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

451–460 of 480 posts

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

#451

Post by garbagecoder »

farmaway wrote: post #325
s1artibartfast wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This hyperbolic nonsense to say laws are almost never enforced that way. There are real biases and Injustice, but it doesn't a disservice do any reasonable debate to make such exaggerating claims

It's not an exaggeration. My city government has funded a "Black Excellence Center" which will use public funds to build a racially-exclusive art gallery/business incubator/cultural space for black people, who represent ~6% of my city's population and are not excluded from any of the similar places which already exist: https://www.theblackcenter.org/ This is blatantly unconstitutional, but no one has challenged it in…

Not saying what you're saying is wrong, but there are lawsuits every day for discriminating against what people think are the majority in employment and housing. I'm not sure why my post was downvoted for pointing out a fact about the law and that most people don't realize it.

But you're doubling down not just on that people aren't aware of it but that it's a dead letter. That's wrong. You're confusing the government's spending power with discrimination in employment.

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

#452

Post by garbagecoder »

comte7092 wrote: post #406
jrm4 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A real lawyer would know about Lloyd corp v tanner and be able to contextualize the fact that most of this controversy exists because it is legal to limit speech in the ways we are debating all over the internet. People saying “we should limit it to what the law says” don’t make a ton of sense… because the law says that Twitter limiting speech is perfectly acceptable. The first amendment doesn’t even apply in civil c…

Real lawyers don't necessarily know every case citation. Real law students and googlers might. You get a general sense of how things work.

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

#453

Post by vannevar »

giantg2 wrote: post #362
vannevar wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

These are fair points if we read the article as a criticism of existing law. I didn't read it that way, mostly because of the current political context where "cancel culture" is a big issue. But I can certainly see how it can be taken that way. In that case, I can only say that I would strongly disagree that speech alone should never be actionable, there are just too many obvious exceptions such as the ones we've talked about here (libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment). Laws evolve for a reason. They are not academic exercises in philosophy, they arise from experience.

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

#454

Post by garbagecoder »

mikrotikker wrote: post #413
garbagecoder wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't realize this and they also don't realize that equal opportunity laws also apply to white, male, christians, etc.

Yes that is why the civil rights law in California was almost repealed last year, they wanted to make it legal to discriminate against white people. Such moronic thinking does not consider the future consequences. Law by teenagers.

"Almost" is not true. Did someone drop a bill in the legislature? Maybe. Did it even make it out of committee? Where are you getting this? "Almost" is doing a lot of work. If your source was AM radio or Fox News don't bother to reply. Leginfo only, please.

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

#455

Post by comte7092 »

garbagecoder wrote: post #452
comte7092 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A real lawyer would know about Lloyd corp v tanner and be able to contextualize the fact that most of this controversy exists because it is legal to limit speech in the ways we are debating all over the internet. People saying “we should limit it to what the law says” don’t make a ton of sense… because the law says that Twitter limiting speech is perfectly acceptable. The first amendment doesn’t even apply in civil c…

Real lawyers don't necessarily know every case citation. Real law students and googlers might. You get a general sense of how things work.

I guess what I should have said was that they’d have a sense of the operative case law in the area they were speaking on. I don’t think that is too high of an expectation. That case wasn’t something I had to google and I’m not in school currently.

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

#456

Post by wonderwonder »

cmh89 wrote: post #448
wonderwonder wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hmmm, your entire argument appears to be overly focused and convinced on the supposed fact that everyone that holds negative views of a race or people becomes a mass murderer. That's very much not the case. If if was, there wouldn't be very many people left at all. 99.999999% of the time JewHater99 is just going to go about living a normal life and continue posting anonymously on the web.

>hmmm, your entire argument appears to be overly focused and convinced on the supposed fact that everyone that holds negative views of a race or people becomes a mass murderer. That's very much not the case That's not what I've said and you know it. It really seems like you don't actually understand the position you think youre arguing against.

Pretty sure it was.

"What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue."

"The end result of these hate ideologies is mass shootings and terrorism"

"Well, the family members of the people JewHater99 ends up massacring might"

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

#457

Post by aklemm »

farmaway wrote: post #325
s1artibartfast wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This hyperbolic nonsense to say laws are almost never enforced that way. There are real biases and Injustice, but it doesn't a disservice do any reasonable debate to make such exaggerating claims

It's not an exaggeration. My city government has funded a "Black Excellence Center" which will use public funds to build a racially-exclusive art gallery/business incubator/cultural space for black people, who represent ~6% of my city's population and are not excluded from any of the similar places which already exist: https://www.theblackcenter.org/ This is blatantly unconstitutional, but no one has challenged it in…

This particular type of grievance is only possible when you fail or refuse to comprehend the long, brutal, and massive privilege that “one largest demographic” took for itself for centuries. “Separate schools, separate standards, separate funding, separate public investment” indeed.

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

#458

Post by Xeoncross »

nickthegreek wrote: post #446
insickness wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not clear why you're getting downvoted, but this is the exact right answer. The Twitter files was proof that the Federal government put pressure on Twitter to censor specific viewpoints.

What was the pressure?

There was often no (but sometimes) pressure, Twitter was aligned enough with most of the requests it seemed.

Regardless, does that remove the offense?

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

#459

Post by breadbreadbread »

wonderwonder wrote: post #450
breadbreadbread wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote that comment and I don't want to make speech illegal I want acknowledgement that speech can be harmful and allow communities to self moderate if they are threatened. > The recent movement against trans is wholly due to the movements attempt to bring kids into it Frankly this is a lie. The root of your issue with trans people is that you think they are gross. It's circular logic to say that trans adults should…

"The root of your issue with trans people is that you think they are gross" What? I have no issues with trans people at all as long as they just live their lives like everyone else and stop attempting to enforce trans education in schools, unfairly compete in women's sports and not perform lewd acts in front of kids. Other than that I wish them nothing but happiness. Trans people should be able to do whatever they wa…

Trans people largely dont want to be "sexual" around children. The problem is that you are conflating a performance art (drag) with an entire demographic of people (trans people). Do you actually think trans people are sexually assaulting kids or do you just perceive them existing in society as an assault? Why are trans topics in education bad if they describe the lived experience of your neighbors? I don't genuinely believe you would leave trans people alone, if they gave up any ground. you just want them to shut up and get out of sight so they don't legitimize a lifestyle that you disprove of.

> as long as they just live their lives like everyone else

The way you live your life and your opinions around what to teach kids about gender are a cultural choice. You make the active decision every day to teach kids that boys cant wear dresses, or that girls and boys need to be separated in sports. You can justify those beliefs all you want but at the end of the day, you are saying that your perspective is right and that trans people are wrong. So no you are not asking them to "live their life like I do" because you don't want them to advertise a lifestyle different from yours

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

#460

Post by wonderwonder »

breadbreadbread wrote: post #459
wonderwonder wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The root of your issue with trans people is that you think they are gross" What? I have no issues with trans people at all as long as they just live their lives like everyone else and stop attempting to enforce trans education in schools, unfairly compete in women's sports and not perform lewd acts in front of kids. Other than that I wish them nothing but happiness. Trans people should be able to do whatever they wa…

Trans people largely dont want to be "sexual" around children. The problem is that you are conflating a performance art (drag) with an entire demographic of people (trans people). Do you actually think trans people are sexually assaulting kids or do you just perceive them existing in society as an assault? Why are trans topics in education bad if they describe the lived experience of your neighbors? I don't genuinely…

I've never done anything negative to a trans person in my life so not sure what you mean by I won't leave them alone. Unless you think having a calm conversation and exchange of ideas on HN is harassment.

As far as "The way you live your life and your opinions around what to teach kids about gender are a cultural choice." Yup, and as a parent I make choices for my kids every day based on what I think is right for their success and happiness. I don't wish trans people ill at all indeed I wish them good lives but I very much don't want my kids to be trans as it's a much harder life. For a variety of reasons. Plus I want my boys to be boys. That's my preference. But I'm not looking to make that choice for any adult. Adult being the key word.

As soon as the trans community says yes sexual drag shows for kids is wrong and schools lying to parents is wrong and discussing sexuality in school is wrong then I'm all good.

Post reply on HN