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

361–370 of 480 posts

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

#361

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #354
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often hear of people having the Twitter mob descend on them so hard that it makes the news and they get a shitload of menacing violent threats on their voicemail or other harassment.

To be clear, I am not saying it doesn't occur. I am just pushing pack on the idea that just because something happens regularly or frequently, it is normalized. There are 350 Americans and 5+ billion people on the internet. You could probably run a news story every day about a mother who murdered their child, but that doesn't mean infanticide is normalized. It doesn't even mean infanticide is a serious problem.

Hm. Agreed. I meant common but I agree that the words are not interchangeable.

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

#362

Post by giantg2 »

vannevar wrote: post #322
giantg2 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things like harassment, or intentional infliction of emotional distress can be a basis for pain and suffering lawsuits. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/suing-e... Things like insults, shaming, and verbal abuse are part of emotional abuse in divorce cases. These need not be evidence of actions or character. These can be used for an at fault divorce. What is consided to br an insult or shaming can…

Again, those are legal principles that have been enshrined in law for a long time. The article does not address them, which leads me to believe the author was thinking of more general cases of offensive speech, like the campus speaker example he offers, and not specific cases of verbal abuse. There may be cases where people are urging broader scope for those laws, which have a pretty high bar as the lawyer commented…

"When speech causes emotional or mental pain, the offended parties are morally entitled to nothing in the form of compensation from or punishment for the offender."

Considering this is repeated a couple times by the author, it seems they are talking about a general statement and not a narrow circumstance, even if they're using a specific example. It's important to point out that the statement above is not universally true, or if it is, then our laws are immoral.

"Again, those are legal principles that have been enshrined in law for a long time."

“When we do become offended, as we all will, we must settle for responding with criticism or contempt, and stop short of demanding that the offender be punished or required to make restitution,”

It seems to me that restitution and punishment would include those leveled by the legal system. Simply because something has be law for a long time does not make it off limits to discussion, especially if it's application/interpretation has changed over that time.

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

#363

Post by wonderwonder »

freejazz wrote: post #351
wonderwonder wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When did I say what your political beliefs were? It's obvious to anyone reading your post, that you shared what you did to further your beliefs. Sheesh! And go figure, you're just shy of an absolutist. Who would have guessed that? (me! I would have!)

Lol, I'm guessing all of your posts are to hamper you political beliefs?

Sheesh indeed my friend, sheesh indeed.

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

#364

Post by throwawayacc6 »

freejazz wrote: post #349
throwawayacc6 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're almost there! This is an /r/selfawarewolves tier post.

Oh, I get it. You think you are demonstrating that the post you are mocking is meaningless because you can artificially insert other words to it in an arbitrary fashion that renders it meaningless? Shocking that you are being smarmy about it, but I guess that comes with the territory of not realizing the pie is in your own face.

>Oh, I get it.

WHOOSH! No you don't.

>You think you are demonstrating that the post you are mocking is meaningless because you can artificially insert other words to it in an arbitrary fashion that renders it meaningless?

They're not arbitrary, nor were they inserted.

>Shocking that you are being smarmy about it,

IMAX-level projection.

>I guess that comes with the territory of not realizing the pie is in your own face.

/r/selfawarewolves gold.

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

#365

Post by cmrdporcupine »

jimbo9991 wrote: post #360
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was kind of a moment around 9/11 & invasion of Iraq&Afghanistan when the "left" (a term I hate, but I'll put aside that hate for now) pivoted on how it treated Islam, Islamic countries & immigrants and speech which was inflammatory around Islam. And in that context I think there was on the whole some sympathy on "the left" for Rushdie before, and less so after. (But like, I also think you can't make any broad g…

Hitchens is still a liberal whether he is neoconservative or not because neoconservatism is a form of liberalism. Its just "liberalism in one country", or "great power liberalism" i.e. in the US context the constitution doesn't apply to our enemies, which regardless of whether or not it is moral or wise in modern times, it is certainly an accurate reading of the text and intent of the constitution. Neoconservatism fo…

Before his neo-con conversion, Hitchens was explicitly some kind of social democrat or socialist, but not "liberal" in the US sense in that he routinely viciously criticized American liberals for their hypocrisy and for their pro-capital, pro-imperialist positions.

Jacobin had a reasonably decent article about this recently. https://jacobin.com/2022/09/christopher-hitchens-essays-left...

But yes I understand you're meaning liberal in the European/classical sense more than the American sense. US politics are wacked.

In any case, it's all hypocrisy. Conservative or liberal alike in the US and other western countries will all mostly fold in behind oppressive governments and very illiberal policies the moment their nation state and established financial order is threatened. We got a taste of that after 9/11, but we will likely see far worse in the future.

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

#366

Post by freejazz »

throwawayacc6 wrote: post #364
freejazz wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I get it. You think you are demonstrating that the post you are mocking is meaningless because you can artificially insert other words to it in an arbitrary fashion that renders it meaningless? Shocking that you are being smarmy about it, but I guess that comes with the territory of not realizing the pie is in your own face.

>Oh, I get it. WHOOSH! No you don't. >You think you are demonstrating that the post you are mocking is meaningless because you can artificially insert other words to it in an arbitrary fashion that renders it meaningless? They're not arbitrary, nor were they inserted. >Shocking that you are being smarmy about it, IMAX-level projection. >I guess that comes with the territory of not realizing the pie is in your own fac…

It's not even an argument, it's a rhetorical fallacy. There really is no good reason for you to conduct yourself this way.

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

#367

Post by jojobas »

gowld wrote: post #140
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.

One action is a crime, the other (in)action isn't.

Convincing someone to commit suicide (not a criminal act per se anymore) is still a crime in many jurisdictions.

Not having children is a life decision that's harmful to the society the same way suicide is harmful to the society.

Childfree groups should be treated as suicide cults.

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

#368

Post by jimbo9991 »

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.

Hate to have to bring up the obvious fact that free association hasn't existed since the 1960s in practice, and in certain ways much longer. I think this is almost certainly a good thing, but it's disingenuous to pretend that free association is something that we practice in the US. It simply isn't the current law and it probably shouldn't be.

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

#369

Post by hpen »

Clubber wrote: post #352
hpen wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting info. I think people still get the point I’m making but thanks for the clarification

You're welcome. The most interesting part is the "fire in a theater" was at a time when the government was throwing people in jail for protesting WWI under the Wilson administration. When the SCOTUS affirmed the Debs conviction and 10 year sentence and permanent disenfranchisement, they referenced the case of "fire in a theater," as justification. It was a pretty dark time in our history. I'm glad it was overturned.…

I will say that you will never find me fighting for speech being banned. Peers of mine bring up the "fire in a theater" as a counter for us already having free speech limitations. I thought that was still the case and so I was looking for a way to make common sense stuff illegal given the precedence that there are active limitations today.

I'm really uncomfortable with the way twitter mobs dictate what is and isn't free speech and I was looking for a more democratic, test of time driven solution.

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

#370

Post by freejazz »

wonderwonder wrote: post #363
freejazz wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did I say what your political beliefs were? It's obvious to anyone reading your post, that you shared what you did to further your beliefs. Sheesh! And go figure, you're just shy of an absolutist. Who would have guessed that? (me! I would have!)

Lol, I'm guessing all of your posts are to hamper you political beliefs? Sheesh indeed my friend, sheesh indeed.

So because your post was obviously made in an effort to expound upon the validity of your beliefs, it must be the case that I only ever do that? I don't follow. I wasn't projecting, I was just using basic reading comprehension skills to understand why someone would write what they did. It's a totally normal skill: https://www.lsac.org/lsat/taking-lsat/test-format/reading-co...
Post reply on HN