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

Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

journal.neilgaiman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 107 posts

Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

#31

Post by Duff »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #14
mikeryan wrote: post #8

Its funny I had a similar argument with someone last week (2 weeks ago?) when the Westboro Baptist's won their supreme court case [1]. Speech is free, period. Once you try to put any restrictions on then the whole thing isn't even a slippery slope, its a frictionless cliff. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03...

So what, then, is the difference between my calling your phone number multiple times and leaving harassing messages ("You're going to hell! Fag!"), and what the WBC does at semi-private gatherings, like funerals? I don't disagree with the justifications behind protecting speech, even (and especially) things that I find reprehensible. However, I think it's a bit of a lie to say that law doesn't have fine lines or dist…

It is more about the "how" and less about the "what".

If I called you 500 times and simply said "Hello, hello, hello", that is still harassment. The WBC people apply for permits and protest on public property. What they say isn't relevant.

In general, your actions and intent are more germane than the content of your speech. That's a concept critical to free speech -- controversial or offensive is far more important to protect than typical conversation.

Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

#32

Post by jules »

waqf wrote: post #30
thaumaturgy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for being the only person that responded to the point (might've been my fault, maybe I wasn't clear). I think most people would say that what the WBC does is harassment; so, other than the fine legal difference between whether the harassment occurs on public grounds or private property, how is one form of harassment protected as free speech and another form of harassment not?

Heh, I had an unfair advantage: I didn't trouble to familiarize myself with the WBC. But by my reasoning, the difference would be legal precedents stating that pickets are legal (irrespective of what you use them to promote) and repeated unsolicited telephone calls are not (irrespective of what you say).

That's not entirely true. You can't write "God Hates Blacks" (per the Racial Hatred Act) but you can write "God Hates Fags". There seems to be no logical basis for this difference.

Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

#33

Post by _wp3r »

Speech is not free it cost many people many things, and my friends do not die to protect unquestionably wrong speech. I believe most of the people that think of right and wrong in such a black and white way have never in their lives had to choose right or wrong when it meant something other than hurt feelings.

Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

#35

Post by warrenwilkinson »

Here is what free speech means to me. I have the suspicion that others might disagree, but it's a starting point:

Free Speech means that law shouldn't punish communication.

If you write a hate filled article then free speech protects you from lawyers. It does not force your employer to continue employing you, your neighbor to continue smiling at you, or your grocer to continue to sell food to you.

It means government won't persecute you. It does not mean everyone else must treat you the same way as they did before you said anything.

It also does not mean people have to listen to you, or that you've a right to use others property to deliver your message.

Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

#36

Post by jaysonelliot »

_wp3r wrote: post #33

Speech is not free it cost many people many things, and my friends do not die to protect unquestionably wrong speech. I believe most of the people that think of right and wrong in such a black and white way have never in their lives had to choose right or wrong when it meant something other than hurt feelings.

Popular speech doesn't need defending.

If you don't believe in the freedom of "unquestionably wrong" speech, then you don't believe in freedom of speech.

Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

#37

Post by alanh »

kenjackson wrote: post #19
thaumaturgy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what, then, is the difference between my calling your phone number multiple times and leaving harassing messages ("You're going to hell! Fag!"), and what the WBC does at semi-private gatherings, like funerals? I don't disagree with the justifications behind protecting speech, even (and especially) things that I find reprehensible. However, I think it's a bit of a lie to say that law doesn't have fine lines or dist…

The lines in law, where they exist, tend to be fuzzy, rather than fine. Now with that said freedom of speech is a special law. And obviously one that cuts both ways. But a key reason why the law should largely exist untampered is that even if you say something I think is offensive, I can rely on a few things: 1) If it's absurd it will be discarded by most people. 2) If it's absurd those people it would convince, prob…

> If it's absurd it will be discarded by most people.

And yet the various flavors of creationism (all equally absurd by measures of science) have convinced half of the U.S. of their validity.

Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

#38

Post by kwantam »

Gaiman does a reasonable job with this argument, but in my mind fails to address the most pernicious thought in the letter:

The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic?

This kind of argument comes up all the time in mostly unsupportable "save the children" heart string--tugging arguments (and others), and it is a dangerous and nasty kind of argument that should always be addressed.

"If we only save ONE child, shouldn't we do X?" is equivalent to "let's just assume that even the tiniest positive outcome has more value than any possible negative ones." This isn't really an argument at all; it's a premise concerning the relative values of various outcomes, masquerading as an argument. Moreover, it's stated in a way intended to shame anyone who disagrees with it.

"Even if we only save ONE child", "even if we only stop ONE terrorist", and their ilk smack of dishonesty and intellectual laziness. Sound public policies require careful consideration; arguments such as these are mental roadblocks, nothing more.

Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

#39

Post by redthrowaway »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #25
waqf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the difference is that you're expressing your opinion, which is fine, and also harassing the guy, which is a crime. Just as if you announced "mikeryan is going to hell! the Fag!" while chainsawing live babies you're committing a crime. The expressing of your opinion is not a crime, but the fact that you're expressing your opinion doesn't exempt you from other criminal liabilities.

Thank you for being the only person that responded to the point (might've been my fault, maybe I wasn't clear). I think most people would say that what the WBC does is harassment; so, other than the fine legal difference between whether the harassment occurs on public grounds or private property, how is one form of harassment protected as free speech and another form of harassment not?

The WBC are a family of lawyers. They are very careful not to step over the legal line, while inciting others to do so. They then sue any and all transgressors, and use the money to continue their campaign of finding more people to sue.

Once you're onto them, they become incredibly easy to ignore, or counter-troll if that's your game. Doing everything you can to piss them off, while still remaining within the bounds of the law, tends to send them scurrying to their next funeral.

Post reply on HN