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

Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

journals.sagepub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 506 posts

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#241

Post by [deleted] »

jimbob45 wrote: post #178
gruez wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud? That sounds like the logic behind "free speech zones". Yeah, we're not blocking protests, or arresting legal protesters. You just have to protest in a designated area 5 miles away where it won't disrupt everyone.

There has to be some reason behind protesting or we end up wasting resources arresting everyone and trying to fight over who gets to protest in prime space at prime time. It’s better for everyone if we’re civilized about it.

[deleted]

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#242

Post by sejje »

TuringNYC wrote: post #83
Dig1t wrote: post #55

I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…

>>> Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free speech is a bad idea? Or is has it always been like that? I grew up in the USA in this era also. Except half of society knew free speech only for the other half. Look at movies, leadership, or school curriculums and you notice how limited free speech actually was. The only ones with freedom of speech were narrow slivers of socie…

I don't like it.

I mean, I like the principle of it. I'm glad everyone gets to say what they want. I don't think we should change that.

What I think is stupid is when we have someone with a literal Forrest Gump IQ debating facts with experts on the internet.

I'm not sure how big of an effect it has on the world, but I'm sure of a couple of things: it makes the internet suck a lot worse for me (and probably anyone who is here for discussions/chats/forums), and we definitely don't want those people leading/creating our policy.

Still, don't want to take away their voice.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#243

Post by bandyaboot »

dev-3892 wrote: post #192
MichaelCollins wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? The way it works is: "Sure I support free speech, but saying X is not free speech and saying it should be against the law because its offensive and might incite violence or something." If you object, they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance.

that's interesting, 'saying X should be against the law' is precisely not what I'm hearing. instead I'm hearing 'there shouldn't be a law that requires a private entity to broadcast X' and 'you really shouldn't say X, and I would strongly suggest that you do not say X' and 'if you say X, there may not be legal consequences, but legal consequences are not the only kind of consequences' so i don't agree that 'the way i…

Oops, it appears your comment has been marked as wrong speech by the hn free speech society.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#244

Post by LudwigNagasena »

ethanbond wrote: post #181
glerk wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m so tired of this argument. Who cares if it’s the government, private business, or other citizens who do the censorship? The result is the same: censorship. Next you’re gonna tell me to go build my own university/social media platform/payment processor/ISP/etc. if I don’t like it.

Who cares who does it? Well, ermmm, the entire legal construct of free speech cares? The government requiring Person A to platform Person B’s speech is a violation of person A’s rights.

Who cares about the legal construct you talk about? Legal constructs are not something absolute and apriori.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#245

Post by BlargMcLarg »

bandyaboot wrote: post #229
cies wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance. Yup, that's me. What's wrong with that according to you? If your expression is promoting violence, especially violence against a vulnerable group (children, minorities, I'd say even animals), I'm okay with drawing up laws against such things. Thereby reducing freedom of expression. Advertising for instance. If every building/land owner or municipality could…

Could someone explain to me why the mass downvoting of the above comment is not hypocritical? I believe it is, but would be interested in hearing opposing thoughts.

Because Hackernews is read by humans, humans are still emotional herd animals, and the guidelines to downvoting are guidelines, not rules which can get you banned for downvoting what you disagree with.

Voting has very little to do with anything in these discussions, and it has been that way for years now.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#246

Post by wincy »

glerk wrote: post #164
citizenkeen wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is perfectly in line with freedom of speech. Is the government showing up and arresting the speakers? No? Then freedom of speech is intact.

I’m so tired of this argument. Who cares if it’s the government, private business, or other citizens who do the censorship? The result is the same: censorship. Next you’re gonna tell me to go build my own university/social media platform/payment processor/ISP/etc. if I don’t like it.

Especially considering recently it was brought to light that during discovery when Alex Berenson sued Twitter it was revealed that Twitter was pressured by the White House to deplatform him.

This becomes de facto censorship hidden within the corporate works and was only brought to light because he complained enough and was granted discovery by a judge. IANAL Being advised to censor someone by the government vs the government doing it directly is legally a distinction without a difference.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#247

Post by jpeloquin »

Dig1t wrote: post #55

I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…

It seems like people in the US still agree that free speech is a good thing. 91% of Americans say that free speech is very or extremely important to them, and the rest say it's moderately important or just skipped the question (like below). No significant fraction of the respondents were against free speech.

When split by subgroups, a common theme is that each group believes _other_ people have an easier time exercising free speech. So maybe there's more perception of a change than a real change.

https://knightfoundation.org/reports/free-expression-in-amer...

Edit: Reading more, I guess there is some change in attitude, using respondent age as a proxy for time. Teens prefer feeling safe online over being able to speak their minds online, moreso than adults. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/08/30/more-so-tha...

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#248

Post by peyton »

ellen364 wrote: post #226
Dig1t wrote: post #55

I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…

Two theories of change: (1) An increasing number of Americans see free speech as a positive rather than negative right. In other words, “Facebook must host whatever I want to say”, not just “The government can’t arrest me for insulting the president.” That’s a controversial expansion of the right to free speech, creating a lot of debate and disagreement. (2) The internet means Americans are more exposed to non-Americ…

That is not an expansion. Founders understood freedom of speech to be a “natural” right, not a “positive” or “negative” right.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#249

Post by dmitrygr »

ethanbond wrote: post #181
glerk wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m so tired of this argument. Who cares if it’s the government, private business, or other citizens who do the censorship? The result is the same: censorship. Next you’re gonna tell me to go build my own university/social media platform/payment processor/ISP/etc. if I don’t like it.

Who cares who does it? Well, ermmm, the entire legal construct of free speech cares? The government requiring Person A to platform Person B’s speech is a violation of person A’s rights.

How about requiring person A to bake a cake for person B?

(Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission)

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#250

Post by abathur »

sejje wrote: post #224
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 2022, most speech happens on the internet, anybody can use the internet to communicate. social media companies are not the internet.

Domain registrars and webhosts are canceling accounts based on content, so no, not anyone can use the internet to communicate.

There's a substitution, here.

The GP's statement is still roughly correct: approximately anyone can use the internet to communicate.

Everyone using other people's infrastructure to communicate on the internet is to some degree subject to content restrictions.

Post reply on HN