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

411–420 of 428 posts

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

#411

Post by headsoup »

joshuamorton wrote: post #268
headsoup wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should stop ignoring the parts you don't accept, you're coming across as dishonest. Your line of argument ends in tyranny. "We must protect you for your own good, or better, the greater good." Specifically with the irony that while you decry "trust us," it is precisely what is required to accept your "moving of the needle a little bit."

> I think you should stop ignoring the parts you don't accept, you're coming across as dishonest. What parts? > Specifically with the irony that while you decry "trust us," it is precisely what is required to accept your "moving of the needle a little bit." Not at all because, I have not argued for any particular movement . What I'm asking for is a argument that the status quo is optimal that is more robust than "tru…

One example, where it was pointed out there are already limitations on free speech quite strictly defined under law.

Your second point is impossible to argue, because you request that someone argue against a subjective and infinitely definable 'optimal' that you projected.

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

#412

Post by denton-scratch »

upsidesinclude wrote: post #405
denton-scratch wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spam restrictions aren't generally applied by the government, and therefore don't fall under the constitution. The law doesn't require anyone to listen to someone else's speech. It is not a violation of anyone's rights to discard their emails unread using an automated filter.

I can't make sense of your statement. Can clarify what it is this means?

Hmmm. I thought it was straightforward. I'll unpack it:

> Spam restrictions aren't generally applied by the government, and therefore don't fall under the constitution.

The "free speech" constitutional amendment stipulates that the government can't restrict speech. It doesn't apply to a mail service provider, which is free to reject whatever it likes.

> The law doesn't require anyone to listen to someone else's speech.

Your freedom to speak to me ends when I decide I don't want to listen to you. I have a right to not listen, and I have a right to reject spam.

> It is not a violation of anyone's rights to discard their emails unread using an automated filter.

I don't know how to say that more clearly; using a spam filter doesn't violate the US constitution. Email would be unuseable without spam filters.

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

#413

Post by denton-scratch »

mcv wrote: post #340
denton-scratch wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things like libel/slander. Those are civil offences; they're not "banned", the victim has to sue for damages. > Threats. Blackmail. Those are indeed banned, i.e. criminal. They are both effectively threats. It's a criminal act to threaten a criminal act. > Did that happen? That's a silly thing to arrest someone for. Oh yes, it did: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/police-arrest-blank-paper... "Silly" is rather a…

> Those are civil offences; they're not "banned", the victim has to sue for damages. Is that not still a form of punishment? And a reason why most people would refrain from saying these things? > > Threats. Blackmail. > Those are indeed banned, i.e. criminal. They are both effectively threats. It's a criminal act to threaten a criminal act. A threat is a threat to do something illegal. Blackmail is a threat to do som…

> Is that not still a form of punishment?

No, it's not. It's compensation for damage done. If a bad driver bends your car in an accident, they don't get punished, they just have to pay for your repairs.

> A threat is a threat to do something illegal. Blackmail is a threat to do something that's often completely legal

You seem to have contradicted yourself; if a threat is a threat to do something illegal, how can a threat to do something completely legal be a threat?

> But as with libel and slander, the fact that they're illegal doesn't mean they don't happen.

There is such a thing as criminal libel, for which you can be punished; but in the general case, neither libel nor slander is "illegal". They are torts, or "wrongs", for which a victim can demand compensation. Criminal libel has been abolished in my jurisdiction. I don't think it ever existed in the USA. [Edit] I'm wrong; some states apparently have criminal libel statutes.

> And can you only draw it after people act on it?

"Threatening behaviour" is a criminal offence here. It generally means placing someone in fear of physical or mental injury. You don't have to actually injure them to commit the offence.

> make us ignore all the edge cases

I guess that's why libel cases often cost lots of money in lawyer's fees. Equity and tort are two fields of civil law with lots of edge-cases. People litigate these cases precisely because the lines aren't drawn clearly. They tend to turn on issues like fairness, issues that are ultimately a matter of judgement.

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

#414

Post by User23 »

whateveracct wrote: post #409
User23 wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get so worked up, it's just a funny[1] coincidence. Noticing funny patterns is definitely a thing hackers do my friend. It's taking them too seriously that's a problem, so don't do that! [1] Weird, not haha.

Can't help but think of that Sartre quote about arguing with people in Bad Faith.

You’ll need to do some introspection to find any. I haven’t argued anything at all, and certainly not in bad faith. I simply presented a factual and amusing linguistic coincidence. Whatever conclusions you choose to draw from that fact are your own and tell us only about you.

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

#415

Post by mcv »

denton-scratch wrote: post #413
mcv wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those are civil offences; they're not "banned", the victim has to sue for damages. Is that not still a form of punishment? And a reason why most people would refrain from saying these things? > > Threats. Blackmail. > Those are indeed banned, i.e. criminal. They are both effectively threats. It's a criminal act to threaten a criminal act. A threat is a threat to do something illegal. Blackmail is a threat to do som…

> Is that not still a form of punishment? No, it's not. It's compensation for damage done. If a bad driver bends your car in an accident, they don't get punished, they just have to pay for your repairs. > A threat is a threat to do something illegal. Blackmail is a threat to do something that's often completely legal You seem to have contradicted yourself; if a threat is a threat to do something illegal, how can a th…

> It's compensation for damage done.

But you're still being held liable for that damage, despite the fact that you did not cause any physical damage. It was just words, and yet their effect is considered damaging.

That's aside from the fact that there's also a thing called "punitive damages", so that still is quite explicitly punishment. So these are words that do damage, and they're punished for.

> if a threat is a threat to do something illegal, how can a threat to do something completely legal be a threat?

I guess I should explain the terms I use a bit better. You're right that words can mean different things, and I'm talking about the legal concepts of threat and blackmail, but in my too-brief explanation of blackmail, I use the word "threat" in one of its other meanings.

So here's what I mean by threat and blackmail:

Threat: expressing an intend to hurt someone. Here, hurting someone is illegal, but expressing the intention to do so is illegal as well.

Blackmail: expressing an intend to reveal embarrassing information about someone unless they do something, in order to coerce them to do that thing against their will. Here, revealing the embarrassing information might be totally legal. In fact, if the information is about a crime the target committed, revealing it might even be the right thing to do. And yet saying you're going to reveal it unless they do a particular thing, is illegal.

In any case, I think we have established that there are forms of speech that are illegal, are considered damaging, and/or are sufficiently harmful or damaging to warrant compensation or punishment.

So to get back to the original topic: is hate speech damaging? And is it sufficiently damaging to warrant compensation or punishment? And if we were to conclude that they are, legislating that is not necessarily a more significant infringement on the freedom of speech than the existing laws against libel, blackmail and threats are.

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

#416

Post by shadowfox »

SoftTalker wrote: post #162
SpelingBeeChamp wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that is “fair to assume?” To me, it sounds like wild conjecture.

Musk has stated that Twitter interfered with elections. I'm not sure what evidence he's provided for that, but he did say it.

Given his usual proclamations, (e.g. level-5 self driving) I think it is fair to assume that he is not very high on evidence.

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

#417

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #135
mech765 wrote: post #5

Freedom of association captures the idea of freedom of speech better than freedom of speech itself, I think. Private parties are (with some number of government constraints) free to pick who to work with, who to play with, and who to talk with, and who they don't want to do anything with.

It’s weird to repeatedly see the argument that a corporation’s moderation of human individual’s speech is itself a form of protected speech, from a group of people who until recently mostly thought corporate speech wasn’t even broad enough to cover a corporation’s production and distribution of its own message in a political movie. Like I think “corporations are people too, my friend” but corporate moderation as a fo…

Nobody so far has refuted this weak analysis better than David French did.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-...

First Amendment lawyers seem mostly† to be dunking on the idea that there is anything controversial about the protection Twitter enjoys.

† maybe "entirely" is the right word here

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

#418

Post by denton-scratch »

mcv wrote: post #415
denton-scratch wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that not still a form of punishment? No, it's not. It's compensation for damage done. If a bad driver bends your car in an accident, they don't get punished, they just have to pay for your repairs. > A threat is a threat to do something illegal. Blackmail is a threat to do something that's often completely legal You seem to have contradicted yourself; if a threat is a threat to do something illegal, how can a th…

> It's compensation for damage done. But you're still being held liable for that damage, despite the fact that you did not cause any physical damage. It was just words, and yet their effect is considered damaging. That's aside from the fact that there's also a thing called "punitive damages", so that still is quite explicitly punishment. So these are words that do damage, and they're punished for. > if a threat is a…

> But you're still being held liable for that damage, despite the fact that you did not cause any physical damage. It was just words, and yet their effect is considered damaging.

It is a complete defence to an accusation of libel that what you wrote is true.

That is, libel means publishing damaging lies about someone. In most jurisdictions, it also means that the lies were malicious: the writer or publisher intended to cause damage. Damages are assessed as lost money; if the lies hurt your feelings, you won't get damages. But if your hurt feelings required therapy, you can sue for the therapist's fees.

It's annoying (understatement) that damage to reputation is assessed in this way; it means that rich, famous people get much larger awards than ordinary people, because they lose more money from damage to reputation (they have more money to lose, for one thing). You can't sue someone for torpedoing a $1M deal if you aren't the kind of person that makes $1M deals.

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

#419

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #417
rayiner wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s weird to repeatedly see the argument that a corporation’s moderation of human individual’s speech is itself a form of protected speech, from a group of people who until recently mostly thought corporate speech wasn’t even broad enough to cover a corporation’s production and distribution of its own message in a political movie. Like I think “corporations are people too, my friend” but corporate moderation as a fo…

Nobody so far has refuted this weak analysis better than David French did. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-... First Amendment lawyers seem mostly† to be dunking on the idea that there is anything controversial about the protection Twitter enjoys. † maybe "entirely" is the right word here

That article doesn’t address the point I’m making, which is whether content moderation decisions are protected speech. I agree with French’s analysis that the Hunter Biden stuff isn’t a first amendment violation insofar as Biden wasn’t a government actor at the time he made the request.

The rationale behind regulating Twitter would be the same as the ones behind campaign finance laws: to keep a big corporation from using its power to influence elections. Except the difference is that producing a political movie is clear political speech, while the decision to delete particular items from a firehose of user generated content doesn’t seem to be expressing any message in the part of Twitter itself. As far as I can tell, the Twitterati are not addressing the implications of the “must carry” line of cases like TBS v. FCC which hold that forcing a corporation that provides a pipe for content to carry particular types of content isn’t a first amendment violation.

The Twitter internal emails confirm that folks inside Twitter weren’t treating suppression of the Hunter Biden news as a political statement on the part of Twitter. They were concerned about the potential impact on the election.

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

#420

Post by evrydayhustling »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #377
evrydayhustling wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't mind it if platforms censor spam and porn as long as there is a switch somewhere I can toggle that will let me opt out of it if I want to see spam and porn. In this sentence, you've gone farther than the article (and many similar posts) in defining how you'd trade off between free speech and other values. Extrapolating a bit, it sounds like: (1) You believe "platforms" have responsibilities in free speech c…

Sorry, I forgot to directly answer the questions. - I think a platform doesn't have a specific responsibility to rebroadcast everything. If I don't like what things they choose to rebroadcast I'll find them less useful and start using a different service. - For content that I don't want to see, they should introduce any hurdle they want. I am only annoyed with censorship when they get in between the sender and the re…

Belated thanks for answering here!
Post reply on HN