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

391–400 of 506 posts

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

#391

Post by bandyaboot »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #368
bandyaboot wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Here’s an analogy. Group A says “violence is never ok”. Person B says “No, it’s ok to beat the shit out of someone if they say something you disagree with”.

Group A proceeds to beat the shit out of Person B

Two things are true. Person B has nothing to complain about. Nothing happened to them that they didn’t say is acceptable. Also, Group A doesn’t believe the thing they said they believe.

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

#392

Post by bcrosby95 »

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....

It's not that simple.

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

#393

Post by eastbound »

remarkEon wrote: post #205
slg wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People on HN and in this thread in particular have such a one sided view of this issue. For some reason people here only think the left is attacking free speech when the truth is that free speech is under attack from both the left and right. One of those two has been much more effective translating these attacks into laws which I would expect to be the most concerning for proponents of free speech and yet it is alway…

Which laws have passed that restrict speech?

Title IX

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

#394

Post by whimsicalism »

ratsmack wrote: post #194
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.

Any collage or institution receiving government funding must not censor speech in any form, as they are government institutions via proxy. Also, in my opinion, all publicly traded companies should not be allowed to censor speech as they are essentially "owned" by share holders, not the management team.

Censoring is a management decision. Your point about public companies makes no sense.

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

#395

Post by wincy »

pedrosorio wrote: post #369
wincy wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because federal laws and especially Department of Education mandates affect us.

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

#396

Post by throwawayacc2 »

wpietri wrote: post #372
throwawayacc2 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I am sure I meant to reply to you.

Well I still don't see the relevance. Unless your point is that to you I'm a fanatic and various books by academics and respected writers are the same thing as ancient religious. So either way I don't see much point in further discussion. Enjoy your day.

Yes. That was my point. There is no functional difference between you telling me “go read this and that” and a preacher saying “go read the scriptures”.

The scriptures you told me to go read are irrelevant to my broader point. I am sure you believe them to be true and they very well might be. But that’s not the issue.

The issue is, I believe people should be able to exist in society and take part in it regardless of what scriptures they believe in. You do not appear to share this belief. You believe people who do not share your scriptural preferences should be shunned from society. And your response to me pointing that out was to quote scripture at me.

Yes wpietri, you are a religious fanatic.

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

#397

Post by ModernMech »

glerk wrote: post #346
ModernMech wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some speech I’d like you as a private citizen to platform for me. If you are disinclined to do so, are you censoring me?

Sure, but the impact is negligible because I’m just some guy on the internet, not a platform with billions of users and almost monopolistic control on information sharing colluding with all the other similar platforms to censor certain kinds of speech and amplify others. I don’t know what the best solution is for dealing with these platforms, and I understand it is a complicated issue, but saying “it’s not censorship…

The government/private line is useful because it's a very bright, clearly defined line, and also ideologically consistent. It seems to me that saying that to protect free speech, some private entities must be forced to carry speech is a contradiction that actually degrades free speech, rather than protects it. It also moves the question to "Which private individuals must be forced to carry speech?"

You've made an argument that you're too small and insignificant, but that seems to be a matter of opinion to me. How small is too small? Consider a forum for you and your friends. How many friends are allowed on your forum before you are forced to carry any and all content that others wish to post there, and who makes that decision? Will you be forced to let Nazis on your forum? Ads? Porn? Will you be able to moderate anything at all?

Keeping the line at government/private protects Twitter, but it also protects you.

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

#398

Post by gonehome »

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.

CSAM is an extremely narrowly carved out exception by the Supreme Court (for good reasons imo) and there were arguments about even that at the time.

There are also some other restrictions too (mostly around targeted harassment of individuals). Few things rise to this level imo.

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

#399

Post by ellen364 »

peyton wrote: post #248
ellen364 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My understanding is the founding fathers believed in a combination of “natural” and “positive” rights. In that context, “positive” rights were things the government had to provide, like a jury trial. “Natural” rights were things you could do without a government, like speaking and writing, but that could still be limited by law. As an example, the 1798 Sedition Act restricted criticism of the government. That was just 7 years after the ratification of the First Amendment.

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

#400

Post by [deleted] »

whimsicalism wrote: post #97
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…

In terms of actual exposure to ideas from others, I think free speech today has probably never been greater. That is what is causing the backlash.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN