> there’s a liberating and freeing quality to the idea that this is a safe space for me to say unpopular things and not get labeled as a conservative or racist,” Lederer said.
Tantalizing, now I really wonder what he said.
Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area
11–20 of 264 posts
Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area
#12Are Chatham House Rules just a way for people to hedge their bets? If they say something controversial, rude, offensive, or downright dodgy, they can hide behind anonymity. But if it’s a hit or something clever, insightful, or widely praised—they’re quick to claim credit. Convenient, isn’t it?
Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area
#13I have no idea whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but this is not freedom of speech, for the obvious reason that its based entirely on the limitation of speech, in this case, the freedom to truthfully state who said something.
I’m not a free speech absolutist, so that’s not a negative for me, but it’s extremely annoying to see a lot of people pretend to be pro free speech by policing what others might say about them.
Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area
#14People are not bound to follow this rule, correct? As in, there's no legal consequence? > Instead, his groups have moved to signing NDAs or explicitly stating that conversations are not to be shared externally. This seems a bit better, albeit with more work.
Not everything has to be legal. The consequence is you don't get invited back and some people might think less of you. Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian.
> Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian.
But I didn't say that? I was genuinely unsure of whether this was something that could be taken to court if someone violated it. If it's socially bound, and the purpose is to increase free speech, I find that less compelling in today's culture.
Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area
#15> [At] an intimate dinner party in Los Altos Hills, Brex Supper Club salons, [...] the rules of the house are increasingly Chatham.
What a strange comment.
If after attending a dinner party people are repeating everything they heard, in public, with attribution - then that dinner party absolutely was not intimate.
Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area
#16Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the grandparent's views, i think this comment demonstrates why the gp might feel cautious about giving their honest views on the subject.
I've always just given my honest views online under pseudonyms.
Like that I think gasoline should cost more.
Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area
#18[flagged]
[flagged]
How about South Africa not doing so well currently? It could be viewed through a racial lens but it means you can’t objectively discuss and hopefully help the situation. IMO this is exactly an example of where such closed rules may legitimately help. In the process of brainstorming you are bound to say something stupid or illegal but that’s the whole idea of brainstorming- to throw ideas and see what sticks
Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area
#19I have no idea whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but this is not freedom of speech, for the obvious reason that its based entirely on the limitation of speech, in this case, the freedom to truthfully state who said something. I’m not a free speech absolutist, so that’s not a negative for me, but it’s extremely annoying to see a lot of people pretend to be pro free speech by policing what others might say a…
"Free speech" is normally about a government restriction on speech. Most people don't take it to mean temporary restrictions during specific private events.
For example, at a funeral, the norm is not to speak ill of the dead (or any other time, for that matter), and if you break that rule, you might find yourself socially excluded. But that has nothing to do with the concept of "free speech".
The same goes for some kind of proceeding where you are not permitted to speak, or some situation where you are given information in confidence, or your signing of an NDA.
Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area
#20I have no idea whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but this is not freedom of speech, for the obvious reason that its based entirely on the limitation of speech, in this case, the freedom to truthfully state who said something. I’m not a free speech absolutist, so that’s not a negative for me, but it’s extremely annoying to see a lot of people pretend to be pro free speech by policing what others might say a…
Being able to chose who you associate with and who you do not associate is usually part and parcel with free speech.
I'd agree with you about the NDA bit. Using courts to enforce seems anti-free speech
However the milder version of it, where if someone violates the rule they aren't invited back, hardly seems like a free speech issue. Free speech doesn't mean you have to stay friends with someone who told your secrets to a third party. Free speech means you can say whatever you want, but it also means you can not talk to whomever you want.