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

Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 264 posts

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#21

Post by bawolff »

rlpb wrote: post #19
addicted wrote: post #13

I 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 k…

In the usa context yes, but i think its wrong to hold that the concept in general is soley about governments.

E.g. if someone beats you up due to a view you expressed, i consider that a free speech issue.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#22

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rlpb wrote: post #19
addicted wrote: post #13

I 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 k…

> "Free speech" is normally about a government restriction on speech

No, this is the First Amendment. Free speech as a value is much broader [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#23

Post by TMWNN »

Temporary_31337 wrote: post #18
laidoffamazon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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

>How about South Africa not doing so well currently?

I recently read a book review that discussed South Africa today. One of the many points it made about the dire state of things is that the air force planes that flew overhead during Mandela's inauguration were, a decade later, completely inoperable. https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-south-africas-brave-new-...>.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#24

Post by khazhoux »

Arainach wrote: post #4
more_corn wrote: post #3

So people feel free to speak candidly?

This isn't about people speaking candidly. It's about not hurting the feelings of people who do and work on bad things and allowing them to still get invited to events without fearing any consequences for their actions. It's the same reason Kissinger still got invites to Manhattan social events (and, bizarrely, Clinton campaign events) long after it was known that he was a traitor and a war criminal.

No, I think it’s about not having to fear being retweeted publicly for what you intended to be private discussions.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#25

Post by davidgerard »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #11

> 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.

looks like he just told us

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#26

Post by aliasxneo »

Temporary_31337 wrote: post #18
laidoffamazon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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

> 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

That's a great point. One thing I've not enjoyed in modern corporate culture is the mental gymnastics required to usher out a statement that couldn't be interpreted as offensive to anyone on the planet. It's not like I'm _trying_ to be offensive, but as the number of rules governing speech increases, it becomes difficult to have conversations that are not laden with newspeak.

Removing that cognitive load is bound to leave more brainpower for the task at hand.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#27

Post by rlpb »

bawolff wrote: post #21
rlpb wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 k…

In the usa context yes, but i think its wrong to hold that the concept in general is soley about governments. E.g. if someone beats you up due to a view you expressed, i consider that a free speech issue.

> E.g. if someone beats you up due to a view you expressed, i consider that a free speech issue.

If the police beat you up, then that's a freedom of speech issue (as well as police abuse, etc), since one might argue that the government is suppressing your speech.

If a private citizen beats you up, then I disagree; it's merely a matter of assault. That's illegal anyway and your speech had little to do with it. If someone beats me up for looking at them the wrong way, I'd hardly argue that it's a "looking the wrong way" issue.

I appreciate that you consider otherwise, and of course it's subjective so your view is as valid as mine. I'm just identifying that I think your concept is "creep" that has occurred over time for some subset of people, spawned by a principle that never originally included what you now include in the concept.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#28

Post by manquer »

bawolff wrote: post #8
aliasxneo wrote: post #6

People 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.

Only if they associate their name with the disclosure ?

anonymous sources to media is pretty common way to share information.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#29

Post by givemeethekeys »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #9
givemeethekeys wrote: post #5

[flagged]

[flagged]

I was about to provide a fairly large list, but maybe something general is better:

You know that there is a "wrong opinion" that'll get you in trouble when you and conservatives begin to nod in agreement with George Carlin, even though you've always thought of yourself as liberal.

You might even be an immigrant and a person of color who prefers to date the same sex, and yet, you're going to keep your mouth shut because anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#30

Post by ben_w »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #9
givemeethekeys wrote: post #5

[flagged]

[flagged]

Surely this is a question where no answer can be simultaneously true and well-considered? (EDIT: and specific).

If they think bees are secretly plotting to overthrow the Welsh government, but are afraid to say so, they're not going to willingly reveal that they have anti-apiary tendencies in response to a direct question.

Post reply on HN