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

Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 178 posts

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#111

Post by bilbo0s »

aianus wrote: post #90
bilbo0s wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but at the same time you need to understand that you're devaluing the rights on the other side of that. The guy whose company you work for, or the company whose platform you're using, or whatever the case may be, shouldn't be obliged to have their revenue take a hit solely in support of your right. I mean, if it's not going to cost your boss' company any money? Yeah OK, I can see where they should probably keep…

This would be fine if we had basic income but since your survival is tied to employment, employers should not be allowed to discriminate based on political opinion any more than they can discriminate against pregnant women or seniors.

Sigh.

Guy, try to be reasonable.

Opposition to a political opinion, is itself, a political opinion.

What you're asking is that your political opinion be the only one that gets Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Speech etc. Because you are explicitly asking that people with opposing political opinions not be given rights of Freedom of Expression and Association.

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#112

Post by BryantD »

will4274 wrote: post #110
BryantD wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we're considering regulation, it's important to consider the activity we're regulating in context. Here's one extreme: it's legal to light a match. It's not legal to light a match and toss it into a gas pump. We shouldn't regulate speech, but you should own the consequences of your actions -- speech included. If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. It's certainly not as bad as…

Your first example is perfect and flatly contradicts your second. We don't punish the movies that showed people lighting cigs at gas stations when a gas pump blows up, we punish the person who actually committed the bad action. Speech about bad action is totally different than bad action and your attempt to conflate them is shameful.

You just typed a bunch of words into a text box. Did you think, as you were typing, that it didn't matter what you typed because your speech would have no effect? Or did you think that your words might convince someone to change their actions/opinions?

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#113

Post by BryantD »

jack_h wrote: post #85
BryantD wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we're considering regulation, it's important to consider the activity we're regulating in context. Here's one extreme: it's legal to light a match. It's not legal to light a match and toss it into a gas pump. We shouldn't regulate speech, but you should own the consequences of your actions -- speech included. If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. It's certainly not as bad as…

> If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids ... and any restrictions or punishment should reflect that. > If you're spreading pro-vax propaganda, you're complicit in giving kids autism ... and any restrictions or punishment should reflect that. Now I don't agree with the latter in the slightest. However, depending on who is in power and what political and social will exists at a partic…

Laws always vary depending on who's in power and what social and political will exists. The can of worms was opened the minute someone said "The state/community should get to make decisions about what you can and cannot do."

Now, it's harder to make those calls for indirect effects, and I definitely believe we should be more careful about it. You're totally correct about the danger. But that doesn't mean we don't have the discussions, as long as we're aware of the risks.

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#114

Post by will4274 »

BryantD wrote: post #112
will4274 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first example is perfect and flatly contradicts your second. We don't punish the movies that showed people lighting cigs at gas stations when a gas pump blows up, we punish the person who actually committed the bad action. Speech about bad action is totally different than bad action and your attempt to conflate them is shameful.

You just typed a bunch of words into a text box. Did you think, as you were typing, that it didn't matter what you typed because your speech would have no effect? Or did you think that your words might convince someone to change their actions/opinions?

Of course I intended to convince people. What's your point? Adults are responsible (and in particular, legally responsible) for their own actions, not the people who taught them to act that way.

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#115

Post by AnimalMuppet »

BucketSort wrote: post #9

In addition to government interference in free speech, all actions/words that offend have potentially life devastating consequences in this age of the digital permanent record. Suppose you slap someone in a moment of uncontrolled anger. If someone records that, posts it on the internet, and it goes viral, you then become the mad slapper in the eyes of the world. If someone googles your name, they will see you slappin…

Well, let's suppose it's 1900, and you live in a small town somewhere in the US. You slap someone in a moment of uncontrolled anger. How long would that follow you? The rest of your life, unless you leave town. That single slap could destroy your life.

So I think that the "digital permanent record" removes the anonymity of the big city, and returns us to small town rules.

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#116

Post by GhettoMaestro »

nabnob wrote: post #89
GhettoMaestro wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won’t happen. It is incompatible with the first amendment. Thank god we baked that shit in instead of just passing a law to that effect.

It's already happened. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube already remove and delete comments that are outside the overton window. Sure, they're not part of the government, but when it comes to freedom of expression does it really matter?

I see your point. But those platforms (while flawed) are operating legally, under their own volition, without direction from the United States Government.

If the USG were to order Twitter to take down X person's tweets because it hurt someone's feelers, that would be a clear violation of the first amendment.

Additionally we have a strong legal precedent of not permitting "compelled speech". Plainly put, they can't force you to label your own Facebook posts with your opponents claims as well.

I am totally on your side that these few companies are in far too much control. But they aren't the USG, or compelled to block/force-speech on their behalf.

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#117

Post by oefrha »

bilbo0s wrote: post #111
aianus wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be fine if we had basic income but since your survival is tied to employment, employers should not be allowed to discriminate based on political opinion any more than they can discriminate against pregnant women or seniors.

Sigh. Guy, try to be reasonable. Opposition to a political opinion, is itself, a political opinion. What you're asking is that your political opinion be the only one that gets Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Speech etc. Because you are explicitly asking that people with opposing political opinions not be given rights of Freedom of Expression and Association.

Opposition to a political opinion is a valid political opinion.

You should lose your livelihood for having this political opinion is another valid political opinion, however distasteful.

However, there’s a big problem if you’re guaranteed to lose your livelihood when a handful of vocal individuals who otherwise have no associations with you whatsoever hold the aforementioned opinion.

Let’s just hope you’re never on the receiving end of it.

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#118

Post by [deleted] »

F-0X wrote: post #92
creaghpatr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. That is absolutely nuts if you believe that.

Is it? If A says to B, "don't vaccinate your kids", B complies, and then B's child dies of a disease it could have been vaccinated against, you would not say A had any culpability?

[deleted]

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#119

Post by BryantD »

will4274 wrote: post #114
BryantD wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just typed a bunch of words into a text box. Did you think, as you were typing, that it didn't matter what you typed because your speech would have no effect? Or did you think that your words might convince someone to change their actions/opinions?

Of course I intended to convince people. What's your point? Adults are responsible (and in particular, legally responsible) for their own actions, not the people who taught them to act that way.

I think that in general, if there are predictable consequences to an action I take, I have some moral responsibility for those consequences. Don't you?

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#120

Post by bilbo0s »

corporate_shi11 wrote: post #43

Hate speech must be protected speech. Keep in mind that all groups suffer from hate speech attacks. Majority groups in Western countries ("white people") are some of the most publicly demonized people of the last few years, so saying that toleration of hate speech - which affects us all - is an opinion that can only be held from the secure position of being in the majority is nonsense.

>Hate speech must be protected speech

Hate speech, is protected speech.

If the government has, in any manner, infringed on your Freedom of Expression, Speech, and/or Association, get in touch with your local ACLU affiliate.

https://www.aclu.org/about/affiliates?redirect=affiliates

There are people there who can help you not only with "next steps", but throughout the entire process.

But please realize, they can't help you get your twitter account back, because Twitter has rights too.

Post reply on HN