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

Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

frenchpress.thedispatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 366 posts

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#311

Post by sleepingadmin »

kashunstva wrote: post #291
sleepingadmin wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But, again, in practice, the people in power do not allow free speech. And this is fundamentally different from most examples of cancel culture. Here in Canada we actually removed freedom of speech. Hate speech laws are tremendously vague and are really not used to prevent anything bad. Sure the Westboro baptists have their 'god hates canada' stuff but realistically speaking it's never used to prevent anyone who is…

> Here in Canada we actually removed freedom of speech. Canadian here. Whether one sympathizes with the truckers or not, or has a more nuanced opinion, claiming that free speech was removed (implying some official stance) is hyperbolic. I will concede that the Charter is more vague than I'd like on where the boundaries of free expression lie. As for GoFundMe, wasn't their decision - whether you agree with it or not -…

>Canadian here. Whether one sympathizes with the truckers or not, or has a more nuanced opinion,

Sure, lets put the trucker sideline aside for discussion.

>claiming that free speech was removed (implying some official stance) is hyperbolic. I will concede that the Charter is more vague than I'd like on where the boundaries of free expression lie.

The gymnastics of your following sentence proves my point.

Lets look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

There are exceptions to free speech. Defamation/Libel, incitement to suicide, false advertising. I find all these exceptions to be reasonable or exceptions to speech. False advertising or fraud in general isn't the speech but rather something beyond the speech. Even obscenity in which porn or even death videos are not obscene. The obscenity exception is very tight.

So there can be legitimate exceptions.

In fact, in our law we criminalized 'advocating for genocide' which I suspect both of us agree can stay. Mind you, it has literally never been used. Literally only attempt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugesera_v_Canada_(Minister_of... but wasn't even proper. Though perhaps we can agree deporting him was a good idea?

The very next rule is the problem. "wilfully promoting hatred'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Andrews

Supreme court ruled that it did violate freedom of speech but section 1 they made the exception against this scumbag. This is what we call 'best of intentions' and its good to stop that dude but what did it open?

When Charlie Hebdo shooting happened in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo#2015_attack

There was a reaction, especially on reddit, to stand up together against these terrorists. You will find however, NOBODY in Canada stood up. The few who did ended up in front of hate crime tribunals for promotion of hatred. Of which lets be realistic, this armchair not-lawyer... they were guilty. The problem was that hate crime tribunals know the line they walk. They dismissed virtually all these guilty cases because they knew when they go over the line they lose this tool. There was a unique feature of these hate crime tribunal cases. Every single group attacked were Conservatives.

What happened there? Standing in solidarity with victims of terrorists was indeed promoting hatred of islam. It was discovered in 2015 that you can use the hate crime tribunals to silence political opponents. Suddenly the Conservatives were all racists.

How about Comedians who make dark jokes? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55959133

Sorry, but Mike Ward isn't some white supremacist or something. These laws aren't about making people good people. This isn't about making people less mean jerks.

Free speech is officially dead until this is fixed.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#312

Post by sleepingadmin »

darebak wrote: post #295
kashunstva wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here in Canada we actually removed freedom of speech. Canadian here. Whether one sympathizes with the truckers or not, or has a more nuanced opinion, claiming that free speech was removed (implying some official stance) is hyperbolic. I will concede that the Charter is more vague than I'd like on where the boundaries of free expression lie. As for GoFundMe, wasn't their decision - whether you agree with it or not -…

I don't understand, didn't GoFundMe take money but refused a service that was paid for? If they decided to ban that particular campaign, they should return money to the donors not donate it to some other cause, no? I am not super knowledgeable about the situation, apologies if I misrepresented something.

They have since decided to auto-refund.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#313

Post by devmor »

vehemenz wrote: post #102
devmor wrote: post #76

"Cultural Health" is a meaningless term. Replace it with "what I think is good" and you have the author's true meaning. This isn't a "think piece" - it's a paid political opinion piece complaining that current events will not produce the outcome the author desires. Why is this on HN at all?

If I understood what he meant, and you didn't, what accounts for our difference in understanding? The "author" is David French—not exactly an obscure figure.

You "understood" what he meant because what he meant is a vague term meant to be taken differently depending on who reads it.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#314

Post by vorpalhex »

tomlockwood wrote: post #195
vorpalhex wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government has a pretty bad history of free speech. My preference would be many small communities that have different support models. Let some communities be ad driven, others pay to subscribe, others yet donation based. These all have pros and cons. The mistake is thinking there is a single solution.

Not sure that's true. Isn't it the first amendment? Private corporations have radically more control over what its members say and repeat, than the government does. Might be that other governments are different, depending.

The government has been on the losing side of a lot of free speech cases. Just because the first amendment exists doesn't mean the government respects it. Also the government is not a singular entity but many small ones.

See Cohen v California for a good example of this.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#315

Post by TulliusCicero »

Clubber wrote: post #287
TulliusCicero wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Banning spam is a strawman in this discussion. I don't think there is constructive discussion on that basis. It's not a strawman, as many people assert that platforms should just let anything not-illegal stay up. You may not believe this, but there are others who I've seen assert it. > Facebook and Twitter ban for political reasons, which is entirely different than banning spam. It's not the same, but the issue is…

>to bad blatant misinformation This is also dangerous. Imagine what the government of Mississippi or Indiana during the Jim Crow era would label as blatant misinformation. Also, in a recent court case, Facebook admitted their fact checking was opinion and therefore protected from defamation. So to put those together, Facebook is censoring because of their opinion disagrees with the opinion of the censored. https://ny…

> Imagine what the government of Mississippi or Indiana during the Jim Crow era would label as blatant misinformation.

But we're not talking about the government, we're talking about private platforms. Others are allowed to spread misinfo if they so choose.

> Also, in a recent court case, Facebook admitted their fact checking was opinion and therefore protected from defamation. So to put those together, Facebook is censoring because of their opinion disagrees with the opinion of the censored.

Fact checking is an attempt at objectivity that is nevertheless partially subjective, but that doesn't mean it's not better than doing nothing. You wouldn't improve the New York Times or Wall Street Journal by dragging them down to the level of the National Enquirer.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#316

Post by kbelder »

scotty79 wrote: post #249
belorn wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Rwanda civil war was partially the outcome of colonialism by Germany and later Belgian administration, creating a class society where the rich minority group of Tutsi ruled supreme over the more poor Hutu. Belgium introduced identity cards classifying each individual as Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised. Pretty obviously, such state of affairs wasn't stable. After world war 2 there were several riots and violence,…

In open, freely expressed incitment to genocide that led to it and extended its scale. Free speech apart from its all wonderfull qualities is an excelent tool for demagogues. They all are pro free speech of things they like.

>They all are pro free speech of things they like

So they're not for free speech.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#317

Post by TulliusCicero »

raxxorrax wrote: post #230
abirch wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just out of curiosity what are the political posts that have caused people to be banned? I see Jo Jorgensen, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Mark Rubio, Mitch McConnell, etc. I've never seen anyone banned for saying to end the Fed. To cut taxes. To have family values.

I don't really know anything about the people you mentioned, I am not from the US. I know Sanders and Cruz but not about any instances of censorship. Who do you think is the target of deplatforming which the current US government promotes? There are also articles about how deplatforming allegedly works, so it has to target some people I guess.

> I don't really know anything about the people you mentioned, I am not from the US.

In the US, I have not seen Facebook banning people for explicitly political reasons, and IIRC studies have not found any obvious partisan bias there.

There are reasons for banning that overlap with politics, certainly, like promoting conspiracy theories, as those tend to be more common on the far left or far right.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#318

Post by issa »

pyuser583 wrote: post #175
issa wrote: post #139

I have a foreign wife and it really drives home one truth: America is a very nuanced place. We have this idea of almost unlimited free speech. Which sounds great, but in practice, it is not really true. Because ultimately, Americans do not have equal rights. We see this over and over in different aspects of society. The Frederick Douglas example from Boston in the article is a great example of why free speech is good…

I’m a bit confused. Is your wife from a more less equal/free place than America?

My wife is from Germany. My point isn't really about how "free" Germany is compared to the US (that is an entirely different debate). It is about America and how nuanced things are. It's very difficult to explain a different country's history and sense of self and how that influences daily life.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#319

Post by bruce511 »

roenxi wrote: post #217
bruce511 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So yes, clearly there is a carriculim, and someone has to set that, and there will be a flavor to that carriculim based on the social environment. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't have a problem with teachers bringing their own personality to the classroom. I am not vegan, but if my kid has a vegan teacher that would be valuable in exposing them to that world-view. I do object to political interference i…

You may struggle to reconcile this with the idea of public schooling and keep your position coherent. Particularly compulsory public schooling. It is hard for the government to control the school system and also for the government not to exercise any control over the school system. I think you might be advocating voluntary, private-only schooling here - although I also think you might disagree with that opinion.

I wouldn't say I'm advocating for private school,or even lack of govt in school matters.

I guess my primary point surrounds censorship, especially when it comes to dictating what teachers can say or teach (in addition to, in the context of, not necessarily in place of the cariculum)

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#320

Post by clairity »

janto wrote: post #223
keithnz wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

liberty and free speech tends to overly concern Americans when they have more pressing and bigger problems. The big mistake with the title is "way back to cultural health", stop looking backwards. If you do want to look back to the idea that founded your republic, look back and see a whole bunch of people trying to look forward. Do that. Fix your system of government, a two party system is bad for you, you've become…

Without their First Amendment rights, it is unlikely that Americans would even figure out if many parties might be a good idea. They'd also be unable to bring those into existence without it: freedom of expression, assembly, and the right to petition are the primary mechanism towards presenting a better future to others. Americans should be super concerned about attempts at eroding dialog between its citizens. The go…

why have parties at all? think about who the party serves and to what ends. is it for the people? no. it's for the politically ambitious to more easily coalesce power. parties are an indirection the populace doesn't need. it's something that makes campaigning easier and more centralized. centralization of power, whether in companies or in governments, is never for the betterment of the population, despite all the contrary rhetoric.
Post reply on HN