Freedom of speech memo, President of the university of Alaska, March 2001 • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by iamdave » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 3:17 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #29

dgllghr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your assumption that this is only a problem on the left is completely baseless. The right likes to use the freedom of speech argument when they feel it works against them, but they also support scare tactics to suppress the speech (and votes) of minority groups often with the support or tacit acceptance of the government. It doesn't appear that the right even understands freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not…

I don't think it is a problem only on the left. However, I've seen it more consistently on the left in recent times in the US. That's the only reason I mentioned it. I'm happy to hear and learn about counter examples too though. I do not agree with the definition of 'freedom of speech' you are using, and I don't think most would. Why would it be defined only in terms of the government? It is a general concept that is…

Why would it be defined only in terms of the government?

"Freedom of speech only applies to the government" exists as an argument that is technically true if one were to go to court over the matter, so it is often used as a philosophical escape hatch to avoid having the tougher conversation on the larger implications of what 'freedom of speech' practically means, why the framers of the Constitution bothered with it in the first place-I would wager because having that discussion would reveal some ugly truths about someone who responds to a discussion like this by saying "freedom of speech only applies to the government" and what their true goals and intentions are in the face of unpleasant or disturbing information and opinions.

The irony of such philosophical laziness isn't lost on me, but surely no one would say "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are only ideals that can be granted by the government-yet there they are, in one of America's operating manuals. Clear as day.

The argument falls apart at the surface, and if I'm being honest, sometimes I wonder if the people who like to deploy that tactic know this.

American political discussion, in observation, is full of carefully picked cherries it seems like.

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

#32

Post by throwawaysea » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

tomhoward wrote: post #30

throwawaysea wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know full well that deplatforming and censorship are not applied ONLY when direct violence is part of the speech in question. Moreover, I said speech restrictions should be limited to a very narrow scope, and I explicitly offered direct physical violence as an example of reasonably disallowed speech. The problem is that the definitions used to censor speech often experience 'scope creep' and start to encompass mo…

You can make your points without being so inflammatory and combative. Clearly that person has some fears or has had some troubling experiences, and it's not helpful or kind to be provocative. I too support free speech and worry about the current enthusiasm for stifling it. But I don't like how many people use it to justify indecency and cruelty in their speech. If nothing else, it gives ammunition to those who seek t…

Why do you feel I am the one being combative? The commenter you are referring to said I was speaking from “the ultimate pedestal of privilege”, which seems explicitly combative.

Am I not allowed to push back on that? Or to push back on the rhetorical tactic of devaluing free speech by highlighting speech involving direct violence (the most egregious example potentially), especially when I accounted for it?

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

#33

Post by iamdave » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

tomhoward wrote: post #30

throwawaysea wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know full well that deplatforming and censorship are not applied ONLY when direct violence is part of the speech in question. Moreover, I said speech restrictions should be limited to a very narrow scope, and I explicitly offered direct physical violence as an example of reasonably disallowed speech. The problem is that the definitions used to censor speech often experience 'scope creep' and start to encompass mo…

You can make your points without being so inflammatory and combative. Clearly that person has some fears or has had some troubling experiences, and it's not helpful or kind to be provocative. I too support free speech and worry about the current enthusiasm for stifling it. But I don't like how many people use it to justify indecency and cruelty in their speech. If nothing else, it gives ammunition to those who seek t…

Clearly that person has some fears or has had some troubling experiences, and it's not helpful or kind to be provocative.

And how do you know throawaysea isn't speaking from the same or similar position? minikites made an unfair assumption about their character and presumably their life status, I'd say that's probably more inflammatory and infinitely less helpful to this discussion than making direct, if dissenting statements about the validity or physical violence in response to speech, or vice versa-as topics being presently discussed in the thread, and it is CERTAINLY not helpful or kind to make speculative suggestions about someone's personal physical appearance which has no place in on this message board.

I understand and appreciate that passion can emerge in this discussion, and the sub-thread we're having between us right now, but I don't find it any more helpful to respond the way minikites did to throwawaysea if we're going to warn people about helpful, kind, or conversely provocative responses.

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

#34

Post by tomhoward » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 1:39 AM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #32

tomhoward wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make your points without being so inflammatory and combative. Clearly that person has some fears or has had some troubling experiences, and it's not helpful or kind to be provocative. I too support free speech and worry about the current enthusiasm for stifling it. But I don't like how many people use it to justify indecency and cruelty in their speech. If nothing else, it gives ammunition to those who seek t…

Why do you feel I am the one being combative? The commenter you are referring to said I was speaking from “the ultimate pedestal of privilege”, which seems explicitly combative. Am I not allowed to push back on that? Or to push back on the rhetorical tactic of devaluing free speech by highlighting speech involving direct violence (the most egregious example potentially), especially when I accounted for it?

In both my comments (my original reply to that person and my later one to you) I defended/supported the substance of your point of view, while seeking to de-escalate the conflict.

I don't think the accusations/presumptions they made about you were fair or reasonably expressed, but again, I chose my words in an effort to de-escalate things. The heated, ideological nature of the discussion began with your root comment.

The HN guidelines explicitly ask that "Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive", and this discussion shows just why that's so important.

I personally care a lot about free speech and want it to be something we can have constructive discussions about on HN. They can't happen when people throw ideologically-charged bombs around.