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

361–370 of 606 posts

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

#361

Post by TuringTest »

AHappyCamper wrote: post #160
TuringTest wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other The trick is to create channels with limited audiences, where you can set an expectation of which ideas are acceptable and which are not.* It always has been, but the the arrival of new communication methods has disrupted the traditional channels, and now every idea is propagated to a much larger and looser audience, which aren't aware or don't…

You bring up some really interesting ideas, but there are certain times where communication is mission critical - and deeply considering complex communicational structures before posting/conveying information can eventuate in serious injury or loss of life. During those times, you simply need to be able to "get the message out" without worrying about the potential offense that you words may cause to a certain individ…

> You bring up some really interesting ideas, but there are certain times where communication is mission critical ... During those times, you simply need to be able to "get the message out" without worrying about the potential offense that you words may cause to a certain individuals.

True, but in those cases, you limit the participation in that channel. They didn't allow everyone to call in on the communication channels of the Apollo project, right?

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

#362

Post by hamilyon2 »

Retric wrote: post #258
danielheath wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every stable community already has things you can and cannot say (try arguing the merits of pederasty, war, or heroin and see how far you get!)

Challenge accepted. Pederasty is so far from our cultural norms it’s current form is meaningless compared to a socially accepted version. In a society with active mentoring of youth by people across the gender and sexual orientation spectrum pederasty would reduce the stigma’s associated with homosexuals thus increasing social cohesion. War is a stress test for societies. By destroying less efficient social structure…

Your heroin argument is kinda strawman. You should address addiction, health aspect, and criminalization vs legalization.

Modern war not only means crazy lot of civilian casualties, and environmental destruction. It is literal breeding ground of hate, human misery, all of worst qualities of people. Only a defence contractor would advocate for war.

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

#363

Post by notahacker »

syshum wrote: post #195
notahacker wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What government restrictions do you believe liberty minded people are calling for?

People claiming that people shouldn't be sacked for expressing certain views also claim their actions are motivated by the imperative of protecting freedom of conscience and individuals' essential liberty. People firing people for expressing those views are often openly stating the belief those views are 'incorrect' and that enforcement action must be taken against those with incorrect views.

Hence my contention that reducing the debate to libertarian vs authoritarian is unhelpful, particularly when it leads to the position that everyone not equally committed to both upholding universities' rights to censor speech and abolishing Civil Rights Acts is authoritarian with a capital A.

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

#364

Post by guscost »

mellosouls wrote: post #64
guscost wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In context, the phrase “civil discourse” has an alternative meaning that you arrive at by substituting the first dictionary definition of the word “civil”:

> 1. relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters.

It’s a brilliant argument that works on two levels: violence is the only alternative to free speech, and raw and ugly honesty can lead to greater understanding.

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

#365

Post by Retric »

snikeris wrote: post #318
Retric wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Challenge accepted. Pederasty is so far from our cultural norms it’s current form is meaningless compared to a socially accepted version. In a society with active mentoring of youth by people across the gender and sexual orientation spectrum pederasty would reduce the stigma’s associated with homosexuals thus increasing social cohesion. War is a stress test for societies. By destroying less efficient social structure…

> War is a stress test for societies. By destroying less efficient social structures it promotes long term progress and reduces inefficient practices like slavery. War destroys progress and is incredibly inefficient. The mere threat of war creates an endless arms race resulting in half of discretionary spending going to defense. The reason for submitting to government authority is for protection of life and liberty.…

For clarity the argument goes like this:

The global average military spending is 2.2% of global GDP, the US spends 3.4% of GDP. In a vacuum that looks like a dead loss, but over the last 10,000+ years even minor increases in progress could easily make up for that. Consider the USSR was destroyed by failing to manage that expenditure, in a world without war it could easily still be around. Now extend that back to every poor use of resources eliminated by war like Aztec mass human sacrifice or the southern states use of slavery.

I don’t think it’s acceptable trade off for the direct suffering of war, but it is a defensible argument.

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

#366

Post by kiplkipl »

rimliu wrote: post #314
kiplkipl wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If learning new pronouns was really that difficult, none of your peers would speak more than one language. This is just the way society deals with issues that are personal or to do with respect: you don't ask people why they use Ms., you don't ask why someone hasn't had children, you (probably) don't fistbump strangers, and you feel guilt when you forget someone's name. Similarly, in most of these cases, it's worse t…

Does every person speak differnt language?

No

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

#367

Post by ones_and_zeros »

nec4b wrote: post #358
ones_and_zeros wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, good on you for helping the world be a better place. I have to ask, why use "Black Market"? It doesn't make sense whether you are involved in these issues or not. Modern day slavery is universally known as human trafficking within law enforcement, social justice and international peace groups. This isn't a word police thing, it's just not accurate or common. Seems like using "Black Market" just makes things co…

Because the words "Black Market" literally mean and describe the place which the GP was talking about every where in the world. This is not only an American or English thing, many of other languages use the same expression (black + market) to mean the same thing.

Wait, maybe I am missing something. So there is an actual physical place called the Black Market?

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

#368

Post by Chris2048 »

Mangalor wrote: post #151
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google did it to James Damore. People celebrated it, as it opposes their beliefs even though many psychologist publicly said that the gender difference identified in the memo are science backed.

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…

> decided to stop contracting with him

Not sure how this differs from a firing unless you are suggesting it was unrelated to the memo.

> his personal need to write long, politically charged, essays at work

You don't know the context. He didn't force the memo on people - he was actively encouraged to provide feedback to a forum on this exact, politically-charged, topic; then that memo was leaked, without his permission, (to unfriendly, politically-charged outside recipients) when someone found issue with it.

The insinuation "write long, politically charged, essays at work" that he abused company resources to do his own thing, versus being encouraged to engage with politics (which google does) and then finding himself on the wrong side of opinion is exactly the kind of abusive framing that hit-pieces used.

> women and minorities on staff

Who saw the memo because someone tried to offend them with it - not Damore. I don't disagree that sensitive topics might not be appropriate for wider audiences, but Damore is not responsible for that. No one was fired for leaking the memo, nor are media outlets being sued for propagating a false, offensive representation of the memo.

To be clear "women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics" is not something Damore said, it is something the media said, attributing it to him. It is the media therefore that owns these words and the offence they (and their distribution) caused. Not only did they slander Damore, but they also caused the offense Damore was fired for.

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

#369

Post by marcus_holmes »

AHappyCamper wrote: post #313
marcus_holmes wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give me an example of an urgent, mission critical communication that could be offensive to people?

Of course - and thank you for asking. One of my friends is a paramedic who primarily works in ambulances in LA. One day, he arrives at a scene after a passer-by called 911. A homeless man is lying on the street on top of garbage and cardboard boxes. There is urine and feces everywhere - it's a bad situation - and there are used needles lying next to the man. The man is obviously in medical distress, and is unable to…

Radio protocol is extremely specific. As is medical terminology.

If they're required to use a term for a person, but haven't been briefed on what term to use, then I think there are bigger problems there and "political correctness" is not the problem. Basic communication is. They will also not be penalised for using the wrong term when there's no briefing on what the correct term is.

If they can't remember what term to use when they have been briefed on it, then they have bigger problems (there are thousands of medical terms they presumably also struggle to remember).

So, were they briefed on the correct term or not?

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

#370

Post by notahacker »

etherael wrote: post #350
notahacker wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Genuine question here from someone who is the "virtually nobody" that you describe in terms of being a complete free speech absolutist and seeing attempts to shut that down as perhaps the worst thing happening in the world today pretty much guaranteed to end in complete disaster, and simultaneously not seeing what the issue is in terms of "while you're at work" limits on sensitive discussions. It's one thing to tell…

> It's one thing to tell the employee what they can say on the job to their colleagues or customers when they're not hired to talk to colleagues and customers about sensitive topics (this doesn't even need to be an explicit prohibition, it can take the form of "that's not what you're being paid to do, and while you're doing it you're not doing what you are being paid to do, so please shut up and do your job"), and an entirely different thing to tell them what they can't say period in any context at any time on penalty of being fired for wrongthink, which frankly is just a modern take on the time honoured and previously much bloodier purge process updated for modern non-violent sensibilities, which still taken to its logical conclusion has the exact same results.

It's still a matter of degree [and which jobs, and which views, and what constitutes 'outside work'] though. It's certainly possible for someone to do an awful lot more damage to their company by views or actions taken outside work than stuff that you as a self-described free speech absolutist are comfortable tone policing inside work

Post reply on HN