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

The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

thefire.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 428 posts

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#281

Post by jevgeni »

luckylion wrote: post #255
jevgeni wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just FYI, hate speech being free speech is an American thing. Other democracies in the world have frameworks for limiting/prioritizing basic rights, right to free speech included (take, for example, German moderation laws) and have not become a totalitarian dystopias yet. One opinion I've heard in Germany is that the free speech absolutism and value neutrality of the constitution of the Weimar Republic allowed NSDAP…

Germany has freedom of opinion, not freedom of speech. While they're generally understood (in Germany) to be the close to the same, they're not understood the same outside of Germany. You're allowed to think whatever you want, but you're not allowed to publicly say it, unless it's within the bounds of legal opinion (which are pretty wide, it's not like you're only allowed to state one opinion, but they are also clear…

Thank you for the insights. I'll only disagree with the last statement. Weimarer constitution was value-neutral as opposed to Grundgesetz today - meaning an NSDAP leadership or NSDAP as a party was legally compatible with the the constitution back then. Contrast that with Art. 1 Grundgesetz today - "Human dignity is inviolable. It is the task and duty of the state to protect it" - that specifically was introduced to prevent any inhuman ideology from taking hold.

So in legal practice the right to human dignity overrides the right to free-speech.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#282

Post by jevgeni »

arwhatever wrote: post #233
jevgeni wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just FYI, hate speech being free speech is an American thing. Other democracies in the world have frameworks for limiting/prioritizing basic rights, right to free speech included (take, for example, German moderation laws) and have not become a totalitarian dystopias yet. One opinion I've heard in Germany is that the free speech absolutism and value neutrality of the constitution of the Weimar Republic allowed NSDAP…

Article asserts that censorship attempts by the Weimar Republic against the Nazi party empowered the Nazis, and gives examples. But I am not a historian and cannot reconcile the articles content with what you’re stating here. https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/wo...

Didn't know that, thank you. I was speaking from the perspective of constitutional law as I know it.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#283

Post by jevgeni »

rhaksw wrote: post #241
jevgeni wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just FYI, hate speech being free speech is an American thing. Other democracies in the world have frameworks for limiting/prioritizing basic rights, right to free speech included (take, for example, German moderation laws) and have not become a totalitarian dystopias yet. One opinion I've heard in Germany is that the free speech absolutism and value neutrality of the constitution of the Weimar Republic allowed NSDAP…

> Just FYI, hate speech being free speech is an American thing. Other democracies in the world have frameworks for limiting/prioritizing basic rights, right to free speech included (take, for example, German moderation laws) and have not become a totalitarian dystopias yet. There are plenty of critics living in those countries who think it's a bad idea to limit free speech beyond limiting imminent incitement of viole…

Have to be honest, I didn't know about hate speech laws in Weimarer republic.

But in terms of equality, I'd say what we get in practice *today* in Germany and Switzerland (don't know about Austria) is a society that is arguably *more* equal than the vanguard.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#284

Post by _glsb »

Thorentis wrote: post #232
jevgeni wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just FYI, hate speech being free speech is an American thing. Other democracies in the world have frameworks for limiting/prioritizing basic rights, right to free speech included (take, for example, German moderation laws) and have not become a totalitarian dystopias yet. One opinion I've heard in Germany is that the free speech absolutism and value neutrality of the constitution of the Weimar Republic allowed NSDAP…

Not advocating for NSDAP, but do you think it's worrying that one government would seek to make illegal, speech which could make people interested in a different government? That doesn't seem democratic to me.

You're talking about the Paradox of tolerance. I don't see why it is necessary to provide a democratic platform to undemocratic or misanthropic ideologies. I think it's misguided purism.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#285

Post by UncleMeat »

prohobo wrote: post #269
snowwrestler wrote: post #149

If you are reading a piece about free speech and content moderation on platforms like Twitter, look to see if it meaningfully engages with the concepts of spam and porn, which are both fully legal speech, and both heavily moderated with little controversy. (This piece does not.) Why does this matter? Because free speech, free expression in general, is a means to express values and beliefs. Our values and beliefs are…

I think about it in terms of pro- and anti-social speech. Free speech is about pro-social speech, not anti-social. The way I see it, people conflate the two types of speech. Citizens arguing about ugly topics like identity politics, conspiracies, coverups, etc. are de-facto pro-social - they are trying to sway public opinion on political issues, ostensibly to make their society better. It becomes anti-social when tho…

And yet, organizations like FIRE will happily defend the "speech rights" of TPUSA students who take a class taught by one of my trans friends over and over just so they can write hate speech in legally protected coursework with the full intention of failing the course.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#286

Post by rosmax_1337 »

jevgeni wrote: post #229
rhaksw wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greg Lukianoff also suggested drawing the content moderation line at legal speech [1]. > Why does this matter? Because free speech, free expression in general, is a means to express values and beliefs. Saying this does not convince people who are concerned about hate speech. Such individuals imagine that the government or the platform will, or can be coerced, to simply remove whatever they do not like. These folks, w…

Just FYI, hate speech being free speech is an American thing. Other democracies in the world have frameworks for limiting/prioritizing basic rights, right to free speech included (take, for example, German moderation laws) and have not become a totalitarian dystopias yet. One opinion I've heard in Germany is that the free speech absolutism and value neutrality of the constitution of the Weimar Republic allowed NSDAP…

>One opinion I've heard in Germany is that the free speech absolutism and value neutrality of the constitution of the Weimar Republic allowed NSDAP to take power in the first place.

I hear that a lot nowadays too. I wonder why that is?

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#287

Post by rosmax_1337 »

someNameIG wrote: post #79
sokoloff wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political speech, especially unpopular political speech, is among the speech that I think is most deserving of free speech protections. I specifically want the political speech of the people most ideologically opposed to my point of view to be able to make their speech, free from government intrusion on it. I will almost surely not like it, but I will defend vigorously their right to say it.

What if my political speech is inherently violent? Would I be allowed to support a political group or ideology that directly called for ethnic cleansing?

I think yes, it should be allowed.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#288

Post by UncleMeat »

rhaksw wrote: post #242
arwhatever wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article asserts that censorship attempts by the Weimar Republic against the Nazi party empowered the Nazis, and gives examples. But I am not a historian and cannot reconcile the articles content with what you’re stating here. https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/wo...

> But I am not a historian and cannot reconcile the articles content with what you’re stating here. You're as free as any historian to form an opinion and share it. The rest of us can take the fact that you're not one into account while reading it. Thank you for sharing a link to this series, I was not aware of it.

I mean, it is usually best to find experts and listen to them rather than just forming hunches.

Imagine saying this about microbiology or something.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#289

Post by UncleMeat »

autoexec wrote: post #127
drewrv wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is spam always glossed over in these "principled defenses" of free speech? It's legal speech.

I love me some free speech, but I don't think I've ever met a true free speech absolutist. Most of are just fine with limiting speech when it's for the public good. We don't want companies to be able to lie about their products, so we support laws against false advertising. We're okay with people getting arrested for making bomb threats. We even approve of compelling speech when it means forcing companies by law to l…

> Most of are just fine with limiting speech when it's for the public good.

I'd edit this. "Most are just fine with limiting speech when it isn't them." The "public good" to, say, Andy Ngo is going to involve throwing a whole lot of leftists in prison.

This whole thing is just about having the guy you like be the one making the decisions.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#290

Post by prohobo »

UncleMeat wrote: post #285
prohobo wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think about it in terms of pro- and anti-social speech. Free speech is about pro-social speech, not anti-social. The way I see it, people conflate the two types of speech. Citizens arguing about ugly topics like identity politics, conspiracies, coverups, etc. are de-facto pro-social - they are trying to sway public opinion on political issues, ostensibly to make their society better. It becomes anti-social when tho…

And yet, organizations like FIRE will happily defend the "speech rights" of TPUSA students who take a class taught by one of my trans friends over and over just so they can write hate speech in legally protected coursework with the full intention of failing the course.

In what manner were they doing this? ie. were the students making counter-arguments during the course in a civil manner, or were they attacking the professor in an abusive manner?

I'm assuming what they did was something like write "There are only two genders" in an exam paper as a form of protest. If that's the case then I'd say what they're expressing is pro-social, but they're doing it in an anti-social manner, and should have been reprimanded on that basis.

And, assuming again that that's what happened, then it's definitely not "hate speech" - which is exactly what I just tried to differentiate in my previous comment.

But reading about this case, it seems that FIRE was trying to get TPUSA to be allowed as a student group on campus: https://apnews.com/article/scranton-28d927628ee14bf5aefbaaa7...

There's nothing there about them trying to defend students joining courses and being toxic in them.

Post reply on HN