Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#121

Post by mcv »

diego_moita wrote: post #3

I believe that an intelligent person should be able to hold two conflicting perceptions at the same time. Therefore, I understand and accept that free speech is a foundation for a civilized life, that there should be no restraints on free speech. But, I also acknowledge that free speech isn't so free at all. For a long time and in many places in the world there are minorities without the right to speech. And the barr…

> there should be no restraints on free speech.

There are always restraints on speech, and it's silly to pretend there aren't. The classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, but threats, blackmail, and slander are all forms of speech with serious restrictions on them. Forms of speech that endanger or coerce other people are not free. The same could be argued about hate speech: speech that creates a hostile environment for vulnerable groups, and often ends up silencing them (thereby effectively restricting their speech).

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#122

Post by Ygg2 »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #90
Ygg2 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alt right are basically the only major suppressed group in the Western world at the moment, and I have no problem with that. Reminds me of this quote from a man for all seasons: William Roper : So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More : Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper : Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Tho…

I think you might have missed the next sentence in my text that you quoted. Alt right people are not persecuted for their opinions, so they still have their freedom of speech. They just like to pretend that they don't.

No. I just don't consider it true.

Sure, government doesn't silence anymore. They just ask Facebook/Twitter/[insert social media] nicely to do that instead of them. In same way a mobster just asks you to help him out with that problematic person. Or else.

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#123

Post by awesome_dude »

ggreer wrote: post #113
awesome_dude wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the shutting down of protests that are loud because they are against one thing being heard. It is hard to determine whose free speech prevail there.

If you read the original arguments in favor of freedom of speech, it's actually quite easy to determine who should prevail. Back in 1644, John Milton argued in favor of allowing bad ideas to be published for the following reason[1]: > Bad meats will scarce breed good nourishment in the healthiest concoction; but herein the difference is of bad books, that they to a discreet and judicious Reader serve in many respects…

I strongly recommend that you revise your post - the 'original' arguments in favour of free speech date back to the 5th century BC.

"Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments.[6] It is thought that the ancient Athenian democratic principle of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.[7]

Freedom of speech was vindicated by Erasmus and Milton.[6] Edward Coke claimed freedom of speech as "an ancient custom of Parliament" in the 1590s, and it was affirmed in the Protestation of 1621.[8] England's Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of freedom of speech in Parliament which is still in effect, so-called parliamentary privilege.[9][10]"

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#124

Post by mock-possum »

mcv wrote: post #120

Although I agree with much of what he says, it seems like Rowan Atkinson is unfamiliar with Popper's Paradox of Intolerance. He easily brushes it away as if it can't stand up to 5 seconds of thought, but I'm pretty sure Karl Popper (undeniably a smart guy) put more than 5 minutes of thought into it.

yeah I thought the subject deserved more consideration on his part - I mean Popper's got a point. For him to just be like "oh that's obviously wrong moving right along" really doesn't deal with it seriously.

Because the real underlying question here, at least as far as I'm concerned, is - is Free Speech good to a fault? Like you can easily think of ways to use free speech to harass, and to hurt, and to threaten, to manipulate - the more clever you are about it, the less straightforward it is for others to identify it when you're doing it.

Is free speech really so important that abusers and trolls are given a free pass to continue their work, so long as they constrain it to the realm of speech?

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#126

Post by scoofy »

revelio wrote: post #77
vonzepp wrote: post #4

Sometimes missing in these debates is that right to free speech isn't the right to be listened to.

Censorship isn't "not listening", it's stopping other people from listening.

It's more complicated than that. If my comments on news.ycombinator.com are removed, am I being censored or just asked to leave a publicly accessible private venue.

That is to say, where do free speech zones begin, publicly accessible private areas areas end, and even public right-of-ways end?

It's really a complex question when you delve into nuance, and I think it's worthwhile to do that, even for people who genuinely as deeply pro-free speech.

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#128

Post by satisfice »

djur wrote: post #66
indy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(At the risk of having my comment turn gray) The entire concept of "hate speech", the concept of "dead naming", anyone who thinks "words are violence" and therefore retaliation with physical violence is justified. These are all forms of attack upon free speech and there have been instances of these in universities for the past decade.

How is "deadnaming" an attack on free speech? It's always been considered discourteous to refer to people by a name they don't go by.

I’ve been alive a long time and I never went to a meeting where this was discussed or decided. I’ve never heard of such a meeting. And it doesn’t make sense.

If you spend part of your life in a certain identity, and you interact with people under that identity, and they know you that way, banning people from talking about you in that identity is discourteous to THEM. You are laying a claim on other people’s minds that you have no right to make.

It’s not just about names, it’s about policing memory and attempting to manufacture a personal brand through social coercion. It’s immoral.

I remember being a kid when a man named Bruce was on Wheaties boxes. Now some would say I am not permitted to discuss my own life in relation to that experience. Yes that is a curtailment of speech. (Not in a constitutional sense, though, since the government isn’t restricting it.)

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#129

Post by jl6 »

mindslight wrote: post #103
jl6 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key element that makes it a different debate is the involvement of children. There is widespread precedent for children to have limited rights and responsibilities, and limiting what media they have access to is entirely commonplace and not done to curtail speech.

First, Reddit is used by plenty of children (regardless of COPPA). Many have tacit approval of their parents, who don't look too hard at what Reddit contains past the front page. And Reddit most certainly wants to be a place for children (age 13-17). So what children have access to is part of both issues. Second, does this "Florida issue" include provisions for parents of children that want their children to be able…

> Second, does this "Florida issue" include provisions for parents of children that want their children to be able to access those books, to opt out of the restrictions in question?

Yes, it does: they are perfectly free to buy or borrow those books themselves. The law is about what’s available in a public school.

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#130

Post by jl6 »

mcv wrote: post #119
jl6 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dahl himself authorized changes to his work to keep them marketable. Is that the same Dahl that said: “I’ve warned my publishers that if they later on so much as change a single comma in one of my books, they will never see another word from me. Never! Ever!” “When I am gone, if that happens, then I’ll wish mighty Thor knocks very hard on their heads with his Mjolnir. Or I will send along the ‘enormous crocodile’ t…

In a comment elsewhere you seemed to argue that censorship in schools is acceptable to ensure books are appropriate for children. Is that not the case with Roald Dahl books? Should they just have been banned from schools instead?

In my other comment I’m arguing that limiting children’s access to media is orthogonal to the issue of censorship. I did not declare what Florida is doing is acceptable. They have used a blunt instrument to remove many books when only some of them are clearly unsuitable.

No, the Dahl books should not have been banned from school either, because they did not contain harmful material. In any case, a content warning or contextual note would be preferable to rewriting them.

Post reply on HN