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

191–200 of 606 posts

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

#191

Post by nonsince »

ngngngng wrote: post #177

I argued with a family member about this just the other day. She was trying to get a faculty member at a local university fired for saying something offensive on Twitter. I asked her what happens after we get him fired? Can he earn back the worthiness to again feed his family? Will he need to denounce his views or just stop spewing them publicly? Will he just need to collect unemployment for the rest of his life now…

People with racist or otherwise regressive views know that these views will (rightly) get them criticised by the majority, and so they won't couch them in those terms precisely, but it's often very clear when you take context into account. I can't speak for this exact case, because we don't know what his exact words were, but it's telling that even your defence of him describes him criticising protesters at a time when protesters are being shot and having chemical weapons used on them by the police, a state militia who can kill pretty much anyone without threat of consequence. If your stance in this case is to support that militia, their murders and their use of chemical weapons, then I think that it's not remotely unfair to say that you not only do not support the black lives matter movement, but that you support the continuation of black people in the states being murdered without recompense.

When you have such a significant power over someone's higher education and therefore their life earnings, I don't think it's unfair to scrutinise these people's views further than had they little structural power.

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

#192

Post by cheschire »

Mangalor wrote: post #170
cheschire wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this causes virtue signaling on the part of companies, which then causes employees' livelihoods to be directly tied to their ability to express acceptable beliefs in the correct way.

> causes employees' livelihoods to be directly tied to their ability to express acceptable beliefs in the correct way You mean like how underrepresented groups regularly experience the workplace already?

I like this point too!

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

#193

Post by raxxorrax »

klmadfejno wrote: post #9
fennecfoxen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world, in general, is abandoning the past two centuries in which freedom has risen, to become illiberal, and enforce intellectual orthodoxies. It is more obvious and markedly so in in places like Turkey, but even here in the US we see those who would blacklist all political enemies and dissenters. These efforts will ultimately fail here, but not before grave harm is inflicted; history will judge us as harshly as…

I don't think equating racist power structures in police and government to red scare communists is a good analogy. The fear of communists was mostly made up in rhetoric. The protestors on race relations are pretty clear on why they're upset.

[flagged]

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

#194

Post by fennecfoxen »

thr999978797 wrote: post #134
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…

It's maybe important to note that the phrase 'He was no angel' is a common (extremely dark and sarcastic) joke in left-leaning circles around these kind of tragic murders because there is always, without fail, some right-wing effort to paint the victim as some sort of low-life who had it coming one way or the other. Let's be clear: no one, regardless of how much they've fucked up in their lives, deserves to be murder…

> These kinds of arguments are prima facie disgusting and deserve no quarter in civilized discourse.

Declaring "no quarter" in actual war is saying that if the enemy decides to surrender to you, and lays down his arms, and hoists the white flag, sticks his hands in the air, then you will shoot and kill him.

Declaring "no quarter" in actual war is therefore a violation of the Hague convention. It is "especially forbidden," in the same paragraph as poisoned weapons.

You are defending your actions with a metaphor that celebrates war crimes.

Hands up don't shoot, sir.

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

#195

Post by syshum »

notahacker wrote: post #185
syshum wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it is not just conservatives that do not grasp that The 2 statements are the difference between a liberty minded person and the authority minded person Liberty mined (or libertarian) can easily separate their personal beliefs on what is "proper" but still allow that other people may view differently and as long as they are not harming them (or anyone else) should be allowed to live their life in the manner they deem…

And yet the 'liberty minded' person in this case is the one imposing a government restriction upon what individuals and businesses might otherwise choose to do. Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence, the debate actually comes down to discussion of which types of speech should and should have protections in the sphere of employment. You'll find a lar…

>>And yet the 'liberty minded' person in this case is the one imposing a government restriction upon what individuals and businesses might otherwise choose to do.

Where do you draw this conclusion from? What government restrictions do you believe liberty minded people are calling for?

>>Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence the debate actually comes down to discussion of which types of speech should and should have protections.

I am not sure what this is even referencing. I have read this line a few times and I am not sure what you are trying to convey

It sounds like this is a restatement of the grandparent ,you are talking about what a company should or should not do, vs what a government should or should not prohibit with the force of law.

A company choosing to fire someone for X speech is vastly different than a government protecting an employee from being fired, or forcing a company to fire someone for said speech

Government action is authoritarian by its very nature. I do not believe people should be fired from their jobs for their speech but at the same time I do not support government intervention in the free association of those businesses, that would have far worse consequences

>And of course who should be given stronger-than-average protections is also a matter of some debate

It should not be a debate at all, Equality under the law should be universal. This is one of the core problems today is we keep trying to fix past injustice with more injustice under the law

The only way to break the cycle is to make every individual the exact same under the law.

> Some people believe in restricting employers

Yes and those people are called Authoritarians

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

#196

Post by nonsince »

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

What do you think the down- and upvote buttons are for if not signalling that you think that a comment is good or not.

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

#197

Post by worik »

high_derivative wrote: post #171
Mangalor wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. The effect of which would silence both their work rights and free speech rights. Google, a private corporation, not a government, decided to stop contracting with him, as they have women and minorities on staff whose employment output likely outweighs his personal need to write…

'should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics' He absolutely did no such thing and this is an incredibly disingenuous representation. You can still argue he should be fired without this.

I have just reread the first few pages of his memo. I had forgotten, it has been a few years. It is naive, pompous, and offensive to people who have been fighting against the currents of prejudice and bigotry for generations.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo...

Perhaps he should not have been fired, but what a prick!

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

#198

Post by mynameishere »

AHappyCamper wrote: post #112
cgb223 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW I would be very interested in hearing about your experiences doing that Sounds like something that had a huge impact on a terrible system in the world that most people aren’t aware of. If you feel comfortable, can you tell us a little bit about it here?

Of course, and thank you for asking. The group I was involved in was repatriating Eastern European women who had been duped. They responded to ads in the paper that were seeking farmhands to spend the summer picking fruit for excellent wages. When the women showed up to the "interview" at the farm, they were drugged and kidnapped. From there, they were transported to Egypt, where they were smuggled close to the borde…

Well, if you are genuinely worried about terminology you can call that what it is, the "white slave trade". It's ancient, extensive, and completely, 100 percent, not taught in schools. So there's a lesson there too.

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

#199

Post by cglace »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #167
AHappyCamper wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I empathize with the feelings of people who may feel emotionally threatened by a derogatory comment, but some speech deals with people whose lives are in imminent mortal danger (e.g. those about to be sold on Black Market) and if we can't quickly discuss their cases and potential responses to rescue them, then they will be doomed to a life of untold misery. In such situations, there is no time to filter every…

Could you just say “slave market” or “illegal market”? Of course, black in this context refers to the transactions being performed in the shadows, and has nothing to do with the colour of the skin of the participants in the market. It’s all a bit absurd, but it’s also a trivial change to adopt. And now I’ve offended adopties. I jest.

I don’t think it’s trivial if we are to the point where we are censoring completely benign words.

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

#200

Post by [deleted] »

nonsince wrote: post #191
ngngngng wrote: post #177

I argued with a family member about this just the other day. She was trying to get a faculty member at a local university fired for saying something offensive on Twitter. I asked her what happens after we get him fired? Can he earn back the worthiness to again feed his family? Will he need to denounce his views or just stop spewing them publicly? Will he just need to collect unemployment for the rest of his life now…

People with racist or otherwise regressive views know that these views will (rightly) get them criticised by the majority, and so they won't couch them in those terms precisely, but it's often very clear when you take context into account. I can't speak for this exact case, because we don't know what his exact words were, but it's telling that even your defence of him describes him criticising protesters at a time wh…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN