions on that speech were (and still are) the largest threat to that freedom when the bill of rights was written. We have reached a point where government is not the only entity with the power to severely restrict the freedom of speech in our society. Is the solution to this to pass a new law or make a new amendment curtailing freedom of associated? I…

Strong anti-monopoly laws which break up Google and Facebook would solve the problem, yes?

Without touching the freedom of assembly or speech.

I'm not saying it's the best solution, but bring it up to point out that it's important to also consider the economics which caused the problem to arise in the first place.

Remember, unrestrained capitalism doesn't incorporate human rights - as the slave trade shows.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#86

Post by geofft »

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.

And yet the "leftist mobs" are capable of understanding that a person is to be judged by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin, the religion of their mother, or the gender of their partner. Why are you insisting on identity politics?

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#87

Post by geofft »

leftistcensor04 wrote: post #76
wahern wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ep…

I accept your challenge. Produce one fascist or racist statement made by Ben Shapiro. The point I'm making is that "progressive philosophy" dictates that an argument is won almost entirely based on "victim" points. By imagining a concept "victims" and "injustices", progressive leftists believe they are able to completely control narratives, expression, and speech as we know it.

> The point I'm making is that "progressive philosophy" dictates that an argument is won almost entirely based on "victim" points.

Aren't you making the exact opposite argument? Both Shapiro and Yiannopoulos have plenty of "victim points", which you have kindly enumerated, and are yet not winning any arguments in the eyes of "progressive philosophy," as you have stated.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#88

Post by noobermin »

zeveb wrote: post #77
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.

> But really, who is advocating the government do anything other than the fringes? Former senator Harry Reid called for the repeal of the First Amendment in 2014, in response to the Citizens United ruling which held that the First Amendment protects the right to show a film critical of a political candidate prior to an election. Whether or not one supports that action, I'd say that's certainly not on the fringes.

Googled it and the only publications who discussed this were right wing publications. I think "repeal of the first ammendment" is hyperbole used mostly by those sets of authors.

Politifact seems to say it was about campaign finance[0]

[0] http://www.politifact.com/iowa/statements/2015/dec/22/ted-cr...

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#89

Post by GauntletWizard »

s73ver_ wrote: post #28
rothbardrand wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This argument is patently false. As soon as you give them the power to censor speech, we stop choosing the government - They choose themselves, by deciding what we can and cannot say, who we can and cannot hear from, who gets to even announce their candidacy. See https://youtu.be/c1HdCIW2Xtk - We're not China, but they're not even using their official power to censor, just misusing their official power to look the other way while their unofficial power censors. This is why we need adversarial politics - And why even trolls must be protected speech, because they serve as a canary in the coal mine about what you're not allowed to say.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#90

Post by shkkmo »

eesmith wrote: post #85
shkkmo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free Speech" is a valuable trait of a society. Government restrictions on that speech were (and still are) the largest threat to that freedom when the bill of rights was written. We have reached a point where government is not the only entity with the power to severely restrict the freedom of speech in our society. Is the solution to this to pass a new law or make a new amendment curtailing freedom of associated? I…

Strong anti-monopoly laws which break up Google and Facebook would solve the problem, yes? Without touching the freedom of assembly or speech. I'm not saying it's the best solution, but bring it up to point out that it's important to also consider the economics which caused the problem to arise in the first place. Remember, unrestrained capitalism doesn't incorporate human rights - as the slave trade shows.

> Strong anti-monopoly laws which break up Google and Facebook would solve the problem, yes?

While we do strongly need a revamp of our anti-monopoly laws, I don't think that really solves the problem.

The core problem as I see it is that people's goto approach for combating objectionable ideas is veering towards shaming, ostracizing, and censoring rather than reason, discussion and facts.

Post reply on HN