My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up • Hacker News Board

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#61

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 5:03 AM UTC

zmgsabst wrote: post #51

uoaei wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me a lot of the Let's Go Brandon crowd. The explicit and literal point of the First Amendment is that you're allowed to say "Fuck Joe Biden" loud and proud with no repercussions. Ditto for any other politician. Self-censorship to prove a non-existent point is totally backwards and self-defeating and demonstrates the level of civic understanding at play there.

Let’s Go Brandon became a meme because a news anchor censored the crowd obviously chanting “fuck Joe Biden!” on air. People were mocking actual censorship in the media, by repeating the phrase — often accompanied by “fuck Joe Biden”, as in the numerous tracks about the meme. Which were also censored at first (eg, on iTunes). How you got from that to “self-censorship to prove a non-existent point” is mystifying.

> It started at an Oct. 2 NASCAR race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama. Brandon Brown, a 28-year-old driver, had won his first Xfinity Series and was being interviewed by an NBC Sports reporter. The crowd behind him was chanting something at first difficult to make out. The reporter suggested they were chanting “Let’s go, Brandon” to cheer the driver. But it became increasingly clear they were saying: “F—- Joe Biden.”

https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-what-does-it-mean...

So, no, the crowd was not "censored" by a news anchor.

The adoption of "Let's Go Brandon" as a euphimism for "Fuck Joe Biden" may well have been tongue in cheek, but it wasn't mocking media censorship.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#62

Post by mindslight » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 5:03 AM UTC

bad_username wrote: post #32

kstrauser wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean when the advertising companies pulled their money from Twitter after its owner said Jews "pushing [...] hatred against whites" was "the actual truth"? Darn those woke hippies at... let's see... IBM! Or maybe, just maybe, the simpler explanation is that they don't want their ads running alongside that trash.

> You mean when the advertising companies pulled their money from Twitter after its owner said Jews "pushing [...] hatred against whites" was "the actual truth"? Not really, because I specifically stated that my response was not about the Musk situation. "Jewish communities hate whites" does sound pretty antisemitic to me. But so does the equivalent trash of "all whites are racist", which for some reason is a-ok for…

I've been pondering a thought that we need to stop treating racism as something like a witch hunt, and analyze it more like excrement. Not something that's limited to specific people, but rather something everyone has a bit of. Not something that can ever be eliminated, but rather it's everyone's responsibility to mitigate it. Anyone can get some on their hands by accident, laziness, or dealing with a problem. But you don't come out of the bathroom waving it around and expecting to be appreciated. And if a bunch of people started proudly declaring that they shouldn't have to wash their hands and generally validating each others' slobbery, they'd be rightfully shunned.

This framing has some nice results like the contortions around "reverse" racism and the whitewashing of "positive" racism as "not racism" aren't necessary. If you're engaging in collectivism based on race, that's racism - regardless of whether your intent is "good" or "bad". And sometimes that's inevitable (cf "dealing with a problem"), but that doesn't mean it's ever something to really be celebrated.

Back to the topic with that in mind - it's "a-ok" because the advertising companies are racist, as they've generally been. Group stereotyping is a deep part of human psychology and therefore a powerful marketing tool. The main things that have changed is what is considered aspirational and high class, and what is considered verboten.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#63

Post by Yoric » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 5:06 AM UTC

rpmisms wrote: post #36

kstrauser wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"Jewish Communities" doesn't mean "All Jews", and that's obvious to anyone not looking for a reason to be angry. Muslim communities just bombed the hell out of Israel, and that's not islamophobic to say, because it doesn't implicate all Muslims.

I don't know about that. As a reader, I find that "Jewish Communities" very much sounds like "All Jews" and "Muslim Communities" very much sounds like "All Muslims". If that's not what the authors mean, I'm sure that there are much, much better phrasings.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#64

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 5:06 AM UTC

EarlKing wrote: post #59

medler wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The motte is "we're just criticising Musk" while the bailey is "we're systematically contacting all of his advertisers and letting them know that if they continue to support him then we will campaign against them as well". As a free-speech absolutist, I genuinely don’t see any difference between criticizing a person and telling other people (advertisers) that that person did something bad. That’s what criticism is,…

So you'll have no problem if I start digging through your posting history for clues about your identity and contacting your employer to let them know what a horrible person you are, right? .....or is that sort of thing only ok when it's done against enemies of the state?

If what you dig up on me is presented in context, and my employer has made it clear that my behavior outside the workplace can be considered grounds for termination, then absolutely go for it [0].

On the other hand, if you selectively quote me, and/or my employer has no grounds for dismissal based on something that did not happen in the workplace, please don't waste your time.

[0] I'm self employed.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#65

Post by zoogeny » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 5:06 AM UTC

eapressoandcats wrote: post #54

zoogeny wrote: post #29

> Musk is also a fan of the theory that when he speaks, your criticism of him violates his rights I hate to use such trite debate bro topics, but isn't this a motte and bailey fallacy [1]? The motte is "we're just criticising Musk" while the bailey is "we're systematically contacting all of his advertisers and letting them know that if they continue to support him then we will campaign against them as well". The whol…

Boycotts are unquestionably free speech from a legal perspective and definitional perspective. From a moral perspective, Popehat’s main consistent point is that you need to be very specific about what behaviors cross a line and actually apply that fairly, which Elon pretty clearly does not. He has no problems asking people to boycott companies: https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/28/elon-musk-calls-for-boycot...

I have no interest in legality or even morality on this topic. This is a question of rhetoric.

The actions in question aren’t a criticism of the ideas of Musk. They are collective actions to harm him by harming his business.

The lawsuit will help determine whether or not those actions were legal.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#66

Post by somenameforme » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 5:09 AM UTC

felixgallo wrote: post #31

javajosh wrote: post #22

Disturbingly myopic. As if the problem were simple! It's not. People will self censure if they fear retribution. This is particularly true when that retribution takes the form of ostracism, personal or professional. This used to be very rare! Now it is common. The concern about "first amendment rights" are a total red herring. Who cares about the law? Ostracism doesn't and never needed a trial. What this boils down t…

there is little more painful than ostracism? Tell that to the tens of millions of graves that Nazis and Fascists littered Europe with, within living memory. All this pearl clutching about cancel culture is just a naked attempt to permit the normalization of Fascism, gay bashing, Jew hating, and pushing down the Blacks again, in order to energize the last vestiges of the aging-out conservative right wing. 'there is li…

I'm not sure many understand the historical context of the rise of the Nazis. Germany had just ended up on the losing side of "the war to end all wars" or WW1. In the Treaty of Versailles, which Germany was not allowed to participate in the negotiation of, they were forced to accept all guilt for the war, give up vast tracts of land, and then pay an a unpayable amount on top, which many even at the time argued was excessively myopic.

Following their defeat in WW1, the country fell into civil war which eventually led to the creation of the short lived Weimar Republic. Their economy then collapsed into hyperinflation and was stabilized only by even more lending (and thus more debt) from the West. Then in 1930 the Great Depression hit, which ended that lending, and their entire economy spiraled into destruction, with widespread unemployment and the rise of violent extremism across all political ideologies.

To think this could have been stopped by more censorship is not realistic. In fact censorship was one of the key ways the Nazis finally managed to consolidate power, as they were never especially popular. They never won a single election with a majority. Their best result in anything even vaguely resembling a fair election was in July 1932 where they gained a plurality with 37%. By November, when another election was called after they failed to form a government, they were down to 33%. They only won by shenanigans, and consolidated with censorship and totalitarianism.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#67

Post by rpmisms » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 5:09 AM UTC

Yoric wrote: post #63

rpmisms wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Jewish Communities" doesn't mean "All Jews", and that's obvious to anyone not looking for a reason to be angry. Muslim communities just bombed the hell out of Israel, and that's not islamophobic to say, because it doesn't implicate all Muslims.

I don't know about that. As a reader, I find that "Jewish Communities" very much sounds like "All Jews" and "Muslim Communities" very much sounds like "All Muslims". If that's not what the authors mean, I'm sure that there are much, much better phrasings.

That may very well be your own bias. If I say "Christian Communities hate gays", you'll probably think of one or two specific communities. When I saw "Jewish Communities" in gp's headline, I immediately thought "oh, the ADL", because they're bigots and don't really hide it.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#68

Post by squigz » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 5:09 AM UTC

bad_username wrote: post #32

kstrauser wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean when the advertising companies pulled their money from Twitter after its owner said Jews "pushing [...] hatred against whites" was "the actual truth"? Darn those woke hippies at... let's see... IBM! Or maybe, just maybe, the simpler explanation is that they don't want their ads running alongside that trash.

> You mean when the advertising companies pulled their money from Twitter after its owner said Jews "pushing [...] hatred against whites" was "the actual truth"? Not really, because I specifically stated that my response was not about the Musk situation. "Jewish communities hate whites" does sound pretty antisemitic to me. But so does the equivalent trash of "all whites are racist", which for some reason is a-ok for…

> But so does the equivalent trash of "all whites are racist", which for some reason is a-ok for the advertising companies.

Is it okay with them? Any kind of proof to back this up?

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#69

Post by jcranmer » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 5:09 AM UTC

SenAnder wrote: post #42

sgnelson wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no. You can say a lot of things about Ken White, but saying that he conflates the 1st Amendment and Free Speech is one thing he does not do. There's a ton of evidence out there where he is very specific about the differences between the 1st amendment and free speech. A 10 second google found: https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-sham...

Let me be more precise then: he shows little concern for free speech outside a legalistic understanding. From https://popehat.substack.com/p/my-free-speech-means-you-have... People who are sincerely concerned about free expression, people I admire and respect, argue that we must avoid “manipulative” and “ad hominem” criticism to protect speech — without really engaging the problem that both the critic and the critici…

The fundamental paradox of free speech is that protection of speakers from consequences of their free speech necessarily imposes on others' free speech, while not providing that protection also imposes on the speaker's free speech. No matter how you want to draw that line, you end up hurting somebody.

SCOTUS has essentially "solved" the problem by deciding that the government just can't ever decide how to draw the line. If you look at the history of free speech cases, SCOTUS almost invariably decides to permit the speech, pushing the bar for illegality further and further back. Private parties suing each other for violating free speech is essentially non-justiciable (okay, there's defamation, but the grounds for defamation are very extreme in the US so as to be almost never applicable, as Twitter will find out multiple times in the next few months).

If you're running a social media site, well, you similarly have to face these conundrums. But if you're reliant on advertisers for your income, you'll also find that you can't just nope out of it. Mike Masnick has a good guide on just how difficult it is for these companies (https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you...), which I'm sure Popehat would endorse.

At the end of the day, you can't win. You have to piss off somebody. And, personally, I'm not going to side with the faction that wants to deny my right to existence.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#70

Post by JoshTriplett » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 5:09 AM UTC

SenAnder wrote: post #4

Musk's incoherent stance aside, the author is afaik a lawyer, and has a habit of conflating the ideal of free speech, with the 1st amendment. Placing advertisers and billion-dollar corporations as arbiters of what may enter the public sphere is counter to the spirit of free speech, even if it complies with the 1st amendment. There may be no simple legal means to prevent it (to get ahead of the usual "oh so you want g…

Your right to freedom of speech does not invalidate other people's right to freedom of association. That isn't a problem, it's a feature. We have very narrow exceptions to freedom of association, to prevent discrimination. Outside of those exceptions, people always have the right to say "I want nothing to do with you", and that's a very powerful right. That isn't a problem that needs solving, it's a feature to be cherished.