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

141–150 of 165 posts

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

#141

Post by mcv »

kaba0 wrote: post #139
mock-possum wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah I thought the subject deserved more consideration on his part - I mean Popper's got a point. For him to just be like "oh that's obviously wrong moving right along" really doesn't deal with it seriously. Because the real underlying question here, at least as far as I'm concerned, is - is Free Speech good to a fault ? Like you can easily think of ways to use free speech to harass, and to hurt, and to threaten, to…

> Is free speech really so important that abusers and trolls are given a free pass to continue their work, so long as they constrain it to the realm of speech? Especially when said speech is often followed up by action by someone else.

Exactly. Free speech has always had limits. Threats are speech, yet illegal, for good reason. Same goes for blackmail, slander, and probably more.

I think it makes a lot of sense to treat speech that riles people up against a specific, vulnerable demographic, in a similar way. Because we've seen what it can lead to, and we still occasionally see people act on it today. To claim that they were acting on their own and not at all influenced by the environment of hate speech around them, would be dishonest and blind.

Unfortunately the edges between such hate speech and legitimate insult can be blurry, and maybe we should make that distinction more clear.

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

#142

Post by mcv »

jl6 wrote: post #130
mcv wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a comment elsewhere you seemed to argue that censorship in schools is acceptable to ensure books are appropriate for children. Is that not the case with Roald Dahl books? Should they just have been banned from schools instead?

In my other comment I’m arguing that limiting children’s access to media is orthogonal to the issue of censorship. I did not declare what Florida is doing is acceptable. They have used a blunt instrument to remove many books when only some of them are clearly unsuitable. No, the Dahl books should not have been banned from school either, because they did not contain harmful material. In any case, a content warning or…

For adults or teenagers I agree, but many of Dahl's stories were intended for younger children, and I don't think content warnings or contextual notes help much there. I would oppose editing the stories of for example HP Lovecraft this way, but for children's books, I think it's entirely reasonable.

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

#143

Post by sillyfluke »

karaterobot wrote: post #63

A couple years ago, somebody remarked to me, "oh, you're one of those free speech guys, aren't you?" and I realized it was meant as an insult. Yes, I guess so! I'm not sure what changed, but I doubt that would ever have happened a few decades ago. You might have argued about the practical limits of free speech (shouting fire in a theater, Potter Stewart's obscenity test, etc.) but you would never hear someone say tha…

In those types of discussions and environments I found its best to state your accepted limits of free speech right off the bat. Before the recent anti-free speech wave, free speech defenders didn't have to restate their redline exception to free speech: incitement to violence. This was the one limit that all liberal democracies accepted for free speech. Once you share this point of view then at least it's easier turn to discussing why all other limits are dangerous and ridden with pitfalls.

Nonetheless, I do think there are somethings alluded to in the sibling comment by dale_glass that needs to be addressed even though I don't agree with many of his assumptions. Namely, the practical matter of the disenfranchised trying to fight a losing war on social media platforms against an onslaught of doxxing, sex tapes etc, and lies distributed to millions by parties with war chests several magnitudes greater than their targets. This has also had a big impact on many elections across the globe in the last decade as well.

I have not seen any coherent solution proposed by free speech defenders, and I count myself among them, to this practial problem. And I think we should at least have the humility to admit that we currently do not have a good solution either, and at least make it a top priority to establish one.

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

#144

Post by HKH2 »

kaba0 wrote: post #133
didntcheck wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels to me that the Overton window shifted rapidly (and arguably inverted) in the late 2010s. I remember this speech being posted and praised in forums and among people who would now consider it a harmful "dogwhistle". And I concur with the generational divide. As a mid-90s birth I've often found myself defending these principles towards younger people, and have done so by pointing out how the left used to suppor…

I don’t think that generations would be the important difference here — free speech in a pre-modern media world was entirely different than what we have in the modern, chaotic disinformation-y one.

Yes, free speech doesn't work well in multicultural societies because not being offended is more important.

There is no society that could effectively support itself as well as the moral idealism that includes retroactively punishing people. Culture is far more brittle than purists believe it to be.

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

#145

Post by HKH2 »

throw0101b wrote: post #41
dmbche wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What books were banned by "the left"?

> What books were banned by "the left"? Not banning but altering would be one form of censorship, e.g., "Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive": * https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/18/roald-dahl-boo... "Why I Decided to Update the Language in Ursula K. Le Guin’s Children’s Books": * https://lithub.com/why-i-decided-to-update-the-language-in-u... "D&D: WotC’s New Batch Of Errata Remov…

RL Stine said his books got edited for him without his knowledge too.

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

#146

Post by Ygg2 »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #140
Ygg2 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I just don't consider it true. Sure, government doesn't silence anymore. They just ask Facebook/Twitter/[insert social media] nicely to do that instead of them. In same way a mobster just asks you to help him out with that problematic person. Or else.

But that's not the same as not having freedom of speech. FoS comes up when you get in trouble for expressing s point of view. For the type of suppression you talk about, check out Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky.

> Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction

What Twitter did was censorship. But even if pretend, for sake of argument, it never happened. You still have corporations doing sanctions on behest of government.

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

#148

Post by indy »

kaba0 wrote: post #137
indy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my examples are very clearly related to free speech. They are all examples of excuses or intimidation used to prevent people from speaking.

You can speak, but attacking that other person by deliberately using something they don’t prefer is just inhumane. It’s not a difficult concept.

God I wish I had enough privilege to consider using an unpreferred name as "inhumane"

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

#149

Post by kaba0 »

indy wrote: post #148
kaba0 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can speak, but attacking that other person by deliberately using something they don’t prefer is just inhumane. It’s not a difficult concept.

God I wish I had enough privilege to consider using an unpreferred name as "inhumane"

Basic human decency doesn’t exist when you are poor or have not enough food, or what?

I swear it’s the same people who couldn’t stand wearing a tiny cloth in front of their mouth because “mY FreEDOm”, endangering every other person. A little empathy goes a long way.

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

#150

Post by indy »

kaba0 wrote: post #149
indy wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God I wish I had enough privilege to consider using an unpreferred name as "inhumane"

Basic human decency doesn’t exist when you are poor or have not enough food, or what? I swear it’s the same people who couldn’t stand wearing a tiny cloth in front of their mouth because “mY FreEDOm”, endangering every other person. A little empathy goes a long way.

"inhumane" means something, not showing enough empathy doesn't mean you flip over to "inhumane".

I swear it's the same people who think not using preferred pronouns is "literally genocide".

Post reply on HN