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

Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

freespeech.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 194 posts

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#91

Post by ecshafer »

mmastrac wrote: post #81
woolion wrote: post #30

We have reached a point where it has been a mainstream position to view the idea of defending free speech as disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. This statement is so weak that it is necessary to consider this climate to even understand how this can be published as a statement. After explicitly saying that illegal speech is not free speech, it lists 6 exceptions for things that are not free speech either, includin…

There's no magic bullet for free speech thanks to the Paradox of Tolerance. Allowing all speech, completely unrestricted, is a recipe for creating a completely unworkable environment.

In the "Paradox of Tolerance" Popper argues that despite the apparent paradox, defending free speech and having a tolerant society is the only way to go. People use the paradox of tolerance argument often, but leave out the part where popper resolves the paradox.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#92

Post by [deleted] »

funcDropShadow wrote: post #80
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’ve misinterpreted the common meme. The common meme is that gender or race are social constructs. I haven’t heard the meme sex is a social construct.

Just my last encounter with the so called meme, that sex is a social construct: [1]. It was just 12 hours ago. [1]: https://twitter.com/x_mass/status/1488329923471319043

[deleted]

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#93

Post by [deleted] »

verisimi wrote: post #46
shadowgovt wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such invitations are often extended by organizations in the university, not the university itself. Those organizations can definitely be politically far afield from the university median. The test of a declaration like this will be how the school responds when another organization on campus reacts to such an invitation by protesting it.

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#94

Post by pessimizer »

thematrixturtle wrote: post #70
coffeeisyummy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RMS brought it on himself. Although, yes, MIT turned a blind eye to his behavior until his comments about Epstein.

If you read what RMS actually wrote, it's kind of hard to disagree with the line of argument: "It is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17". Of course, it was incredibly tone deaf to write this out in a thread about Epstein no less, and promptly got twisted into "RMS advocates raping little children".

What he was really guilty of was sharing his opinions on a dangerous subject when he really had nothing interesting or original to add. He might as well complain about the speed limit on a particular road being 65 instead of 75. We set standards and conventions to keep order.

And while I completely approve of RMS, that argument works just as well for 10 year olds and has often been made. Listen to screaming Gajdusek about his right (or even duty) to have sex with consenting children at the end of The Genius and the Boys.[0] Maybe when RMS said it, he set an age in his mind of some precocious post-pubescent teenager. Whatever his mental imagery was, it was just as arbitrary as the law.

We set a standard to give kids a bit of runway before they are a legitimate object of the desires and efforts of adult men (and women.) 18 is fine, it gives them a little time. 17 would probably be fine, too. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be 19. But it is what it is.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OxppDxzSww

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#95

Post by fny »

zo1 wrote: post #11
cwillu wrote: post #2

I love the explicitness of “they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.”

However, they negate it with this caveat: > "The Institute may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the Institute." Which is vague enough that an enterprising and determined ind…

These are well established legal boundaries to free speech.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#96

Post by runako »

colpabar wrote: post #33
tokai wrote: post #21

Is this really needed? I'm not trying to be obstinate. But in the north european country where I reside, while we have hate speech laws etc., my speech is protected by the law - both from the state and my employer (a university). This commitment seems very bombastic for what feels like a work environment policy to me. Am I misunderstanding something cultural here? EDIT: thx for the comments, it makes it more sense to…

> my speech is protected by the law - both from the state and my employer (a university). Can you elaborate what it means that your speech is protected by your employer? Because that seems like something that doesn't happen here in the US - you can lose work over disagreeing with political ideologies, especially at universities.

> you can lose work over disagreeing with political ideologies, especially at universities.

Admittedly, it's been a while since I was enrolled in a college. Are there examples of this happening? Are people losing their jobs because they e.g. go to church or advocate for fewer ecological regulations or believe in lower taxes or the like?

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#97

Post by AlanYx »

ecshafer wrote: post #91
mmastrac wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no magic bullet for free speech thanks to the Paradox of Tolerance. Allowing all speech, completely unrestricted, is a recipe for creating a completely unworkable environment.

In the "Paradox of Tolerance" Popper argues that despite the apparent paradox, defending free speech and having a tolerant society is the only way to go. People use the paradox of tolerance argument often, but leave out the part where popper resolves the paradox.

Yes, Marcuse's 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance" is actually closer to what most people understand Popper's work to be saying.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#98

Post by [deleted] »

syshum wrote: post #90
ur-whale wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have reached a point where it has been a mainstream position to view the idea of defending free speech as disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. I disagree. There is a very vocal, very small minority that's ruining it for everyone else. Certainly not mainstream.

I have to ask, which side are you taking, because I honestly do not know, and I dont think it is "small minority" on either side. There are ALOT of people that oppose free speech as a concept, hiding behind statements like "hate speech is not free speech" or "words are violence" So while think you are attempting to defend free speech, I can also see how your statement would be "free speech absolutist are ruining ever…

[deleted]

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#99

Post by tharne »

ur-whale wrote: post #77
woolion wrote: post #30

We have reached a point where it has been a mainstream position to view the idea of defending free speech as disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. This statement is so weak that it is necessary to consider this climate to even understand how this can be published as a statement. After explicitly saying that illegal speech is not free speech, it lists 6 exceptions for things that are not free speech either, includin…

> We have reached a point where it has been a mainstream position to view the idea of defending free speech as disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. I disagree. There is a very vocal, very small minority that's ruining it for everyone else. Certainly not mainstream.

> There is a very vocal, very small minority that's ruining it for everyone else.

You're both right. Unfortunately, that very small minority is culturally dominant, so it is the case that:

1) >> We have reached a point where it has been a mainstream position to view the idea of defending free speech as disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. And;

2) > There is a very vocal, very small minority that's ruining it for everyone else.

In the same way a relatively small but well-organized group like the Taliban can control an entire country despite lacking enthusiastic support from the majority of the population, a small but well-organized subculture can dominate and dictate what is/is not acceptable in mainstream American culture.

For a better and more nuanced explanation, see "The Minority Rule" by Nassim Taleb. https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship...

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#100

Post by pessimizer »

sdoering wrote: post #6
onos wrote: post #3

Meanwhile, the University of California seems to have implemented a DEI litmus test on all applications for faculty positions and promotion. Does anyone know if this is actually true? Is this reasonable? https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/01/wokeademia.html?m...

Just as a side note. The link to this post was flagged after being submitted to HN yesterday within a very short time frame. You might want to consider your karma points and preemptively remove it and pay your dues to the community by apologizing for not adhering to group speak. I very much stand on the left side of the political spectrum, while the linked blogpost clearly comes from the liberal to right spectrum. Bu…

> You might want to consider your karma points

Karma points are worth less than skee-ball tickets.

Post reply on HN