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

Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 480 posts

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#81

Post by tomlockwood »

poszlem wrote: post #78
tomlockwood wrote: post #52

"In nations where millions of people hold diverse beliefs, who gets to decide exactly when speech becomes “harmful” and which people should be protected from offensive or critical speech?" I don't know, maybe we could all get together and collectively decide with some kind of voting mechanism??? Or, if voting every time is too onerous, we could elect a "representative" to stand in for our views? Just a thought!

Yes, it's a great idea to let people decide what is and isn't true. We know that the more people decide something the better decision they make, that's why mobs of people are known for their cold and rational approach to issues. We could even go one step further and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and they could decide what is and isn't true. We would have an office, let's call it General Directorate fo…

Ok, we can vote to allow individuals to instead unilaterally decide what is or isn't true, a system which also has zero problems! People are, after all, known for their cold and rational approach to issues.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#82

Post by vannevar »

kneebonian wrote: post #32
autokad wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought First off, they are. but if you are saying: loose your job and ability to make a living, losing your ability to speak in public, fuck me give me those charges then! you are backing tyrannical ideas while trying to pretend you are just being reasonable.

It's equivalent to saying you can have a gun you just will go to prison if you ever use it.

Being banned from Twitter is not going to prison, it's being kicked out of a private club.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#84

Post by jzb »

Joeboy wrote: post #11

> 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.

My recollection, which could be faulty, was that people sided with Rushdie but there was a "but he probably shouldn't be so provocative" attached to it. So that tracks with the "entirely without fault" bit, as I remember it.

However, that's based on my memory from the "buzz" around the book and the fatwa when I was a high school senior. I could easily be misremembering or maybe took too strong an impression from a specific op-ed or talk show. Finding copies of coverage as it was happening is a little tricky.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#85

Post by vannevar »

RobotToaster wrote: post #76
vannevar wrote: post #7

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…

If you can lose your job for what you say, only the independently wealthy have freedom of speech.

Now you're getting it. Why do you think they call it "fuck you money?"

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#86

Post by Xeoncross »

msla wrote: post #67
jrm4 wrote: post #9

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…

And yet people don't get how narrow the Brandenburg test is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test > The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test: > The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” > AND > The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.” [snip] >…

Hello, I was just born yesterday and now I'm shocked to discover every single person I've met so far has hold some view I dislike.

Theoretically, how much outrage do I need to manufacture to get the legal system to ignore the Brandenburg test and prosecute today's flavor of thought villain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OV4VaNW4FU

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#87

Post by DubiousPusher »

henrikschroder wrote: post #28
giantg2 wrote: post #2

"To be sure, that doesn’t mean that deliberately offending people for its own sake is morally acceptable, or that people should be entitled to use speech to incite violence, harass, or threaten." The difficulty is knowing what the intent was. Usually there are ways of "non-violent" communication. But it seems a lot of it is subjective. By far it seems the most restrictive places are primary and secondary schools.

> The difficulty is knowing what the intent was. It's not a coincidence that the postmodern thoughts that underpin a lot of this bullshit simply does away with intent, declaring it to be completely useless, and saying that the only thing that can be used to judge a message is how it affected the recipient. Combine that with "words are violence", and you can manufacture physical abuse out of thin air. It's really not…

> It's not a coincidence that the postmodern thoughts that underpin a lot of this bullshit simply does away with intent

Please make the connection between the disregard of intent and any rigorous definition of "post-moderism". Genuinely I don't see it.

I think the degradation of intent is more at the hands of those who have used it as a shield than anyone else. We've seen entire regions of the world thrown into chaos without consequence. Why, because the responsible parties didn't intend the chaos. At a certain point it gets a little thin.

What's imporant here is scale. Yeah, if you say something that rubs someone the wrong way, they should be able to have a conversation with you about your intentions and weigh those in their judgement. But what if it keeps happening. How long does someone else need to value your intent? 10 times? 100 times? Forever?

And of course when we get to things that affect people's lives on a much more material basis, maybe its good that we stop counting intent for so much. Maybe what we need is for decision makers to get a little more cautios because they will actually feel some consequences if they really screw up a lot of people's lives.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#88

Post by bryanrasmussen »

Joeboy wrote: post #11

> 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.

the only thing I remember was then President Bush calling it a bad book while defending its freedom of speech.

But yes he hardly qualifies as liberal-minded.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#89

Post by dadjoker »

"What many people failed to understand, and therefore failed to defend, is an unpleasant fact of intellectual liberalism: When speech causes emotional or mental pain, the offended parties are morally entitled to nothing in the form of compensation from or punishment for the offender."

A line that many people still can't handle.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#90

Post by [deleted] »

a_shovel wrote: post #34
vannevar wrote: post #7

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…

> They are calling for boycotts and de-platforming, both of which fall well within the bounds of the "marketplace of ideas." This is a really obvious idea that people seem to have a lot of trouble understanding, especially when the framing of the conversation drifts toward "cancel culture".

[deleted]
Post reply on HN