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

101–110 of 194 posts

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

#101

Post by xhkkffbf »

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.

Yes, that's my experience. Everyone in my circles is perfectly happy with the idea that everyone entitled to have opinions and express them politely. It's only a radical few that are pushing the cancel culture hard.

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

#102

Post by pessimizer »

hw-guy wrote: post #73
verisimi wrote: post #19

Quoted post unavailable.

So what if they do? Nobody is forced to attend. They can always invite speakers to give opposing views.

Or they could have respect for themselves as an institution. That's like making yourself listen to terrible music, but listening to good music for an equal amount of time to cancel it out, or mixing cyanide and vitamin D.

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

#103

Post by ghaff »

pessimizer wrote: post #94
thematrixturtle wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A fair number of people also had significant issues with RMS behavior going back a long time. So when he indelicately stuck himself into the radioactive Epstein situation it was just the last straw for many.

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

#104

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

#105

Post by brigandish »

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.

I'm going to assume that you've read the meme cartoon that goes around instead of actually reading Popper's actual words because that is not what Popper suggested at all.

It's only a couple of pages long, it's even free to read on archive.org.

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

#106

Post by hw-guy »

pessimizer wrote: post #102
hw-guy wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what if they do? Nobody is forced to attend. They can always invite speakers to give opposing views.

Or they could have respect for themselves as an institution. That's like making yourself listen to terrible music, but listening to good music for an equal amount of time to cancel it out, or mixing cyanide and vitamin D.

A much better analogy would be a record store that stocks good music and terrrible music, and allows the customers to make their own choices. Nobody is made to listen to terrible music.

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

#107

Post by commandlinefan »

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.

Well, it seems that the very vocal, very small minority are the gatekeepers to what can be widely disseminated enough to become mainstream.

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

#108

Post by toyg »

animal_spirits wrote: post #72
thematrixturtle wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universities in California are going in precisely the other direction by mandating ideological purity tests aka "diversity statements" for staff. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2019/11/24/uc-davis-math-prof...

> Now clearly “diversity” here means “ethnic diversity”, but I don’t think they say that explicitly. But those applicants who propose to increase political viewpoint diversity by, say, trying to promote conservative values and accept more conservative students, are simply not going to be hired! I never thought about that before but that is an interesting point. It is not truly diversive if you can't include certain p…

It's the good old paradox of open societies: can they actually tolerate the intolerant, or letting them operate will bring about their end?

Open societies are constantly walking a fine line in practice.

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

#109

Post by ComradePhil »

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…

The whole idea of "free speech" is misleading and should be abolished. There is no such thing in practice. No government wants information that is damaging, whether the information is true or not, to be leaked out to the enemy, external or internal. Same applies to every organization. They will create whatever structures/laws to make sure that they limit this. They should be expected to.

There may be some value in telling people that they have free speech so as to identify people's intent and take them out if they speak against the establishment... but then the really smart ones (who are the actual threats to the establishment in question) will also most likely figure it out.

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

#110

Post by throwaway8174 »

da_chicken wrote: post #44
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…

At least in the US, there have always been two places where freedom of expression is taken to its most extreme: libraries and universities. Libraries tend to take the view that even bad and hateful ideas are worth preserving simply to record how bad they are. The idea should live on in its horrific badness, an example to all of the idiocy of humanity. In my experience, you'll never meet anyone as dedicated to privacy…

I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but this is completely wrong and comically naïve. It is not representative of academic libraries at elite US universities. I work at an academic library at an Ivy League school, and am familiar enough with our peer institutions to provide some context. What you describe is a very rosy and idealistic view of libraries and especially librarians.

The truth is, academic libraries are extremely politicized institutions which censor information they view as ideologically inappropriate ALL THE TIME, both explicitly by culling books and implicitly through social coercion and other political maneuvers (setting up ideologically slanted committees which must approve new book purchases, etc). The examples are endless.

The idea that librarians are dedicated to “privacy” and “openness” — I’m still not sure what that means tbh — is absurd. Some are, but the vast majority of PL’s are highly ideological and rigid in their thinking, will absolutely not tolerate certain views on certain subjects (fairly mainstream views, btw), and depending on the political context, have varying commitments to anything resembling privacy or openness.

I’m happy to answer any questions or provide more detailed examples if anyone is interested. And this is specific to the Ivy League + schools in its orbit (Williams, Amherst Swarthmore, etc.)

Post reply on HN