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

381–390 of 480 posts

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

#381

Post by [deleted] »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #271
Joeboy wrote: post #11

> 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.

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…

[deleted]

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

#382

Post by freejazz »

giantg2 wrote: post #375
freejazz wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is." Not really. The boundaries of "reasonable" are... wait for... it reasonableness. I.e. if a jury or a judge isn't reasonable, then an appeals court can overturn it. A judge or jury is not given free reign to determine anything to be reasonable.

Years of costly appeals will still ruin your life.

I was just responding to your point in the abstract, not arguing with you about whatever it is you are arguing about.

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

#383

Post by fallingknife »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #312
kneebonian wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Nobody is calling for anything remotely extreme as your post seems to be hinting at in a tongue-in-cheek manner. From the perspective of someone who sits in the middle with a leaning to the left, it looks to me like the left doesn’t have problems with others holding differing views, so long as following those views doesn’t result in the harm or impediment of liberty of others. Nobody is saying it’s wrong to be be a c…

In my personal experience the left is much worse at handling disagreement. I have had lefties get angry at my more conservative opinions, but conservatives never seem to get angry when I'm more liberal than them.

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

#384

Post by freejazz »

throwawayacc6 wrote: post #380
freejazz wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>It's not even an argument, it's a rhetorical fallacy It is an argument, and it's not a rhetorical fallacy. >There really is no good reason for you to conduct yourself this way. Maybe I was being a bit much.

>Maybe I was being a bit much.

I'd recommend that you use your own words to communicate your point, not others'. It's not doing you the favors you seem to think it is, especially if you are taking the position that you have contributed an argument to the discussion.

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

#385

Post by Mountain_Skies »

musictubes wrote: post #287

I remember the Idea Channel on YouTube had a video about violence. He started by quoting an artist saying something to the effect that putting paint to canvas was a violent act. The host went on to define violence as the taking away of agency. The rest of the video was mostly him arguing that physical violence is as easy to define as you might think and that ideas and speech can in fact be violent. My reaction was th…

Amazing how trendy redefining words has become.

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

#386

Post by freejazz »

jojobas wrote: post #379
freejazz wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Where did you get that? The court decision does not mention "duty of care" (which is a well established term for situations that have nothing in common with this one). She created a different kind of duty for herself, not by any of the preceding messages but rather by the final "get back in" message.

I was just going off memory. You are right that it was that specific message and not the previous messages.

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

#387

Post by devmor »

aidenn0 wrote: post #332
devmor wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's entirely subjective. For instance, if you're a Christian, the Bible would have you beaten, stoned, amputated or killed for different types of speech deemed offensive to specific parties. The US legal system also provides many avenues for punishing people based on their speech. Most legal systems and most religions follow similar rules.

That's why the quote specifically mentions "intellectual liberalism" not Biblical laws nor the US legal system.

That's why those are examples of why it's subjective.

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

#388

Post by devmor »

Swenrekcah wrote: post #195
devmor wrote: post #98

Another thinkpiece positing that facing consequences for saying fucked up shit is somehow a bad thing. How many of these must we suffer through? Why do none of these people grasp the concept that when you speak to other people, they do not have to passively absorb your words? This author, like many others, could use the sage advice my father gave me in 5th grade when I taunted and made fun of another student and got…

There are two distinct things people often confuse on either side of this issue. Say a stupid/offending/violent thing and you’ll face consequences from 1) other people listening in the form of shunning/shouting/lost opportunities/laughing. 2) the government in form of fines or even imprisonment. People on both sides get all hot and bothered when they receive 1) and complain that they have freedom of speech or that th…

The problem is that people keep getting upset at 1) and use 2) as a justification for why it's "morally wrong" for 1) to be happening to them.

I have genuinely never seen anyone calling for 2) outside of nations run by theocracies and dictators, with the exception of the UK.

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

#389

Post by yucky »

flangola7 wrote: post #260
rajin444 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument always comes up too and you end up with certain people trying to force others to bake cakes a certain way. The whole idea of “protected classes” spits in the face of free speech. I think free speech is a noble goal but can only really exist when we don’t live in a zero sum world. Until then: > "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more or less." Alice responded to Humpty Du…

The cake thing isn't about speech but public accomodations.

It's scary how many people still parrot this line, which is 100% incorrect.

The baker was happy to sell them a cake. They had many cakes in the store that they could have bought.

The baker did not want to be compelled to create a custom cake (which he considered his artistic expression), to depict something he didn't agree with.

Imagine forcing an Islamic baker to write "Mohammad was a dirty pedophile" on a cake. Same thing.

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

#390

Post by jrm4 »

comte7092 wrote: post #305
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…

As is oft repeated, the law you refer to only applies to state action. The notion we could easily apply this to private individuals quickly breaks down. Employee X gets fired for publicly stating that their employers products are trash, said employee sues, nothing about what they said was illegal.

Those oft repeaters should talk to a real lawyer? Libel, slander, the occasional tortious interference with contract?
Post reply on HN