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

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#91

Post by s73ver_ » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

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.

I would say the second one does.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#92

Post by s73ver_ » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 9:58 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 see plenty of people making that argument, so I don't think you could really call it a strawman.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#93

Post by s73ver_ » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 10:00 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #79

colanderman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities. That might be because I thought it was obvious that the second amendment doesn't prohibit private entities from restricting speech. In fact, it is much more likely to prevent Congress from passing any law to limit the abilities of private entities to limit speech (since tho…

But there are flavors of free speech. I, for one, don't believe that violent threats fall under free speech. I don't believe that makes me against free speech.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#94

Post by eradicatethots » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 10:01 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #90

eesmith wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s not really practical to combat ideas with reason, after a while.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#95

Post by shkkmo » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 10:20 PM UTC

eradicatethots wrote: post #94

shkkmo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It’s not really practical to combat ideas with reason, after a while.

I vehemently disagree.

If you abandon reason, then you can only be right by pure coincidence.

If you vanquish ideas using means other than reason, then you have only vanquished bad ideas by pure coincidence.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#96

Post by eesmith » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 10:21 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #90

eesmith wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be fair, "reason, discussion and facts" have always been malleable in the hands of the powerful. "The Divine Right of Kings" was based on them. So was "scientific racism".

You need to be careful because it's hard to define what shaming and ostracism mean. I think James Watson is a both misogynist and racist and I don't want to be part of a meeting where he is involved.

Am I shaming or ostracizing him, or am I practicing my rights of free speech and association?

In general, by what reason and what facts do you determine that my actions are no longer acceptable? If that happens, what can you do about it which won't, in turn, be labeled "shaming, ostracizing, and censoring"?

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#97

Post by shkkmo » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 10:22 PM UTC

s73ver_ wrote: post #93

shkkmo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities. That might be because I thought it was obvious that the second amendment doesn't prohibit private entities from restricting speech. In fact, it is much more likely to prevent Congress from passing any law to limit the abilities of private entities to limit speech (since tho…

But there are flavors of free speech. I, for one, don't believe that violent threats fall under free speech. I don't believe that makes me against free speech.

Violent threats are already illegal and I haven't seen anyone here arguing to make them legal. What is your point?

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#98

Post by shkkmo » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 10:25 PM UTC

s73ver_ wrote: post #92

shkkmo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 see plenty of people making that argument, so I don't think you could really call it a strawman.

I've seen nobody here making that argument, and since it is presented as 'common' but with no concrete examples I am plenty happy calling it a strawman argument.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#99

Post by throwaway283423 » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #87

leftistcensor04 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would not have chosen milo as an example, I consider him an entertainer, nothing more.

The left's reaction to Ben is precisely what exposes their hypocrisy. Their strategy to pit "victims" and "saviors" against "injustice" is an effort to control opposition, they don't even try to win arguments with debate anymore. A non-participating "victim" remains (Ben) and it is revealed that the only tool they possess is to call everyone who disagrees with them racist, sexist nazis.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#100

Post by throwaway283423 » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 10:46 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #86

leftistcensor04 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

lol leftist mobs judging by character... capable of understanding. you're full of laughs today. which political group is associated with their obsession and exploitation of racial, gender and religious divisions?

read my other reply to you for why I believe Ben is enemy #1 of the left. identity politics are in play, that's for sure.