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

Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 480 posts

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#131

Post by Xeoncross »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #91
jrm4 wrote: post #9

Lawyer here, and this definitely strikes me as one of a surprising number topics in which, the law has for some time, already a very effective and useful way to get at this concept. Sure, speech can be harmful and hurtful, to the point that someone should get punished for it. But the law has generally done very good job of reminding us that this tends to be a VERY NARROW possibility, i.e. the harm has to be very spec…

150 dB speech could melt someone’s face.

Even doing regular speaking can be an issue: https://www.cleveland19.com/2023/02/10/ohio-attorney-general...

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#132

Post by seydor »

jojobas wrote: post #100
seydor wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how can convincing (not coercing) be harmful? What's the definition of harm

You can convince someone to go shoot up a school, good luck arguing convincing is not coercing in court.

it's not coercing though

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#133

Post by cuteboy19 »

tunesmith wrote: post #96
DubiousPusher wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say he was quite vigorously defended by liberals. Since the 1970s there pretty much hasn't been such a thing as the left, especially in Rushdie's hayday of the 80s-00s. If there was, I doubt it would've spent much time worrying about the fate of a bourgeoisie fantasist. Nothing against Rushdie btw. I loved the Satanic Verses. But institutional journalism (which provides the fundamental model most people use t…

Sorry, can you expand? I'm not sure what you meant by "this term": free speech? And which two groups: offensive vs abusive speech? Which distinction?

[dead]

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#134

Post by jzb »

If we want a "liberal, intellectual society" we absolutely have to consider some speech "violence."

To use one current example: The people pushing the idea of trans people as "groomers" is violence. It is not an intellectual debate, it's not necessary to entertain in order to preserve free thought, etc.

The goal of that speech is to other trans people and it endangers them. Tolerance of that kind of speech ensures that trans people cannot participate equally in society when there's no consequences for trying to stoke hate and encourage stochastic terrorism.

At some point, if we cannot agree that things like that are unacceptable I don't see how we ever move forward.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#135

Post by Zetice »

dadjoker wrote: post #89

"What many people failed to understand, and therefore failed to defend, is an unpleasant fact of intellectual liberalism: When speech causes emotional or mental pain, the offended parties are morally entitled to nothing in the form of compensation from or punishment for the offender." A line that many people still can't handle.

It’s not that people expect compensation or punishment, it’s that as private citizens, we’re totally and completely free to judge the shit out of people for what they say and do.

I don’t expect the government to step in when someone says something hateful, but I do pay attention to which groups allow that kind of behavior in their associations and which don’t.

We all do have a right to leave the rooms hateful people are in, and the people in charge of those rooms (as long as its not the government) are free to control how their space gets used.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#136

Post by vxNsr »

Apreche wrote: post #83

XKCD 1357 End thread. Please never open it again. https://xkcd.com/1357/

Of all the asinine takes on free speech this one is the worst.

Freedom of speech is a concept and idea, the government doesn’t have the right nor ability to police or grant anyone an intrinsic freedom they already have. All the government can do is lend some of its protections to help prevent others from trying to stop you from speaking freely. But as a society if we say that your right to free speech only exists in government buildings. Well… that’s not anything at all.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#137

Post by rootusrootus »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #111

On the other hand, you can't have your liberal, intellectual society if you allow people to go around making credible threats of violence, which are "just speech" if you subscribe to the speech-is-speech, violence-is-violence approach. If you have to wait until the threat is realized, then any group capable of having members take the punishment for individual acts of violence can grant credibility to making threats t…

> The question is simply where the line gets drawn.

Not that simple. First you have to decide who gets to draw it.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#138

Post by TheFreim »

jzb wrote: post #134

If we want a "liberal, intellectual society" we absolutely have to consider some speech "violence." To use one current example: The people pushing the idea of trans people as "groomers" is violence. It is not an intellectual debate, it's not necessary to entertain in order to preserve free thought, etc. The goal of that speech is to other trans people and it endangers them. Tolerance of that kind of speech ensures th…

[flagged]

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#139

Post by Zetice »

rootusrootus wrote: post #94
vannevar wrote: post #7

I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought. They are calling for boycotts and de-platforming, both of which fall well within the bounds of the "marketplace of ideas." While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime. We…

You can't really call it a marketplace of ideas, then, if your response is [metaphorically] a SLAPP. E.g. people weren't just critical of Justine Sacco, they tried to destroy her. Tell me again who the bad guys are?

How should a marketplace of ideas work, then?

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#140

Post by gowld »

jojobas wrote: post #100
seydor wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how can convincing (not coercing) be harmful? What's the definition of harm

You can convince someone to go shoot up a school, good luck arguing convincing is not coercing in court.

One action is a crime, the other (in)action isn't.
Post reply on HN