181–190 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
One more nail in the coffin for Internet anonymity.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> Jesus is not the son of God. All nonbelievers are evil and going to hell. Pornography is morally acceptable. Women should be forced to wear hijabs. American veterans who fought in Iraq are war criminals. The detainees at Guantánamo Bay deserved to be tortured. Capitalism is inherently exploitative, and all wealthy people are morally compromised. Communism is an evil, totalitarian ideology that killed millions of people.
The biggest problem with this analysis is that it treats the speech as separate from the power and reach of the person saying them, downplaying the utterances as just information detached from the real world context in which they are used.
On any given day, you can probably find a mentally ill person on the streets shouting a number of those things, but people aren't listening.
When someone with significant influence, as Yiannapolis was, starts spurting bigotries and abusive speech, the scrutiny on their speech should be greater.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Then you should defeat them in the marketplace of ideas and be able to counter their facillous words. To suggest otherwise is to stand in a position where you claim that some people are…
It is effectively impossible to reason people out of positions they have not reasoned themselves into. The market place of idea struggles in my close friend group where we have sort of a tradition to do these kind of debates, despite us being very close since almost a decade, and educated above our national average. It's a nice enough idea, but i dont see how to make it work in a space where money amplifies speech, a…
Some people cannot be trusted with certain ideas so a more superior individual must control what they can hear.
Do you realize how patronizing and condescending you sound about your friends by the way when you clearly imply your ideas are well reasoned and factual and theirs are the result of psychology manipulation?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if this is true all the time. I think knowingly sending rape threats to rape victims is pretty violent behavior. I think knowingly trying to trigger someone into an eating disorder relapse or coercing someone into suicide are heinous things that fall into violence. I think there is a line where speech can be violent or said with the intent to harm someone the same as a punch is.
I think knowingly sending rape threats to rape victims is pretty violent behavior Compared to the actual act of rape? No. That kind of thinking just devalues the victim. That said, specific threats aren't normally examples of protected speech. Extreme cases make bad law.
Numerous rape victims have objected to subsequent threats of additional rape, and would probably not take kindly to your inference that they're somehow devaluing themselves. You commented above that you think many participants in this debate lack experience of physical violence, and to be frank I am inclined to wonder the same of you in this instance.