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

171–180 of 480 posts

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

#171

Post by rajin444 »

Zetice wrote: post #127

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.

This argument always comes up too and you end up with certain people trying to force others to bake cakes a certain way. The whole idea of “protected classes” spits in the face of free speech.

I think free speech is a noble goal but can only really exist when we don’t live in a zero sum world. Until then:

> "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more or less." Alice responded to Humpty Dumpty, "The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things?" Humpty Dumpty retorted: "The question is, which is to be master? That's all."

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

#172

Post by ejb999 »

LastTrain wrote: post #123
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…

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?

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1994/03/273-3/132...

"Salman Rushdie’s rights as an author are absolute and ought to be inalienable. A free society does not ban books. . . . But it is preposterous to pretend that the first principle governing the publication of Satanic Verses is the last word on the subject. . . . Mr Rushdie is entitled to abuse the religion in which he was reared and must be protected against those who want to intimidate him into silence. [Guess the conjunction] But the idea that we all have a duty to applaud his calculated assault is a novel interpretation of the liberal obligation."

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

#173

Post by banannaise »

trieste92 wrote: post #162
breadbreadbread wrote: post #144

I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics. Everyday on the internet I see trans…

> Some speech suppresses the speech of others Isn't this exactly what you're trying to do here? > Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment > it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Ahh yes, because the people who try to redefine "free speech" like what you're doing…

> Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment

It is very odd to assert that the morality of speech is completely, correctly, and undeniably established in a document written 250 years ago that defines the laws of only one country.

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

#174

Post by neonsunset »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #3

People who equate speech with violence have generally never known physical violence. I've always held that position firmly. The trouble is, people are turning out to be a lot more programmable than I thought they (we) were. You could almost say that we're becoming more like machines at the same time that machines are becoming more like us. To the extent that's true, the part of the old saying that goes "... but words…

Agree, nor do they have accurate grasp of reality, living in sheltered environments expecting internet rules apply to physical world.

Getting punched in the face is a good start.

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

#175

Post by s1artibartfast »

jojobas wrote: post #100
seydor wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how can convincing (not coercing) be harmful? What's the definition of harm

You can convince someone to go shoot up a school, good luck arguing convincing is not coercing in court.

It really depends on what you did to convince them. See the top level post.

The law does not only care about causality. It is also cares free speech, reasonable interpretation, and comparative responsibility.

I could craft and publish an argument School shootings are in fact a positive good a we should have more of them. I am legally in the clear, even If someone finds my argument convincing and goes and shoots up a school because of it.

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

#176

Post by rootusrootus »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #154
rootusrootus wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question is simply where the line gets drawn. Not that simple. First you have to decide who gets to draw it.

In a "liberal, intellectual society", surely each individual would choose for themselves where the line is drawn, and then vigorously debate amongst themselves until a position wins out in the marketplace of ideas, right? Nothing says liberal and intellectual like unquestioningly handing off decision making to some authority figure.

Probably we need to throw out the term 'marketplace of ideas' becomes it implies there is only one.

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

#177

Post by OkayPhysicist »

rootusrootus wrote: post #120
jojobas wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can convince someone to go shoot up a school, good luck arguing convincing is not coercing in court.

The court won't need to get that far, convincing itself falls under conspiracy without having to conflate it with coercion.

That strongly depends on how you convince them. If you one-on-one talk someone into shooting up a school, that's conspiracy. If you tell a large audience that teachers and children are a scourge upon society that must be eliminated and count on some small fraction to be unhinged enough to connect the dots, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

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

#178

Post by kneebonian »

banannaise wrote: post #173
trieste92 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some speech suppresses the speech of others Isn't this exactly what you're trying to do here? > Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment > it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Ahh yes, because the people who try to redefine "free speech" like what you're doing…

> Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment It is very odd to assert that the morality of speech is completely, correctly, and undeniably established in a document written 250 years ago that defines the laws of only one country.

It derives from philosophical thought and justification that rests on the idea that all men are created equal and that no one man is above another because of where or how they were born and that all men should be allowed to operate freely so long as they do not cause harm to others.

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

#179

Post by worried4future »

fallingfrog wrote: post #72
robertlagrant wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example of compelled speech?

"Today, Florida honeymoon registry company Honeyfund.com, along with workplace diversity consultancy Collective Concepts and its co-founder Chevara Orrin filed a federal lawsuit to block enforcement of Florida’s HB 7, the Stop WOKE Act. The law purports to “fight back against woke indoctrination” by, among other things, barring employers from engaging in speech that “advances” certain “concepts” regarding race, sex,…

This is barring them from saying specific things, not compelling them to say other things, do you have an example of any compelled speech?

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

#180

Post by anigbrowl »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #3

People who equate speech with violence have generally never known physical violence. I've always held that position firmly. The trouble is, people are turning out to be a lot more programmable than I thought they (we) were. You could almost say that we're becoming more like machines at the same time that machines are becoming more like us. To the extent that's true, the part of the old saying that goes "... but words…

I have a lot of experience with physical violence. The Brandenburg criteria of specificity and imminence are useful legal yardsticks, but they also assume every set of circumstances is isolated from everything else and can can considered independently, almost in a social vacuum. This is partly the outcome of the Anglo-American legal tradition and the reductive philosophical approach it uses.

It's less clear cut in the real world. To some extent one must be willing to tolerate negative incoming messages, or otherwise one would never leave one's home ot risk any interaction at all. On the other hand, to argue that no speech act can ever have a violent component by definition is facile; much speech as a prelude the violence, and a lack of specificity in space, manner, or time just as easily be designed to stoke fear by strategically using uncertainty to render its object paranoid and exhaust their defensive capability in advance.

Much of this discourse at present is purely strategic, and often wildly disingenuous. Many people who speak in lofty terms about free speech (not specifying anyone in particular here) are notably silent when it comes to people harrassing librarians or allegations that drag shows = groomers + pedophilia and therefore are legitimate targets for physical or terroristic violence (bomb threats and the like that are sufficiently credible to provoke a police response).

Post reply on HN