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

Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

thenewhumanitarian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 299 posts

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#181

Post by lucideer »

dqpb wrote: post #20

I’ve been very surprised at how quickly the American left has turned its back on free speech. I guess that’s why they’ve stopped calling themselves “liberal”, instead calling themselves “progressive”. Much like how the American right has stopped calling the US a democracy, instead calling it a republic. Or how Google changed their motto from the specific “don’t be evil”, to the ambiguous “do the right thing”. After a…

> Edit: as I rack up downvotes...

Just for clarity, these are likely because you didn't read the article. Your comment does not relate to the article content in any way - it seems to be based on an interpretation of the title.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#182

Post by AnimalMuppet »

leaflets2 wrote: post #129
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, if you read the context, that's exactly where Popper drew the line. When a side replies with fists or guns, then you quit being tolerant. Not before. (I'm not sure that he mentioned direct calls for violence one way or the other, so I won't dogmatically claim he put that on either side of the line. But he did not accept ideas - any ideas - as "intolerant".)

> where Popper drew the line. When a side replies with fists or guns No, here's his line: > we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal That's before fists and guns, at an earlier stage. It's before the nazis invaded Poland, not after. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance , the Discussion section) Apparently he knew that after, can be too late

Longer quote:

> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

OK. So he's clearly including advocating for violence as across the line.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#183

Post by SiempreViernes »

thfuran wrote: post #169
greenthrow wrote: post #159

This is not talking about bogus "my freedoms" claims of people being kicked off Twitter, it's talking about actual loss of freedom of expression, where the government imprisons people for saying the wrong things. In the US we have loss sight of what real freedom of expression means.

Getting kicked off social media is essentially having your ability to engage in public discourse removed, or at least severely restricted.

No post body was provided.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#184

Post by immibis »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #153
vkou wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Popper was so daft as to believe that only Soviets and Nazis are capable of the kind of intolerance that should not be tolerated. I'd daresay that democracies happily carrying out repressions, summary executions, lynchings, concentration camps, institutionalized slavery, etc, etc would meet that bar as well. You don't need to drape a swastika around you to be a fascist, you can get by just as well with…

The point is that he wasn't talking about people saying dumb shit on twitter. He's talking about people using intolerance to justify physical violence against people.

When the dumb shit on twitter is justifying physical violence, does it count?

Even *that* line is blurry. If you forbid people from directly inciting violence, they'll jump to "Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?" and then someone will, in fact, rid them of the meddlesome priest. Did they incite it? Who can say?

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#185

Post by immibis »

armchairhacker wrote: post #116
colechristensen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a kind of "have an open mind but not so much that your brain falls out" situation. Too many people think their brain is going to fall out of even the slightest deviation from their moral code is tolerated these days.

This is roughly what I’m thinking. We can be intolerant of things which are “obviously” wrong, like hate and other intolerance. We shouldn’t be intolerant of the gray area, where something is controversial but still justified. The fundamental truth is that you are intolerant, because speech leads to action. People like to think of themselves as tolerant and not sensitive, and maybe some people are tolerant to speech…

> We can be intolerant of things which are “obviously” wrong, like hate and other intolerance. We shouldn’t be intolerant of the gray area, where something is controversial but still justified.

It doesn't work. Whenever someone wants to say an opinion in the black area, they'll say the closest thing on the boundary of the grey area, instead. Their followers, who do the same thing themselves, understand this as if it was the original opinion in the black area (or something close to it).

A current topical example: " should be allowed to sell lists of spies to enemy states" is in the black area, but " shouldn't have their home searched for purely political reasons" is in the grey area.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#186

Post by _notathrowaway »

at_a_remove wrote: post #42

I find the whole thing perversely enjoyable. If you want to test someone, allow them to succeed. Give them power. When I was young, the left was the underdog, and they sure sounded like a nice bunch of people ... kindness, forgiving, can't we all get along? Free speech, our country was founded on it! The wheel turns and now they are in power. Suddenly it is cancel, no contact, punch Nazis, hang the traitors, and so o…

I don't find it enjoyable at al, but I would say it is ironic that back then it was liberals preaching for free speech and conservatives wanting to censor all things (television, video-games, porn, etc). Power seems to quickly change one's ideals.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#187

Post by antimatter »

hef19898 wrote: post #122
colechristensen wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest threat to free speech around the world is the failure to lead by example of the western world, particularly by America. It doesn't matter that we're a few notches better than somewhere else, they see us doing the same things by popular demand so doing a bit more themselves is easy to justify. We're losing the high ground and the argument that nobody else should do the same things we're doing.

It's more like the world waking up to the fact tgat the US, and the West in general, never had the high ground to begin with.

Hmm. I wonder why they are still risking their lives to attempt to get to the west if it's such a morally bankrupt hell hole.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#189

Post by ben_w »

witherk wrote: post #130
faxmeyourcode wrote: post #94

Seeing the UK score an 82 on the freedom scale, whatever that means, next to the United States' score of 84, is enough to discredit whatever wacky measure they've created for "freedom" in this article. https://www.theregister.com/2016/06/02/social_media_arrests_...

Wait what? I have seen multiple stories of the police showing up to people's house and fining them for tweets in the UK? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-60260292 Also it is my understanding that it is much easier to sue someone for libel in the UK. I would think that the UK score should actually be lower.

IMO the standard is (1) when/why this can happen, and (2) how often it actually does so. (Though the linked story it wasn’t the police issuing the fine, which is an important distinction).

While I think of free speech as a continuum rather than a Boolean, I accept that it is coherent to take the position that anything, including calls for attacks against yourself named personally, are covered by free speech. I believe Twitter used to take that position: https://twitter.com/wef/status/710616930252677120

I don’t know what the tweet in the linked story actually wrote; he pleaded guilty to “pleaded guilty to sending an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing message”, but as I’m not a lawyer and even if I looked up the law I’d misunderstand it somehow, and as a non-lawyer will see the word “offensive” in that list and easily believe it could include something as simple as swearing, I can sympathise with the belief that the law is wrong.

However, I suspect the problem with his tweet was not really simply swearing.

> Also it is my understanding that it is much easier to sue someone for libel in the UK.

Yes on paper, but if you ask a lawyer they’ll explain the Streisand effect.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#190

Post by akvadrako »

thfuran wrote: post #166
azekai wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US also has a higher bar for what constitutes slander/libel than the UK, which can also have a chilling effect on speech.

How would a higher bar for defamation have a chilling effect on speech?

The opposite - the UK has the chilling effect.
Post reply on HN