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

Freedom of speech memo, President of the university of Alaska, March 2001

cs.uaf.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Freedom of speech memo, President of the university of Alaska, March 2001

#11

Post by throwawaysea »

Looking at all the downvotes in this discussion is telling. There are many who are so radicalized on the left at this point, that they literally fear and dislike the open exchange of ideas. Free societies are durable over the long term when they protect these rights at all times, for all people, for all ideologies. As a rule of thumb, if the speech in question is not advocating for direct physical violence, it should be permitted.

It is especially important to understand this today, when large privately-owned platforms carry so much discourse across society, since censorship and deplatforming in those spaces has the same impact as governmental censorship, for most intents and purposes.

Re: Freedom of speech memo, President of the university of Alaska, March 2001

#12

Post by gpm »

pessimizer wrote: post #9
minikites wrote: post #4

There's a difference between "freedom of speech" and "freedom from consequences of speech". Many people try to hide behind the protection of the former but actually mean the latter and claim persecution when they have to face consequences (boycotts, bans from privately run services, etc).

Looks like this controversy was about a condescending poen written by a white woman about native girls, that specifically referenced the tribal group of the woman who led the protest (that the author learned of from the protester), and implied some sort of generalized drunken molestation and abuse of native women by the men of that group. I still don't think that the university should have censored the poem, but 1) a…

I think you're misreading this letter if you're reading it as objecting to the protesting.

I think it is objecting to vague threats made by university employees towards the author along the lines of "The University supports the right of free speech, but we intend to check into this matter", or "The University supports the right of free speech, but I have asked Dean X or Provost Y to investigate the circumstances".

Re: Freedom of speech memo, President of the university of Alaska, March 2001

#14

Post by antt »

minikites wrote: post #4

There's a difference between "freedom of speech" and "freedom from consequences of speech". Many people try to hide behind the protection of the former but actually mean the latter and claim persecution when they have to face consequences (boycotts, bans from privately run services, etc).

Funnily enough there's an old Soviet joke about this.

Caller to Radio Yerevan: Comrades what is the difference between the constitution of the US and that of the USSR? Both support freedom of speech and assembly.

Radio Yeravan: In principle nothing comrade. In practice the US constitution guarantees freedom after speech and assembly.

Re: Freedom of speech memo, President of the university of Alaska, March 2001

#15

Post by [deleted] »

throwawaysea wrote: post #11

Looking at all the downvotes in this discussion is telling. There are many who are so radicalized on the left at this point, that they literally fear and dislike the open exchange of ideas. Free societies are durable over the long term when they protect these rights at all times, for all people, for all ideologies. As a rule of thumb, if the speech in question is not advocating for direct physical violence, it should…

[deleted]

Re: Freedom of speech memo, President of the university of Alaska, March 2001

#16

Post by pidu87 »

SIDE NOTE: I miss watching college debates!

If your ideas or views are so weak/undebatable you fear and quickly move to censor and silence any differing view or opinion that's pathetic. Reminds me of a little kid "I'm right, you're wrong, and now I'm gonna punch you!"

Do they still have college debates or have those been labeled archaic, hurtful, and unnecessary? lol

Re: Freedom of speech memo, President of the university of Alaska, March 2001

#17

Post by woodruffw »

throwawaysea wrote: post #11

Looking at all the downvotes in this discussion is telling. There are many who are so radicalized on the left at this point, that they literally fear and dislike the open exchange of ideas. Free societies are durable over the long term when they protect these rights at all times, for all people, for all ideologies. As a rule of thumb, if the speech in question is not advocating for direct physical violence, it should…

(Rant)

Yeah, no. I don’t “fear and dislike the open exchange of ideas.” I’m tired of the (primarily online!) assumption that all opinions are equally worthy of my time, and I’m especially tired of being accused of being anti-free-speech for daring to decide who gets to occupy my relatively limited attention.

Whether free societies are durable is immaterial. They are good because they embody principles of agency and autonomy for all involved. Those principles entail both my right to ignore bad opinions, and my moral obligation to not lend credence to views that would undermine the system itself.

Re: Freedom of speech memo, President of the university of Alaska, March 2001

#18

Post by throwawaysea »

woodruffw wrote: post #17
throwawaysea wrote: post #11

Looking at all the downvotes in this discussion is telling. There are many who are so radicalized on the left at this point, that they literally fear and dislike the open exchange of ideas. Free societies are durable over the long term when they protect these rights at all times, for all people, for all ideologies. As a rule of thumb, if the speech in question is not advocating for direct physical violence, it should…

(Rant) Yeah, no. I don’t “fear and dislike the open exchange of ideas.” I’m tired of the (primarily online!) assumption that all opinions are equally worthy of my time, and I’m especially tired of being accused of being anti-free-speech for daring to decide who gets to occupy my relatively limited attention. Whether free societies are durable is immaterial. They are good because they embody principles of agency and a…

Occupy your attention? Why can’t you just ignore opinions you disagree with, or offer a different one? It’s not that hard to scroll past something you disagree with or to not click that link or not watch that video. People do this all the time.

I feel the motivation to censor or deplatform is not about improving one’s own personal experience, but really about limiting what others can access and waging a dirty war of competing ideas. Otherwise why do people push to deplatform channels on YouTube that they can simply block?

It seems imminently unwise to claim that what you or some subset of society deem acceptable at this moment in the current set of circumstances should establish limits on what ideas can enter societal discourse. What if we have it wrong? Should a currently popular idea never be challenged? It’s a massive risk to take such a view because sentiment around right/wrong/acceptable is so variable over time.

Re: Freedom of speech memo, President of the university of Alaska, March 2001

#19

Post by pidu87 »

zeckalpha wrote: post #13

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Is there some kind of violation?

It would be better to state it vs posting a link with lots of information/suggestions......

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

This was trending/upvoted super fast so it was "On-Topic"..... and clearly was gratifying "one's intellectual curiosity."

Post reply on HN