Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020) • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by kelseyfrog » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:44 PM UTC

TimPC wrote: post #252

gonehome wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that when we abandon the general principle it immediately becomes a question of what speech is ok to ban and this can be weaponized by rivals. People always imagine themselves or people they agree with in the position of determining what gets banned, but they should imagine their political rival or enemy in that position. The free speech principle is about setting the bar such that everyone agrees on the…

Porn is speech according to the Supreme Court. The minute we ban child pornography we no longer support unlimited free speech. So pretending that’s the line we are still holding is a rhetorical device rather than a helpful contribution to the discussion on free speech. In practice nowhere in the world supports unlimited free speech and we all draw a line somewhere the question is where we draw the line.

Almost no one is a free speech absolutist. Instead everyone is arguing where the line should be drawn. The issue one group has is that the other thinks drawing a line over there isn't actually drawing a line at all.

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

#362

Post by ModernMech » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:45 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #352

slg wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I found the law that this (Canadian) article is referencing, and the words "gay" or "homosexual" don't even appear in the text. You could try search for other words or phrases like sexual orientation? You will find passages like this: >Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age approp…

Yes that's the paragraph I was referring to, and seems to be the only one that's relevant to what you're saying. No one knows what the state standards are? They're all listed right here on their website[1]. Do you think your hypothetical conversation qualifies as "classroom instruction"? I don't think so. [1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

You don’t think so, but you and (most importantly) the teachers don’t know for sure. So they are self-censoring to be safe. The uncertainty is what creates a chilling effect. All it takes is some disgruntled parent hearing their kid talking about their teacher’s homosexual spouse to trigger a lawsuit, upending lives and careers.

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

#363

Post by slg » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:47 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #352

slg wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I found the law that this (Canadian) article is referencing, and the words "gay" or "homosexual" don't even appear in the text. You could try search for other words or phrases like sexual orientation? You will find passages like this: >Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age approp…

Yes that's the paragraph I was referring to, and seems to be the only one that's relevant to what you're saying. No one knows what the state standards are? They're all listed right here on their website[1]. Do you think your hypothetical conversation qualifies as "classroom instruction"? I don't think so. [1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

>No one knows what the state standards are? They're all listed right here on their website[1].

Where are they listed on that website? I don't see them. Maybe the standards have been defined in the last few months, but they didn't exist at the time the bill was first proposed.

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

#364

Post by 29083011397778 » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:49 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #352

slg wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I found the law that this (Canadian) article is referencing, and the words "gay" or "homosexual" don't even appear in the text. You could try search for other words or phrases like sexual orientation? You will find passages like this: >Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age approp…

Yes that's the paragraph I was referring to, and seems to be the only one that's relevant to what you're saying. No one knows what the state standards are? They're all listed right here on their website[1]. Do you think your hypothetical conversation qualifies as "classroom instruction"? I don't think so. [1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

Do you think most kindergarden teachers have the money set aside to pay for time off (likely unpaid) and a lawyer to defend them in court from overzealous parents? And would you stake your career on that? Because that's the chilling effect that keeps getting brought up here. Will the lawsuit be thrown out? Maybe. Will you win? Probably. But finding out is a gamble that costs time, money, and stress, whether you win or lose.

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

#365

Post by wizofaus » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:49 PM UTC

chroma wrote: post #287

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…

Three problems with that: 1. Every time you restrict what people are allowed to say or write, you are in effect restricting what people are allowed to hear or read. I read and listen to many things I disagree with. Sometimes I even find the content abhorrent. But I don’t want the government saying what I can and can’t read. 2. Who decides? Any government body with such powers is ripe for abuse. And do you expect such…

>But I don’t want the government saying what I can and can’t read

So because you personally don't want something, you're arguing free speech should be completely unrestricted even if it's demonstrably causing harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre)? You're OK with the government restricting how you can physically interact with others (assault/battery etc.) but somehow you believe that the way you verbally interact with others can't conceivably lead to similar levels of harm/danger? Almost all countries do have government-determined restrictions on what you can say/broadcast in public and at least in liberal democracies with the right checks and balances there simply isn't the abuse of those powers that you seem to fear. As for the Bible, I would have little problem with restrictions on how parts of it should be publishable today, and I'm reasonably convinced many passages in it have caused tremendous amounts of harm. However there is a decent argument for treating material written in a very different day and age as a special case - I think it's important that we have a good understanding of historical cultural norms, warts and all. If Bible study were about truly understanding what parts of it reflect attitudes that have now been consigned to history that would only be a good thing, but that doesn't mean I think it's justifiable to be able to preach from any part of it to an uncritical audience.

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

#366

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:49 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #274

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the “if you don’t like it, go build your own multi-billion dollar monopoly internet service” argument. And then it’s just one more step to call for public-private partnerships in combatting “misinformation.”

It's literally trivial to have your own twitter/facebook/youtube analog. You can in turn spread information about its existence through exciting means like email. You aren't entitled to an audience of hundreds of millions and indeed have never in the history of free speech been entitled to such.

[deleted]

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

#367

Post by throwawayacc2 » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:51 PM UTC

marcopolo3333 wrote: post #65

illuminerdy wrote: post #29

I can see how their conclusions play out in real life. One of the common threads I've noticed across many people when trying to explain why defending freedom of speech, and the free and open exchange of ideas in general, is that they're not just defending some "right-wing" person's rights, they're actually defending their own rights. Because the same tactics and rationales that are being used to suppress and silence…

A common thread I see is a lot is people conflating freedom of speech and having a platform (more specifically an online one). Forcing private entities to host speech they don't want to goes against what I define as freedom of speech. Everyone should be entitled to speak and have their own ideas, no individual or company should be force to spread them.

It's not about conflating freedom of speech and having a platform. It's about discrimination by businesses. We have laws in place preventing businesses from discriminating. A shop cannot say "we don't allow black people here" and hide under the excuse of "oh but there's plenty of other shops you can go to". A platform should not be able to saw "we don't allow X people here" and hide under the excuse of "oh but there's plenty of other platforms you can go to".

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

#368

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:53 PM UTC

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.

> "Could someone explain to me why the mass downvoting of the above comment is not hypocritical?"

If the poster is saying that "no one should tolerate any person who is intolerant", by definition, that includes themselves. The poster has waived their own right to tolerance from the POV of literally any group who views said poster as "intolerant" according to the very principle they are advocating. It is a practical demonstration of the glaring flaw with that tiresome Popper misqoute; it can be wielded from any POV, no matter how ridiculous.

So there is no hypocrisy; they have asked for something and it was given to them. Hopefully the lesson sinks in and we hear no more misapplications of the paradox of tolerance.

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

#369

Post by pedrosorio » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:54 PM UTC

wincy wrote: post #282

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The news media are decidedly less pro-free speech than before. They could afford to promote free speech back when they had a monopoly on people's attention when it came to news. Now that Google can direct you to any number of independent sources, the news media feels threatened and wants to censor unapproved views so they can maintain the Overton Window. Noam Chomsky: "The smart way to keep people passive and obedien…

My wife is part of a focus group for public radio and she’s an avowed anarcho capitalist. She says things like “I suspect in 50 years the US will either not exist or be a much looser organization where the states rule” and the focus group woman says “that’s not going to happen!”, dismisses her out of hand, and refuses to write it down then moves on to the next person. I think at a certain point the Midwest will have…

> I think at a certain point the Midwest will have had enough of the stuff going on on the East and West coasts

Why should the Midwest care about what goes on on the East and West coasts?

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

#370

Post by chroma » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:55 PM UTC

rnk wrote: post #330

chroma wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three problems with that: 1. Every time you restrict what people are allowed to say or write, you are in effect restricting what people are allowed to hear or read. I read and listen to many things I disagree with. Sometimes I even find the content abhorrent. But I don’t want the government saying what I can and can’t read. 2. Who decides? Any government body with such powers is ripe for abuse. And do you expect such…

If someone is advocating for people to kill you, if they are saying swat them, say they are at this location send attackers over there - in the hope they get hurt... That's just not acceptable. That's what's been happening with that group that cloudflare blocked. Cloudflare said they felt incredibly conflicted, they understood the danger. Is there any advocation of violence that you think should be blocked? F that gu…

That's not what was on kiwifarms. I've read that odious forum for years and their whole shtick is, "Look but don't touch." They do gather identifying information, and they do archive what people have said and done, but the moderators heavily discourage users from interacting with any of the "lolcows". Doing so is one of the few things that will get you banned from the forum. If you want to attack a site that does encourage physically threatening people, then you'll want to go after places like doxbin. That said, I disagree with Cloudflare's decision (especially since they still provide services for godhatesfags.com and host copies of ISIS's English propaganda magazine), but I don't think there should be a law forcing them to provide services to kiwifarms.

But to get at your point about legality: the definition of a true threat is quite narrow. In Watts v United States[1], a draft protestor said, "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." The Supreme Court deemed that threat to be legal under the first amendment. Posting someone's address (which is already public info in most tax records) is usually unethical and immoral, but it's not a crime and I'm fine with that. There are many immoral acts which are not criminal, such as cheating on one's spouse or lying about serving in the military. We can use other methods to discourage such behavior (such as shunning). Passing a law against something means that men with guns will come to people's homes and put them in cages. That's one hell of an escalation, and I'm not willing to endorse that unless the perpetrator is extremely dangerous.

1. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/707/watts-v-uni...