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

291–300 of 428 posts

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

#291

Post by UncleMeat »

jchw wrote: post #124
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.

Because it's not very interesting because nobody has a good faith reason to argue in favor allowing SPAM. I assume it's being used to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of what speech people would want to allow, but it's a bit pointless. SPAM falls in the category of things that arguably are simply abuse of the system, using it in an unintended way. SPAM is not discourse, or an ideology, or a belief. SPAM is a pattern…

Is a whole bunch of people calling somebody a "fa***t" in DMs discourse? Lots of people have told me that this isn't illegal so Twitter should do nothing.

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

#292

Post by UncleMeat »

xigoi wrote: post #169
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.

Free speech is about allowing any idea to be expressed. Spam is not an idea, but a way of expressing something, so it's not inherently against free speech to restrict it.

Is "shut the fuck up, fa***t" an idea? That's precisely the sort of thing that I see people say shouldn't lead to bans on Twitter.

This is very clearly not just about "expressing ideas." There is very real behavior that is designed entirely to hurt other people and is 100% legal that is at the center of this discussion of online moderation.

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

#293

Post by UncleMeat »

xigoi wrote: post #193
majormajor wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You carefully avoid saying that "spam" isn't subjective, but if you think it is, your reply wouldn't be relevant, so: I doubt you'll have any luck trying to "objectively" establish a criteria for spam classification that nobody disagrees with. Or what about the threat examples, since you claim all those categories were subjective? You didn't engage with that one, or many of the others. "I know your kids go to [specif…

> You carefully avoid saying that "spam" isn't subjective, but if you think it is, your reply wouldn't be relevant, so: I doubt you'll have any luck trying to "objectively" establish a criteria for spam classification that nobody disagrees with. Alright. Spam is when you post something to a space where it's not relevant (not really applicable to Twitter since it doesn't have topical spaces), or post something repeate…

"I know your kids go to [specific school], watch out" isn't a specific threat.

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

#294

Post by andsoitis »

jchw wrote: post #180
kelseyfrog wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate? It seems definitionally straight forward to me, so I'm not sure what I'm missing.

"online speech used to deliberately upset others" does not actually distinguish trolling versus other malicious behaviors, such as just being rude and flippant on purpose, so it is not very precise. It also doesn't really describe the actual kinds of behaviors that trolls engage in, but rather constitutes a class of behaviors that are not necessarily obviously connected, so it's vague. There's a lot of different ways…

from this thread, it sounds like you're saying spam has a clear, precise definition but trolling does not.

what then, in your mind, is the clear, precise definition of spam?

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

#295

Post by UncleMeat »

prohobo wrote: post #290
UncleMeat wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, an…

No. They would write considerably more extreme things than that.

This isn't taking place in course discussion. The course has nothing to do with trans people.

They take a course in a topic they do not care about that is taught by a trans person (or a gay person or a woman). They deliberately write statements specifically targeting the status of the professor in an extreme way but in legally protected places. They do this in an attempt to get the professor to react in some manner so they can sue to school for discrimination against conservative students. They are clearly coached by a legal team because 18 year olds do not actually understand the precise legal boundaries they can walk up to.

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

#296

Post by prohobo »

UncleMeat wrote: post #295
prohobo wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, an…

No. They would write considerably more extreme things than that. This isn't taking place in course discussion. The course has nothing to do with trans people. They take a course in a topic they do not care about that is taught by a trans person (or a gay person or a woman). They deliberately write statements specifically targeting the status of the professor in an extreme way but in legally protected places. They do…

Then yeah, that seems totally anti-social and should be shut down.

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

#297

Post by rhaksw »

UncleMeat wrote: post #288
rhaksw wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's fine for people to have opinions about science and to express them. People learn through interaction.

Dismissing people by saying things like "imagine joe six pack sharing his opinion on microbiology" is part of what made the anti-vax or vax-skeptical crowd so upset. In many circumstances, the rest of us did not meet them where they were. That requires listening, and yes, encouraging uninformed people to express their opinions.

It can be popular to behave dismissively online because it seems like you don't need to deal with the aftermath. When everyone does it, that adds up.

I'm not saying everyone needs to be out there correcting misinformation, just that we deal ourselves a better hand when we accept that other people get things wrong. It's okay for people to be wrong, even in the absence of being corrected. Telling people to shut up doesn't nip the virus in the bud, it is the virus.

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

#298

Post by efitz »

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…

I think this is the dangerous opinion that led us down the censorship path that the article is decrying. “Pro-social” and “anti-social” are subjective, not objective.

To a religious conservative, it would be pro-social to say “marriage should only be between one man and one woman”. To many progressives, this would be “anti-social”.

Here’s a conundrum. Is “we should kill all nazis” pro-social or anti-social? On its face it seems to promote violence, so maybe anti-social, but the people it’s targeted at themselves support horrific views.

As a Gen X libertarian, I am pretty much a free speech absolutist (I support minimal legal limits such as CSAM because there must have been victimization involved). It boggles my mind that so many young people today don’t support free speech; tides of culture and government change and if you allow free speech to slip away when trends support suppressing ideas you oppose, it won’t be there for you when ideas that you support are in the crosshairs.

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

#299

Post by ceejayoz »

zmgsabst wrote: post #117
ceejayoz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. US law, particularly Section 230, makes it very clear that social networks are not common carriers. Section 230 indemnifies them for liability when moderating material that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected". These actions that would be explicitly forbidden for a common carrier to perform…

Right — I said “ should ” to explain why people socially expect that they should be treated that way. I didn’t say the current law was that way. Twitter didn’t exist (nor did social networks) when they law you’re citing was written - so it’s quite possible Congress didn’t contemplate this case or express any intent at all. That would be a good reason to change the law: If the way it is written doesn’t match how it sh…

I don't think it should, either.

Twitter doesn't have monopoly power like phone companies or railroads tend to, nor are the consequences as impactful. There's zero impact on your ability to publish your personal free speech from being kicked off Twitter.

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

#300

Post by xigoi »

UncleMeat wrote: post #293
xigoi wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You carefully avoid saying that "spam" isn't subjective, but if you think it is, your reply wouldn't be relevant, so: I doubt you'll have any luck trying to "objectively" establish a criteria for spam classification that nobody disagrees with. Alright. Spam is when you post something to a space where it's not relevant (not really applicable to Twitter since it doesn't have topical spaces), or post something repeate…

"I know your kids go to [specific school], watch out" isn't a specific threat.

How not? It expresses intention to harm a specific individual at a specific place if a certain implicit condition is met.
Post reply on HN