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

201–210 of 480 posts

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

#201

Post by kneebonian »

disembiggen wrote: post #143

I am not a liberal. Many people are not. The paradox of tolerance is the easy counterarguement to this. If you choose to never do anything in response to the things people say that's your perogative, I on the other hand can listen just fine to other people and my response to the things they say might be to tell them to stop saying it. "I don't believe you should be allowed to say this without consequence" is also a t…

Ah yes the paradox of tolerance. The "our enemies will stop us so we must stop them first" argument.

Never found it convincing for some reason.

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

#202

Post by anigbrowl »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #35
johnny22 wrote: post #30

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…

He said nothing like that.

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

#203

Post by nibbleshifter »

geysersam wrote: post #117
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wtf since when do presidents give book reviews?

He probably read it to see what all the fuss was about.

I did. Its not a good book. Rushdie is a fucking boring writer.

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

#204

Post by trieste92 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #180
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 th…

> that are sufficiently credible to provoke a police response

They do promote a police response because making a bomb threat is illegal in itself. Harassment is illegal in itself

You don't need to redefine a bunch of words and do a bunch of mental gymnastics to make something that's already illegal illegal

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

#205

Post by pugets »

Being liberal in the 90’s meant defending controversial or disruptive speech on the premises of the mantra, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it.” This principle operated as a liberal self-preservation tactic. The Church had more influence in society than it does today, and if anyone was going to challenge the status quo, it had to be liberals. Hip hop music, feminist art, raunchy daytime television, and that nasty George Carlin all played a role in challenging the modesty that the Church wanted to preserve.

Decades passed. The church lost most of its mainstream power. Raytheon began marketing itself as a diverse workplace. Goldman Sachs marched in parades with rainbow flags. The question of gay marriage was settled. As society liberalized, liberals found themselves usurping the role of cultural hall monitor. It became disadvantageous for liberals to defend controversial speech, so new rationales had to be created to prevent the spread of anti-liberal ideas.

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

#206

Post by disembiggen »

listless wrote: post #193
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…

> Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... Granted that there is an overreaction happening but that seems largely in response to a rather hostile approach from that community. “If you deadname me I’ll have you banned”. “If you refuse to use my pronouns I’ll have you fired.” “If you say that there are only two genders I’ll drag you”. This is no way to solv…

>If you say that there are only two genders I’ll drag you

is my drag not free speech too? If one insults me (or says something to me I consider insulting), I should be allowed to insult them right back, right?

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

#207

Post by lannisterstark »

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] >…

Yep.

"Kill x people" is fine and protected. "Kill x people at y date at z mall" is not.

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

#208

Post by CamperBob2 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #180
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 th…

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).

Now, imagine that the bad actors you're referring to have come to power, and because you've nerfed 1A, they now have the power of prior restraint over your speech, and that of their victims.

Still think it's a net win?

------------Replying here due to rate limiting:

The big problem I have with what you wrote is "much speech (is) a prelude (to) violence," used in a context that seemingly justifies equating the speech with the violence that ensues. This is an argument for prior restraint. No?

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

#209

Post by s1artibartfast »

banannaise wrote: post #161

As noted (and then, weirdly, disagreed with) in the article, you have to make a clear delineation between speech that is offensive and speech that is abusive . And that is not always an easy distinction to make! Repeatedly using slurs is abusive, but what if the majority of people don't see it as a slur? If your answer is "then it's not a slur", then what do you think of the frequent use of the N-word in the first ha…

abusive speech isnt illegal either

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

#210

Post by bigyikes »

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…

>and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article

Well, yeah, if that’s what you choose to do.

That’s the whole point: you can choose to absorb the information, or not. You can choose to take offense, or not.

Post reply on HN