41–50 of 480 posts
What a completely deranged take. It's easy to conceive of a thought experiment that absolutely destroys this perspective.
Imagine that I've applied lidocaine to my face and you punch me. Then someone points out that because I didn't feel pain, that "It's ok to punch other people in the face."
The author's argument makes about as much sense, ie: none.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how much physical violence is enough? Getting jumped by a crowd of dudes for no reason? Getting held up at gunpoint? There was definitely some other stuff as well, but those are the most memorable. I do admit that i haven't been in an actual warzone though.
So you're saying that you equate speech (not credible, specific threats or other extreme examples of non-protected speech) with having your life threatened physically. I wish I could understand where you're coming from. I genuinely do. ------------- Replying here due to rate limit: That's why I said "generally." I'm not setting out to invalidate or disrespect any individual's experience. It's likely that we'd have no…
> People who equate speech with violence have generally never known physical violence.
Just wondering if that meets the standard or not. Not that I think all speech is violence though.
I just think you setup a strawman.
> few liberal-minded commentators seemed eager to say Rushdie was entirely without fault This does not match my recollection. As I recall things, Rushdie was vigorously defended by the left, which at the time quite liked the idea of freedom of speech. At least in the UK, can't speak for anywhere else.
Nothing against Rushdie btw. I loved the Satanic Verses. But institutional journalism (which provides the fundamental model most people use to understand Anglo politics) has conflated the terms left and liberal. And while I respect the drift of language as natural and intrinsic to culture, this misplacement has created a silly situation in which hypocracy, action and in-action are misattributed. Because these are two groups (overlapping in some cases) but distinct in a fundamental way.
In fact, I would say articles such as this are entirely flawed in that they don't grasp this distinction because they take institutional journalism's political narrative way past its power to describe reality.
Edit: BTW, this affects conservatives and "the Right" as well. Most of the people that rise to the top of the Rupblican and Tory parties are effectively "liberal". Most would not abolish civil liberties, equality before the law, etc. Just about everyone elected to government in both the UK and the US in all parties sit on a spectrum of liberalism. Mostly they just disagree about what year the government needed to stop doing things to create a "liberal" society.
When a message board or user is kicked off a platform, it's never for "saying the wrong thing" or "political correctness". It's generally because they organized targeted campaigns of harassment, doxxing, swatting, and other kinds of behavior that violated the terms of service. Take this example: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/cloudflare-kiwi-farms-... "At least three people have died by suicide after becoming…
It turns out hate speech means speech somebody hates.
The kinds of censorship that really bothers me is when people like Ron deSantis use the power of the state to force people like university professors to say specific things and muzzle them from saying other things. That's actual government censorship.
Lawyer here, and this definitely strikes me as one of a surprising number topics in which, the law has for some time, already a very effective and useful way to get at this concept. Sure, speech can be harmful and hurtful, to the point that someone should get punished for it. But the law has generally done very good job of reminding us that this tends to be a VERY NARROW possibility, i.e. the harm has to be very spec…
It's very, very easy to communicate in ways that encourage and incite violence(be it direct physical violence or denial of the means to live a dignified life), especially against groups against whom such violence is already normalized. Not all speech that does incite violence is intended to, but this fact also lends plausible deniability to people who do explicitly want violence but know that it's socially unacceptable to call for it directly. There is the danger of being overzealous with what speech to limit, but at the same time, it's undeniable that a lot of money and attention is flowing to ever-bolder provocateurs whose only possible goal is to escalate existing tensions and iniquities to violence in service of their political aims. Taking such people at their word on their intentions is dangerous, and those who do so have no right to act surprised and claim innocence when actions and rhetoric escalate past the point they're comfortable with.
I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought. They are calling for boycotts and de-platforming, both of which fall well within the bounds of the "marketplace of ideas." While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime. We…
When you prevent somebody from being on a platform, you also prevent others from hearing what that person has to say.
As for amplification, it is not amplification to show me your tweets with #stabledifussion when that is what I search for - it is the entire point of Twitter.
Lawyer here, and this definitely strikes me as one of a surprising number topics in which, the law has for some time, already a very effective and useful way to get at this concept. Sure, speech can be harmful and hurtful, to the point that someone should get punished for it. But the law has generally done very good job of reminding us that this tends to be a VERY NARROW possibility, i.e. the harm has to be very spec…
I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought. They are calling for boycotts and de-platforming, both of which fall well within the bounds of the "marketplace of ideas." While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime. We…
Well, they're literally doing this in the UK - people have and are being arrested for offensive speech.