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

261–270 of 480 posts

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

#261

Post by freejazz »

throwawayacc6 wrote: post #233
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…

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 White…

Just because it is literally possible to type a sentence, doesn't make it true...

I'm not sure what point you think you are demonstrating past that.

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

#262

Post by yoyohello13 »

dqpb wrote: post #243
seydor wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Is it? Nature does it all the time. Maybe it's a sentimentality thing.

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

#263

Post by PeterisP »

jtr1 wrote: post #54
autokad wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought First off, they are. but if you are saying: loose your job and ability to make a living, losing your ability to speak in public, fuck me give me those charges then! you are backing tyrannical ideas while trying to pretend you are just being reasonable.

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.

You are right about this classification, but in my opinion freedom of association does need to be limited. Freedom of association is a right that people should have in their private life, but it is definitely not a right that government or government-funded public institutions (e.g. education) should have. Similarly the types of 'association' which are essential for basic life - namely, housing, employment and finance - already have various anti-discrimination laws that effectively assert that everyone should have equal access to these things and freedom of association is not an excuse to exclude people from these core needs.

In essence, what I'm saying is that a card-carrying member of some radical movement (whichever movement you or I hate the most) perhaps should be shunned by people in all kinds of social activities because of their beliefs, but IMHO as long as they aren't breaking the law, they still should have the right to be a part of the society and receive core services which require interaction with it, namely, public services, education, jobs, housing, etc.

We have drawn a line in sand upon crossing which people are excluded from society, and that line is criminal law if determined in due process. And before crossing that line people should have the right to not be discriminated in employment. If most of your coworkers hate you because you come from the "opposing outgroup" where there's mutual hate and perhaps a history of violence between your "tribes" - too bad for them, both you and them should still have the right to work there.

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

#264

Post by [deleted] »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #226
baron816 wrote: post #194

The thing is, people on the far left and the far right DON’T want a liberal society. They want authoritarianism. They want control to suppress their adversaries.

In the context of the US, everything I’ve seen suggests the right seeks authoritarianism more than the left does, doing things like getting books they don’t agree with banned, working to eliminate the votes of those not aligned with them, and weakening the barrier between church and state.

[deleted]

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

#265

Post by mjfl »

danans wrote: post #185

> Consider these statements: > 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 ideolo…

No. All speech should be free.

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

#266

Post by wonderwonder »

jzb wrote: post #134

If we want a "liberal, intellectual society" we absolutely have to consider some speech "violence." To use one current example: The people pushing the idea of trans people as "groomers" is violence. It is not an intellectual debate, it's not necessary to entertain in order to preserve free thought, etc. The goal of that speech is to other trans people and it endangers them. Tolerance of that kind of speech ensures th…

No, its not. If someone punches you in the face, that's violence. If I say "hey, you're a groomer" that's not violence. You can tell the difference because one causes physical pain and the other doesn't. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

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

#267

Post by vannevar »

giantg2 wrote: post #15
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…

They may not be requesting assault charges, but they may be requesting pain and suffering compensation, or using "unkind" comments as leverage in a divorce. Edit: Why disagree?

I didn't downvote you, but I haven't heard of any kind of mass movement to get pain and suffering damages from Donald Trump's tweets, as painful as they were to endure. If you're talking about libel, that's a separate thing, and has been around since before the First Amendment. If you publish untrue things and they harm someone, of course you can (and should) be held liable for your words. Divorce is also a different situation, where someone's words may be fair game as evidence of actions and character, depending on the circumstances.

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

#268

Post by wonderwonder »

freejazz wrote: post #251
wonderwonder wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woman convinced her boyfriend to kill himself and was convicted: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michelle-carter-found-g...

She was convicted because she breached her duty of care after he informed her that he attempted suicide, and she told him to get back in the car and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it. The judge was spot in noting that by having the conversations with him that she did, at the time, she had a duty of care that she did not uphold. Your characterization of her liability is completely inapposite what the co…

interesting. What are my beliefs regarding freedom of speech? I attempted to provide an example of what the OP spoke of, might have been wrong. My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence. I appreciate you telling me what I believe and my political beliefs though.

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

#269

Post by throwawayacc6 »

freejazz wrote: post #261
throwawayacc6 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 White…

Just because it is literally possible to type a sentence, doesn't make it true... I'm not sure what point you think you are demonstrating past that.

You're almost there!

This is an /r/selfawarewolves tier post.

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

#270

Post by giantg2 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #175
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.

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…

"Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is. That can vary wildly. There are laws on the books in which the statute specifies "reasonable" and a judge has determined that it's an absolute liability offense because determining reasonableness is too hard and would frustrate the legislatures intent. (Even though this conflicts with other precedential opinion which states you can't ignore the letter of the law to pursue it's spirit).

In short, "reasonable" means nothing until the people in power tell you what it means.

Post reply on HN