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

101–110 of 165 posts

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

#101

Post by spondylosaurus »

mansion7 wrote: post #96
spondylosaurus wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd even argue that the wave of anti-drag legislation hitting the US right now is an attack on free expression akin to free speech. (What gives state legislature the right to ban me from putting on too much makeup and lip syncing to Madonna?)

It's the very peculiar, very strenuous insistence that children watch, and participate, as men cavort in women's clothes in a sexually charged manner. Followed by the vilification of people with quite reasonable concerns as "transphobes" (a fireable, deplatformable, censorable offense) and "Nazis" (who have been deemed acceptable targets of unprovoked violence). But for that, most Americans would go back to not carin…

What?

You're implying a lot of things here, so I'm struggling to follow all of them, but I find it especially odd to suggest that being anti-Nazi is somehow unfair to them or otherwise unprovoked. I can think of at least one rather conspicuous example of a time when Nazis "started it," so to speak. Some of my relatives didn't make it out of that one.

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

#102

Post by lostlogin »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #46
mellosouls wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was commenting on "restrictions on speech", of which book banning is a historically symbolic example but less relevant in the modern age. In the West the left has dominated restricting speech.

[flagged]

> Neither the US nor the UK media have any significant consistent left representation.

Do you mean people, or publications? The likes of The Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post are pretty good and have existed a while.

I’d say they were centre-left at most, but that is a political statement that the right would likely disagree with.

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

#103

Post by mindslight »

jl6 wrote: post #89
mindslight wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually not. You can make the same distinction by saying web commenters aren't restricted from writing whatever posts they want, and the debate is about what kind of material is suitable for centralized websites to facilitate. Really, the larger ideal of free speech is about the desired orthogonality of distribution channels versus content, and general tolerance for things we dislike. We see the results of its…

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 to access those books, to opt out of the restrictions in question? If not, then one can't say the topic is entirely limited to the traditional role of parents deciding what is right for their children. Rather it's also about about controlling what other people's children might read.

Ultimately, both topics are about filtering distribution channels, based on criteria the distribution channel managers deem appropriate - with free speech concerns hinging on how much those distribution channels end up affecting what gets perceived as the total market.

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

#104

Post by lostlogin »

spondylosaurus wrote: post #101
mansion7 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the very peculiar, very strenuous insistence that children watch, and participate, as men cavort in women's clothes in a sexually charged manner. Followed by the vilification of people with quite reasonable concerns as "transphobes" (a fireable, deplatformable, censorable offense) and "Nazis" (who have been deemed acceptable targets of unprovoked violence). But for that, most Americans would go back to not carin…

What? You're implying a lot of things here, so I'm struggling to follow all of them, but I find it especially odd to suggest that being anti-Nazi is somehow unfair to them or otherwise unprovoked. I can think of at least one rather conspicuous example of a time when Nazis "started it," so to speak. Some of my relatives didn't make it out of that one.

Your comment read better when it was just ‘What?’

I’d suggest just moving on - a look at comment history has a couple of similar comments.

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

#105

Post by cubefox »

djur wrote: post #91
indy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"deadnaming" someone is enough to get you banned from a number of social media sites, or to have stories about the "deadnamed" censored from news sites.

It's always been common for online communities to ban people for being intentionally rude. I think we're still in the process of figuring out the preferred etiquette for historical references to people who changed their names, but that will settle before long.

So you call social media censorship "etiquette" now. That's one way to make it sound nicer. Here is a novel concept: You don't have to follow people you don't like on social media. Your "etiquette" seems to be just an attempt to legitimize censorship.

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

#106

Post by hamax »

ghusto wrote: post #5
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 is the fact that the power of black people to respond and argue is severely constrained in Europe, even more with the rise of anti-immigrant right-wing parties. The key issue here is that the channels of expression are not free, are not open Admittedly, I haven't lived in every European country, but I've lived in enough for an eyebrow to be raised nearly off my face at this. Even with what's happening in Ital…

Who owns all the media organizations in Italy? Black people? If not, their power to respond and argue is severely constrained

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

#107

Post by spondylosaurus »

lostlogin wrote: post #104
spondylosaurus wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? You're implying a lot of things here, so I'm struggling to follow all of them, but I find it especially odd to suggest that being anti-Nazi is somehow unfair to them or otherwise unprovoked. I can think of at least one rather conspicuous example of a time when Nazis "started it," so to speak. Some of my relatives didn't make it out of that one.

Your comment read better when it was just ‘What?’ I’d suggest just moving on - a look at comment history has a couple of similar comments.

Yeah, you weren't kidding about their comment history. A looooot of talk about Nazis and their ilk. (Something something doth protest too much?)

Noted on the brevity though, lol. I really gotta stop engaging these types in any serious capacity and save myself the blood pressure spike.

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

#108

Post by cubefox »

dmbche wrote: post #19
indy wrote: post #8

There seems to be a generational divide on this topic. A lot of younger people seem to be fine with restrictions on free speech, often under the guise of various progressive causes

Any examples come to mind? I feel most people are pretty free to voice their thoughts

See https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/images/free-speech...

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

#109

Post by ghusto »

hamax wrote: post #106
ghusto wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is the fact that the power of black people to respond and argue is severely constrained in Europe, even more with the rise of anti-immigrant right-wing parties. The key issue here is that the channels of expression are not free, are not open Admittedly, I haven't lived in every European country, but I've lived in enough for an eyebrow to be raised nearly off my face at this. Even with what's happening in Ital…

Who owns all the media organizations in Italy? Black people? If not, their power to respond and argue is severely constrained

What you've just said also says:

1. White people as a whole wish to suppress the speech of black people

2. The speech of anybody else who isn't also white is suppressed

It also presumes, instead of knowing something. Do you know any black people in Italy? Have you heard of any of them complaining that they have no "power to respond"?

EDIT: Case in point; I'm not white, (nearly) all my representatives are white, I don't feel like I have no power to respond. Stop making non-whites victims.

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

#110

Post by djur »

cubefox wrote: post #105
djur wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always been common for online communities to ban people for being intentionally rude. I think we're still in the process of figuring out the preferred etiquette for historical references to people who changed their names, but that will settle before long.

So you call social media censorship "etiquette" now. That's one way to make it sound nicer. Here is a novel concept: You don't have to follow people you don't like on social media. Your "etiquette" seems to be just an attempt to legitimize censorship.

Online communities are well within their rights to limit their membership to people willing to follow their rules of conduct. That's freedom of association, which is as fundamental a right as freedom of speech.
Post reply on HN