Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

481–490 of 606 posts

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

#481
Free speech means you dont get put into jail, or worse, for the speech you exercise. The right to free speech does not mean you are entitled to no negative consequences for your speech in the private domain.

Free speech doesn't mean that you get to do opeds (otherwise clearly I'm being repressed because this comment of mine wasn't included in the NYT on their oped page), or that they shouldnt affect your admissions, which are significantly based on like 10 essays you write anyways.

Anyways, the NYT Cotton op-ed example is highly disingenuous. Tom Cotton suffered no negative consequences, and no one was unhappy with him. The NY Times also defended the op-ed and never once said they regretted publishing it or wouldn't in the future.

The NYT only took responsibility for egregious factual errors, that should have been caught during an editorial process, and the opinion editor was fired because he spent days defending the article, including in an all hands on deck internal meeting, without having read it!

That's literally the first job of an editor. To read an article so they can "edit" it.

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

#482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a 'defence' but a simple refutation of your claim that companies coming under pressure from some quarters to fire employees for sentiments they have expressed is a uniquely Western thing And it's not a refutation at all, because the examples you cite are themselves restricted to particular jurisdictions (and I'm sure of this because I spent the past ten years travelling the entire world and never saw anyth…

> And it's not a refutation at all, because the examples you cite are themselves restricted to particular jurisdictions (and I'm sure of this because I spent the past ten years travelling the entire world and never saw anything of the magnitude I've seen coming from the west during that period), and the incidents are far more excessive breaches of the local cultural etiquette in incidents where they do end up causing…

> I've travelled the world too, but with my eyes open :)

Clearly not, since exactly as I already said, the examples you cite are restricted to specific jurisdictions it's quite easy to avoid, although the one you go to with the example of "excruciatingly forced politeness" has me scratching my head about the problem, frankly.

> Perhaps you believe these cultural norms are more intrinsically worth defending than politeness towards transpeople

I don't really care about any of those cultural norms frankly, and the position of free speech absolutists has nothing whatsoever to do with "politeness towards transpeople". Being able to describe reality without censoring the truth is an essential function of analysis and thus improvement of that reality. Prohibiting or policing it inevitably results in the degradation of that reality because the problems you're not allowed to discuss can't be addressed, either. This is the fundamental reason for free speech absolutism, not concerns about "lol it's fun to trigger the transpeople / leftists / marxists / religious conservatives" or whatever other juvenile nonsense passes muster for the straw man you're trying to present it as.

> but it's safe to say that culture warriors who've been no-platformed by the side of the 'trans debate' they want to silence are raking in donations rather than languishing in jails.

And what exactly does that position have to do with saying it's not a big deal that free speech is being continuously eroded in the jurisdictions where it's traditionally been taken for granted and the idea of that erosion was seen as absurd not two decades ago? You cite another group of people who'd like to erode it in the other direction and you think you've actually made an argument as to why it should be eroded? Because almost everybody has gone mad, or has always in fact been mad and it has simply become more obvious as time progresses and social media displays their madness for all to directly observe?

> people who espouse illiberal views on minorities in the West are unique in the magnitude of their victimhood because they might attract so much attention their book becomes a bestseller or they become elected President of the United States.

I honestly can't even parse this sentence into something that has a relationship to material reality, do you think people defending free speech have a problem with minorities and that's baked into the position or something and you're just jumping to that conclusion immediately without actually examining it at all?

> One of the consequences of greater levels of free speech is greater exposure to criticism, justified and otherwise.

And that'd be just grand, because those trying to restrict that speech are in desperate need of greater criticism, and it is entirely justified.

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

#483

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…

[deleted]

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

#484

I understand that there are a lot of people who are hurting right now, and I empathize with their pain, but how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other or convey important information to the public if we believe there might be serious reprisals against us if we "say the wrong thing". For example, I personally helped work against slavery on the Black Market in the Middle East, and I wanted…

Free does not mean devoid of consequence in the private domain.

Otherwise, if I am ever rejected by a company in an interview it would be a clear violation of my free speech rights.

It wasn't violent. And I shouldnt be afraid to disclose my opinion that bubble sort is indeed the fastest sort algorithm under all conditions and scenarios.

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

#485
post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that the only thing you can control, as the communicator, is the words you use. You can't control your audiences vocabulary and their interpretation, thus the onus is on the communicator to communicate their message, not the listener. It's up to the communicator to understand their audience and make the best faith attempt to communicate that they can, and to listen and learn how to communicate effectivel…

I feel like you have removed so much nuance from the discussion that what you are saying is essentially meaningless. Choose your words wisely, listen, react, respond. It says nothing about the intent of the listener. A listener can intentionally take a statement in good faith or bad faith. If your statement is taken in bad faith and weaponized against you it's hard to respond over the chorus of the angry mob waiting…

The point is you can't control the listener. You can only control yourself and your statements. If you find yourself in situations where people are weaponizing your statements against you, then you should consider listening and learning from them so that you can communicate effectively in the future. That's all you can do. You can't control other people.

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

#486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, i left Open Source projects because referring to co-contributors is such a minefield. I don't wish to work with self-identified transgender people due to this anymore. They take everything so personal even if its not about them. And just for saying this, same people will accuse me of hating trans people and rejecting their right to exist. But you know what - people with successful HRT who also pass don't exhibit…

> They also don't self-identify as trans. A lot of them do. > They take everything so personal even if its not about them. Is this an actual experience? I've worked with/interacted with quite a few queer people. And I've misgendered people on more than one occasion. Nothing a "shit sorry" hasn't been able to fix. This forces me to wonder why our experiences are so different. Do the queer people I work with have diffe…

Assuming you are from the US (im not) and work at Google, i guess its that your ideas about the LGBT community might come from people who actively participate in identity politics. If they do, they have interest in not passing and constantly outing themselves to demonstrate their minority status, because this is what they think makes their voice 'valid'.

If you go trans because you suffer from gender dysphoria, your 'fix' is to become accepted as the gender you identify as. To achieve it, you do HRT and a surgery (if you suffer from bottom dysphoria), and you present yourself as the gender you identify as, NOT as trans. This goes so far that these people correct you if you call them trans - they are a "Man" or a "Woman" now. If these people pass, they also pass as cis and are thus not easily recognizable as having undergone transition.

I'm active in a fan community of an Anime that features dissociation, so it accidentally attracts people with gender dysphoria. I had affairs with some people from this community and, this way, also got into the gay/trans community, which has an significant overlap. This is how i learned that identity politics is not representative of queer people. Heck, even the CSD/gay pride with the rainbow flags isn't representative of the gay community - many sexually deviant people just want to live a normal life and not be associated with pants where your butt cheeks peek out. I'm one of them.

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

#487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The mobs trying to police everyone else's speech are never the intended audience If the "mobs" are receiving a message not intended for them, the onus lies on the communicator to resolve this. I also think it's really funny that you're assuming you know what people involved in fighting the slave trade want. Are you currently doing that?

> If the "mobs" are receiving a message not intended for them, the onus lies on the communicator to resolve this. That's just terrific: I joke around with my friends in private chat, there's a leak, a twitter mob gets ahold of the data and doesn't like my joke. They then try to get me at my job, ultimately getting me fired. All of that was my fault ... As said by you. > Are you currently doing that? ... I don't know…

>The very root comment you're currently arguing against was made by such a person. We're inside that comment thread...

Did you make the original statement? I'm confused. You said that people shouldn't be an armchair analyst in discussions. Then you proceeded to do it. I then called you out on it.

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

#488
post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The mobs trying to police everyone else's speech are never the intended audience If the "mobs" are receiving a message not intended for them, the onus lies on the communicator to resolve this. I also think it's really funny that you're assuming you know what people involved in fighting the slave trade want. Are you currently doing that?

Once something leaves your lips/phone/computer it doesn't matter who it is intended for. Surely you know this.

>Once something leaves your lips/phone/computer it doesn't matter who it is intended for.

It matters if you choose your audience. I agree, if you make a statement in public, say on twitter, then you've chosen the audience. The world.

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

#489

Free speech means you dont get put into jail, or worse, for the speech you exercise. The right to free speech does not mean you are entitled to no negative consequences for your speech in the private domain. Free speech doesn't mean that you get to do opeds (otherwise clearly I'm being repressed because this comment of mine wasn't included in the NYT on their oped page), or that they shouldnt affect your admissions,…

> Free speech means you dont get put into jail, or worse, for the speech you exercise. The right to free speech does not mean you are entitled to no negative consequences for your speech in the private domain.

I'm not sure where you came up with that definition. Free speech as whole is much more expansive than that. From Wikipedia: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."

Free speech as legal concept means exactly what you claim (via the 1st amendment). But there's a broader concept to consider as well. Just because the government isn't arresting you doesn't mean your speech can't be restricted. People in the private domain targeting you for you speech can lead to an effective restriction on your speech.

Now, I'm in agreement with you that the NYT case isn't really a a great example for this at all, since Tom Cotton has many other avenues for exercising his right to speech, and it was NYT who faced the backlash, not him. But I'd say the David Shor[0] case, and Justine Sacco case[1] is great example for showing the effect private actions can have on restricting speech. It's likely that both these individuals will be much more careful when they speak in the public sphere again.

My point isn't that we should make this sort of "harassment" (for lack of a better word) illegal. That would just be restricting the free speech of the critics instead. But we should recognize that restrictions on free speech come from more than just the government, and work to build a culture where these kinds of restrictions are more rare. That would have the added benefit of strengthening public discourse and debate.

[0] - first part of this article: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-...

[1] - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/internet-...

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

#490
post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> where we are censoring completely benign words Are you saying in any context? That's not the proposal as i read it. >> >> Could you just say >> censoring For censoring to be the case, it must be that you can't use particular words. I read the case as 1. the GP's post expressing a desire to show heightened care to a reader 2. your parent posting a possible solution Taking this to an extreme, if both behaviours abov…

I was using "we" to mean "we" would be self-censoring.

self-censor? Your original post makes no sense then, how can you self-censor a word that you self deem to be benign?

You’d have to recognise that the word wasn’t benign in that context first?

Post reply on HN