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

Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 606 posts

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#61

Post by _Wintermute »

im3w1l wrote: post #53
gguevaraa wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one[0] gets the noggin' joggin'. Cambridge defends one of their profs saying "White Lives Don't Matter" yet were quick to rescind their invitation for Jordan Peterson for "controversial" comments [1]. [0]: https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/19539 [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/cambridge-...

And on the other hand, saying "White Lives Matter" got not only the man saying it fired. His girlfriend was found to be guilty by association and also fired. https://tribuna.com/en/chelsea/news/2020-06-25-burnley-fan-b...

That's not true. His girlfriend was fired previously for posting racist messages on Facebook and then refusing to go on a sensitivity training course offered by her employer.

That article is a summary of a daily mail article, so it's bad journalism squared.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#62

Post by gentleman11 »

rbecker wrote: post #2

Just in case someone finds the examples in the article all acceptable censorship, here's a few more off the top of my head: Evergreen professor forced to resign for opposing day of white absence: https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-weinstei... UCLA professor placed under investigation for reading MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-lect... Dat…

In mainstream news (ap, CBC, bbc, others), increasingly people and groups are being labelled as racist without any discretion. Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories[1]. Surely, there is at least one racist in the group, but increasingly every single person who doesn’t tow the line is being called out - entire police departments, mayors, city councils, schools, news organizations - everyone is either supporting the cause or else is a racist, with no evidence or scrutiny being applied. How can entire police departments be racist? Entire companies?

[1] to be fair, Churchill was a racist and a colonialist. He opposed Ghandi. He also helped defeat fascism and naziism and is an important historical figure. Defending a Churchill statue does not automatically make everybody in the vicinity a nazi.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#63

Post by augustt »

mellosouls wrote: post #44
guscost wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“There’s something so true about this genre when done correctly that I will fight anybody that gets in a true practitioner of this art form’s way, because I know you’re wrong. This is the truth and you are obstructing it. I’m not talking about the content, I’m talking about the art form.”

I love Chappelle - but he's not an angel, and didn't serve the free speech cause well with his personal attack (she took it sportingly) on somebody genuinely brave in speaking off-message.

I would not call it bravery. She started her career as an anti-conservative blogger and then realized there was money to be made in being conservatives' token minority friend.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#64

Post by mellosouls »

guscost wrote: post #48
mellosouls wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love Chappelle - but he's not an angel, and didn't serve the free speech cause well with his personal attack (she took it sportingly) on somebody genuinely brave in speaking off-message.

I’m with you that the personal attack was rude, and he likely lost support for his side on that issue by including it. But I don’t agree that the effect extends to lost support for free speech in general. It is commonly understood that rude speech is the most important kind of speech to defend, since it is the “front line” where the forces opposing free speech are most active. Dave is surely aware of this too. He say…

Sure (and good points), but in the context here - quoting Chappelle on civil discourse and free speech I think it's important to question the consistency when such uncivil jibes are aimed from a position of power at a hate figure.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#65

Post by gentleman11 »

There are a lot of downvoted posts in this thread that make reasonable arguments and that are promoting discussion. I disagree with a lot of them, but it’s awkward for this to be a story where people are heavily downvoting people they disagree with

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#66

Post by mellosouls »

augustt wrote: post #63
mellosouls wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love Chappelle - but he's not an angel, and didn't serve the free speech cause well with his personal attack (she took it sportingly) on somebody genuinely brave in speaking off-message.

I would not call it bravery. She started her career as an anti-conservative blogger and then realized there was money to be made in being conservatives' token minority friend.

The nicest names she gets called are things like "conservatives' token minority friend".

Whatever else she is, she's damned brave.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#67

Post by cheschire »

gentleman11 wrote: post #65

There are a lot of downvoted posts in this thread that make reasonable arguments and that are promoting discussion. I disagree with a lot of them, but it’s awkward for this to be a story where people are heavily downvoting people they disagree with

It's a question I've been struggling with lately. Downvotes reinforce groupthink, that much is subjectively clear. I've considered solutions, and I believe forcing people to reply before they are allowed to downvote would help.

However, in opposition to my own idea, I consider that simply requiring a more effort wouldn't necessarily change the groupthink problem, but would just stifle low effort downvotes.

Let's consider then the whole idea of votes in the first place. Are downvotes considered "speech" in an abstract sense? Should they be protected in the same way disagreeable opinions are? Is the level of effort necessary to express the speech relevant to the level of protection it deserves? Would restricting downvotes in any way be considered a speech restriction?

So these are all interesting aspects to the problem that cause me a lot of internal debate.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#68

Post by yspeak »

gentleman11 wrote: post #65

There are a lot of downvoted posts in this thread that make reasonable arguments and that are promoting discussion. I disagree with a lot of them, but it’s awkward for this to be a story where people are heavily downvoting people they disagree with

Welcome to HN.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#69

Post by SllX »

gentleman11 wrote: post #62
rbecker wrote: post #2

Just in case someone finds the examples in the article all acceptable censorship, here's a few more off the top of my head: Evergreen professor forced to resign for opposing day of white absence: https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-weinstei... UCLA professor placed under investigation for reading MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-lect... Dat…

In mainstream news (ap, CBC, bbc, others), increasingly people and groups are being labelled as racist without any discretion. Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories[1]. Surely, there is at least one racist in the group, but increasingly every single person who doesn’t tow the line is being called out - entire police departments, mayors, city councils, schools…

At some point a word becomes so overused it loses all meaning.

The guy who created the word genocide also created the word vandalism. He intended for both actions these words described to be looked at with abject horror and thus applied as infrequently as possible so that they would retain their meaning.

When everyone is racist, effectively no one is.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#70

Post by miracle2k »

romwell wrote: post #59
legostormtroopr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed. No it doesn't. This is wild hyperbole. No one deserves to be shot in the back. However, people are painting him out to be an angel - quite literally there are multiple artworks of George Floyd with a halo and wings [1]. The reality is he was human, and one with a complicated criminal past who was jailed 8 times [2] including for drug offenses. Is…

>Is saying that someone with a criminal record like that "didn't live a virtuous life" really a fireable offense? Talk about wild hyperboles! “In the wake of George Floyd’s death, most people in the country have framed this as an act of racism,” Moloney’s email continued. “I don’t think we know that. Many people have claimed that racism is a major problem in police forces. I don’t think we know that.” The Chaplain ha…

The new orthodoxy requires this quote to be something awful, and upon reading it, that was my immediate thought as well. "He really said that?".

But it really isn't. In fact, it continues to be an opinion of a large section of the society. He is only saying that the police are not totally racist, maybe only a bit! Disagree as much as you want, this is an opinion beyond the pale now?

And the fact that the culture causes MIT to believe this to be a liability is exactly the point.

Post reply on HN