Live data from Hacker News

Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

washingtonpost.com

191–200 of 284 posts

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#191
We should be careful to not limit other rights in protecting the right of free speech. I defend the right of people to express their opinions, views, thoughts, etc in society, but I also believe you must have balance and allow people to choose whether they want to listen to someone's opinion or thoughts.

It is one thing to go listen to someone from the KKK speak about their thoughts or to read their opinions in a pamphlet or book (this type of free speech I support), it is another to force the public to be exposed to their hateful messaging by forcing billboard/television companies to allow their messaging be shown in a public place.

We should support the rights of companies or individuals to censor content they don't agree with or want to be affiliated with. Government should (at least in some cases) be able to limit certain types of speech where the public would be forced to see something they don't want themselves (or their children) to be subjected to. Government should be less involved with censoring types of speech that someone chooses to be exposed to.

What are your thoughts? How do we find the right balance with free speech and other rights?

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#192
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost the whole world that is islamic became muslim through military occupation, the mass slaughter of the males who fought or would not convert, the looting of property and the selling off into slavery of their women and children. This was all based on emulating the behaviour of Mohammed (known as sunnah in islamic practice); Mohammed took 20% of the spoils from his army of warriors. (Some describe him as the profi…

"Almost the whole world that is islamic became muslim through military occupation, the mass slaughter of the males who fought or would not convert, the looting of property and the selling off into slavery of their women and children." s/is islamic became muslim/was colonial became christian/ "Islamic militancy was going on for hundreds of years before christianity responded in kind." Try a search for the word "crusad…

What specifically should I find enlightening?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

== Middle Eastern situation ==

In 636 CE, Muslim forces led by the Arab Rashidun Caliphs defeated the Eastern Roman/Byzantines at the Battle of Yarmouk, conquering Palestine...

== Western European situation ==

The western European idea of the Crusades came in response to the deterioration of the Byzantine Empire caused by a new wave of Turkish Muslim attacks...

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#193
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please show us the militant Jews and atheists running the West?

Yeah, you got me there, I actually have no idea.. I just assumed there would be some people with other beliefs in the armed forces in US, UK, Israel, Australia (ie. the west).

I'd bet the UK and Australia have atheists in their armed forces, but they don't run the world. I've met militant Jews in Israel's armed forces, but they don't run the world either. The United States runs the world, but has a heavily Protestant tilt.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#194
Given the set of tradeoffs described in the article, I'm on record supporting free speech, period. As I wrote earlier here on HN, "The basic issue is whether people in free countries, like most readers of Hacker News, are going to be able to enjoy the right of free speech throughout their country, on any subject, or whether any American or Dutch or Danish person or other person accustomed to free speech who happens to be within reach of attack by a crazy foreign person has to prepare for war just to continue to exercise free speech. On my part, I'm going to continue to comment on public policy based on verifiable facts and reason and logic, even if that seems offensive. I am not going to shrink from saying that people in backward, poorly governed countries that could never have invented the Internet have no right to kill and destroy just because someone in a free country laughs or scorns at their delusions. The people who are destroying diplomatic buildings and killing diplomats are declining to use thoughtful discussion to show that they are anything other than blights on humankind.

"Allow me to reemphasize this point. The many participants on HN who criticize Transportation Security Agency 'security theater' as a meaningless reduction in the freedom of people who travel to the United States are right on the basic point. If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won. You and I should be able to speak our minds and express our opinions in the manner of all people in free countries--sometimes agreeing with one another, sometimes disagreeing, but always letting the other guy have his say. To engage in self-censorship because of fear of violent thugs is to be defeated by the thugs."

As before, I think jerf correctly responded to this issue when he made his comment on it last month:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4510637

If I organize a riot involving thousands of people that I manage to incite into killing people, and I claim my reason is that I heard that some guy is Glasgow made fun of the American soccer team over beer... that guy is Glasgow is not the real reason. It doesn't even qualify as a metaphorical fig leaf, it's just a lie. When the excuse is this tiny, you shouldn't even give it the time of day.

I have to agree with the submitted article that the correct policy is making sure to protect the right of free people in free countries to speak freely about all the issues of the day, including the harm caused to the whole world by fanatics who burn and destroy and kill because their delusional beliefs are offended.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#195

99.99% of disgusting hateful speech is just that: disgusting hateful speech. The other .01% is the only hope we have as a species of honestly addressing our situation and problems and adapting and moving forward. The mob cannot tell the difference between these two groups. In fact, unless you are from the future looking back, nobody can. People who change society for the better through their speech are almost univers…

This a thousand times over!

Though I do support their right to express such anti-free speech material, it's some weird kinda strange loop they've got going there...

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. This is such a stupid strategy. The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. After all, there are lots of angry people all across the world that hate the Western world and want to hurt it, but most can't. What sets the Arabs…

> This is such a stupid strategy. The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. After all, there are lots of angry people all across the world that hate the Western world and want to hurt it, but most can't. Put this way, it's even more stupid. It's as if people go about "hating the west" for no reason (or because their "religion tells them so", which is a Glenn Beck level argument). A thing called…

"Does anyone imagine what a foreign power invading the US would mean to the US people, and under some BS pretext at that?"

There's a movie about that coming -- "Red Dawn" ;) The rumor is, the offending side was initially Chinese but later (due to some large-scale busyness concerns) was photoshopped into... North Koreans.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#197
post #107

What concerns me especially in Britain is the amount of times the police are getting involved in what appear to be free speech cases. In Britain 2 police officers were killed. The same day a guy wrote on his t-shirt something to the effect of "kill pigs for fun hahahaah." This is a stupid thing to do. I would have thought the police might confiscate his t-shirt. Nope, that wouldn't have been sufficient. He got 4 mont…

Actually - I've never understood your sentiments, or at least the need to say, "I don't support these people". I actually feel like I do support the people in your listed cases - dark humor has a welcome place in our society - if only to make light of the inevitability of our own impending death.

If you make a good joke of a recent killing - I'll admit that I'll probably get a laugh out of it. I'm not ashamed at all of this. I'm betting a lot of the HN community feels the same way. Will they admit that? That - I'm not sure of.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#198
>I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'" --Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation

I never though I would see the day when the West gave its freedom away just to please a religious group.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#199

99.99% of disgusting hateful speech is just that: disgusting hateful speech. The other .01% is the only hope we have as a species of honestly addressing our situation and problems and adapting and moving forward. The mob cannot tell the difference between these two groups. In fact, unless you are from the future looking back, nobody can. People who change society for the better through their speech are almost univers…

Once blasphemous speech is outlawed, every religious group will have a new tool to use against any criticism.

There are a lot of Christians in America, and for the most part they don't complain against negative speech against their religious ideas. Imagine if they could prosecute every time the name of Jesus or Christ was used as a curse word.

We need free speech.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#200

> The much-misconstrued statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that free speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater is now being used to curtail speech that might provoke a violence-prone minority. This is very incorrect to say it is misconstrued. In Schenck vs US, the Court was prosecuting a pacifist who distributed pamphlets protesting the involuntary draft in World War I, arguing tha…

> The decision was an extremely bad one and the passage by Holmes was inflammatory rhetoric since the case was clearly never about shouting fire in a theatre, it was about peacefully and reasonably protesting unconstitutional action by the government. It's an interesting theory that the thirteenth amendment prohibits conscription, but it's never been upheld in court.

Which is the single best argument I have ever heard against the supreme court.
Post reply on HN