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

241–250 of 480 posts

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

#241

Post by anigbrowl »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #208
anigbrowl wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suffic…

I haven't nerfed 1a, nor have I made any argument for prior restraint. Would you kindly refrain from projecting your anxieties onto me, and respond to what I actually wrote?

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

#242

Post by XorNot »

Joeboy wrote: post #232
pugets wrote: post #205

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…

Maybe there's something to that, but I think the main thing that happened was that we developed incredible new technology that allowed all of humanity to communicate openly in real time on an equal footing without gatekeepers or censorship. Then we looked at it and decided we didn't like it.

You're posting this on a heavily moderated forum with multiple censoring methods.

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

#243

Post by dqpb »

seydor wrote: post #63
dqpb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you convince someone not to have kids, is that harmful?

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

Terminating a millions-years-old family line is pretty harsh imo.

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

#244

Post by realjhol »

pugets wrote: post #205

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…

Indeed. Every single sacred universalist principle liberals claimed to hold sacred is simply a cudgel to get you to do what they want.

Appeals to democracy, rule of law, freedom of association, freedom of speech, equal rights, human rights, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, bodily autonomy etc. - all of these things vanish like a mist if the left decide that they hate you, and you deserve it.

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

#245

Post by freejazz »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #191
version_five wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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=348…

> The fact that you "can't" say certain things what fact is that? who enforces the "can't" ?

exactly. the poster you are responding to is pretending that the boundaries of polite conversation have always been the same as the boundaries of legal speech when that's obviously not the case and has never been.

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

#246

Post by Joeboy »

XorNot wrote: post #242
Joeboy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there's something to that, but I think the main thing that happened was that we developed incredible new technology that allowed all of humanity to communicate openly in real time on an equal footing without gatekeepers or censorship. Then we looked at it and decided we didn't like it.

You're posting this on a heavily moderated forum with multiple censoring methods.

Which you're telling me because....?

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

#247

Post by vannevar »

rootusrootus wrote: post #192
Zetice wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How should a marketplace of ideas work, then?

You attack the idea, not the person. If you go after the person, you are not participating in any marketplace of ideas, you're now the one committing the violence.

What if instead of verbally attacking a single person, you verbally attack a group of people? Is that committing violence?

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

#248

Post by realjhol »

Joeboy wrote: post #232
pugets wrote: post #205

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…

Maybe there's something to that, but I think the main thing that happened was that we developed incredible new technology that allowed all of humanity to communicate openly in real time on an equal footing without gatekeepers or censorship. Then we looked at it and decided we didn't like it.

Who exactly is "we"?

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

#249

Post by flippinburgers »

lannisterstark wrote: post #227
flippinburgers wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that pass the "likely to produce" requirement?

Hess v Indiana did that. Note: >Hess uttered, "We'll take the fucking street later" or "We'll take the fucking street again." Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct. >The Supreme Court reversed Hess's conviction because Hess' statement, at worst, "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time." In contrast to such an indefinite future time, the Court…

While that shows the supreme court ruled in his favor because of a lack of time specificity, that doesn't mean that the court would necessarily rule against him had he specified a time. Speculatively there might be more involved in the assessment.

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

#250

Post by tick_tock_tick »

fallingfrog wrote: post #8

The kinds of censorship that really bothers me is when people like Ron deSantis use the power of the state to force people like university professors to say specific things and muzzle them from saying other things. That's actual government censorship.

Education standards are normal.

Simple question do we agree we don't need a middle school teacher explaining in graphic detail how to have sex? Or maybe "alternative" theory like flat earth?

If not I don't know how we reach a common ground if we agree though maybe just maybe we can agree that teacher shouldn't be teaching certain things at certain ages and not call that "censorship". You might disagree what ages or things but still.

A teacher isn't there to instill their values or beliefs into a child but to teach the curriculum.

Post reply on HN