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

121–130 of 480 posts

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

#121

Post by kneebonian »

gizmo wrote: post #53

This article is too long and says too little. The real debate about free speech is about finding the right balance between harms caused by speech and harms caused by censorship. It's about the distinction between highly protected forms of speech like journalism, ideas, and protests/strikes, and undesirable speech such as incitements to hatred, slander/harassment, spam, and predatory speech. As a society you have to f…

Yes but the problem turns out that no matter how you define it whatever criteria you use to restrict speech will eventually become redefined to mean. "What those in power currently dislike."

It's why the first amendment is their to recognize speech should not be limited because if it ever is, it will never stop being so.

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

#122

Post by smt88 »

jojobas wrote: post #107
jzb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sp…

If there is a group that is likely to be violent at that sort of provocation, you very much want to provoke them so they can be found out and somehow extinguished.

You can't extinguish an ideology, and someone who has been murdered is already murdered even if you do.

By your insane logic, we should put kids out on the street by themselves to catch child predators.

Sometimes the safety of the threatened party is more important than finding out who wants to harm them.

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

#123

Post by LastTrain »

jzb wrote: post #84
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 sp…

That isn't my recollection at all, can you provide an example of a mainstream publication or politician attaching "he shouldn't be so provactive" to their support. And if you can't, why would you go on believing it?

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

#124

Post by [deleted] »

Xeoncross wrote: post #86
msla wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

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

#125

Post by catach »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #91
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…

150 dB speech could melt someone’s face.

Charge for the melting, not the method used to achieve the melting.

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

#127

Post by Zetice »

Sigh, every single time this comes up, people gloss over the part of freedom of speech that involves free association.

I’m free to say, “i hate ”, and you’re free to refuse to associate with me as a result of that. It’s so simple. The government can’t, but you can.

As long as we all agree with that, then yeah freedom of speech is great, you just don’t get to stop applying it when you feel satisfied.

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

#128

Post by anigbrowl »

rootusrootus wrote: post #94
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…

You can't really call it a marketplace of ideas, then, if your response is [metaphorically] a SLAPP. E.g. people weren't just critical of Justine Sacco, they tried to destroy her. Tell me again who the bad guys are?

So what you dislike is groups of people coordinating their speech, it appears. How is this any different from coordination using price signals?

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

#129

Post by anigbrowl »

rootusrootus wrote: post #99
jtr1 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone reporting something you said to your employer: freedom of speech Your employer declining to continue your employment: freedom of association Advocating for a university to not host your talk: freedom of speech A university not hosting your talk: freedom of association and so on.

So it's legal, but you're definitely the Bad Guy.

No u, since we've apparently abandoned argument in favor of just making claims.

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

#130

Post by version_five »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #104
Xeoncross wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Say the word "trans" in a sentence and put an "x" on an otherwise common adjective and no other effort is required.

I expect the above will get flagged but it's correctly pointing out that we've effectively brute forced some loopholes that allow normal protections on speech and thought to be bypassed. The fact that you "can't" say certain things ends up shifting the game to claiming your opponent has said one of those certain things.

Edit: to wit, the parent post claim in ridiculous action: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34811787

Edit 2: and just to clarify my point, once these loopholes get found, people jump on them and aggressively exploit them. Look around this thread for the kinds of rhetoric people that oppose free speech are using. What would they have subbed in 15 or 50 years ago?

Post reply on HN