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

Against Xkcd 1357

defmacro.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#31

Post by rbecker »

yokaze wrote: post #29
rbecker wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought we were discussing what the law should be , not what it is . Or more broadly, how companies and people should act , not what they can get away with under the law. As for the murderer bit... well, if we already know it was murder, why are we bothering with a trial? Lets just ask Facebook, and sentence him accordingly.

You are right, there is a distinction between a murderer and bring accused of it. Still the point of the grandparent stands: being accused of a crime is not a protected class. People are ostracized when not even having to face court, or being judged not guilty. And I bet, there are cases were you feel entitled to do so too. Point is, those are individual judgements and I kind of doubt that you really want to advocate…

> individual judgements

There's a difference between an individual making a judgement, a payment processor making a judgement, and a communications platform with over 2 billion users making a judgement.

Perhaps not (yet) legally, but we should at least be able to admit the effects on society are very different. In fact, we do, when it suits us. Talk about Facebook "allowing hate to spread", and all those "private company they can do what they want" arguments disappear (or get made by an entirely different set of people), as some people miraculously become able to understand the difference in kind between a single individual and one of the largest companies on Earth.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#32

Post by 66fm472tjy7 »

AnonC wrote: post #30
haltingproblem wrote: post #15

I think this is a poorly written article devoid of substantiative argument. The author's substack earned a unsubscribe based on it. It has become fashionable to argue the "I might disagree with you but I will defend to death your right to express it" to which is appended "in the NY Times, on Facebook, on Twitter, on Youtube and every private channel that exists." First, the disagreeable opinion part is wrong since ev…

> The author's substack earned a unsubscribe based on it. Stretching the author’s argument, you’re not abiding by the culture that the First Amendment and other laws have wanted to create, and you’re as guilty as xkcd in unsubscribing (re-emphasizing that it’s according to the author).

You are putting words in the author's mouth. What you are describing is a kind of "right to an audience", where in the article is there a demand for this?

If the comment were demanding that substack remove the article, or if the commenter was trying to get the author fired from his job for this article, I would consider it against the idea of free speech. Note that this does not equate to a demand for any legislative change or government action.

The view expressed in XKCD 1357 is that there would be no free speech issue since it isn't the government trying to prevent the author from making his article available to those who wish to read it (again, no one is asking for a right to an audience or right to be protected from disagreement) or threatening his livelihood as retaliation for publishing the article.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#33

Post by coffeemug »

66fm472tjy7 wrote: post #32
AnonC wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author's substack earned a unsubscribe based on it. Stretching the author’s argument, you’re not abiding by the culture that the First Amendment and other laws have wanted to create, and you’re as guilty as xkcd in unsubscribing (re-emphasizing that it’s according to the author).

You are putting words in the author's mouth. What you are describing is a kind of "right to an audience", where in the article is there a demand for this? If the comment were demanding that substack remove the article, or if the commenter was trying to get the author fired from his job for this article, I would consider it against the idea of free speech. Note that this does not equate to a demand for any legislative…

Demanding people read things against their will is a hell of a stretch of the original argument :)

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#34

Post by ceceron »

This "article" is an example either of:

- ignorance: as the author doesn't understand what they are writing about;

- straw man argument, as the author creates a fictional opponent unrelated to the referenced xkcd comic...

Anyhow, please "stop making stupid articles famous" and do not upvote this post.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#35

Post by pochamago »

I agree with the author. I think it's important for a country to have a set of shared beliefs, and that the idea that the Bill of Rights is more than just a legal document is a very good starting place for the US. This appears to be an unpopular opinion on HN, though.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#36

Post by MrDresden »

There is a big difference between safeguarding and fighting for peoples rights to free expression and being willing to stand and listen to the lies, misinformation and hate that some can spew.

And none of this has anything to do with a piece of paper. The world is not some chaotic place (like the author describes) where mob law still applies.

This is just idiotic to be honest.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#37

Post by ykoll58 »

rbecker wrote: post #21
cgrealy wrote: post #13

There are so many things wrong with that article, but let's start with this one: > Yet in many other countries— perhaps still in most of them— mob justice, unethical businesses behavior without complaint, and complete disregard for any rights of criminals is a normal daily occurrence. Their citizens know that far away silly Americans bother with fair trials and non-ironically litigating the temperature of coffee, but…

And if you're accused of murder, Facebook can use their free speech to censor anyone fundraising money for your defense, and crowdfunding sites and payment processors can use their free speech and freedom of association, and refuse to process any donations you receive: https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-blocks-givesendgo-kyle-ri... And if you're black, a business can use their freedom of association and refuse- oh, n…

Civil rights are protected under law, specifically. Regarding race, if a business receives public benefits e.g roads, grants, tax breaks. Then the entire public is allowed access to that business (products/services) or they should not receive said benefits.

TL;DR of the article is... “Freedom of speech isn't just a legal assurance that congress shall make no law abridging it. It is also a set of cultural norms rooted deeply in a long lineage of hard won ideas.”

What about the freedom of those stating they don’t want your speech on their platforms?

Freedom of speech goes both ways. Beautiful thing is, if the author doesn’t like it then he can write an amendment to the constitution and request a vote.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#38

Post by amadeuspagel »

cgrealy wrote: post #13

There are so many things wrong with that article, but let's start with this one: > Yet in many other countries— perhaps still in most of them— mob justice, unethical businesses behavior without complaint, and complete disregard for any rights of criminals is a normal daily occurrence. Their citizens know that far away silly Americans bother with fair trials and non-ironically litigating the temperature of coffee, but…

> What's truly amazing is that the author fundamentally misses the point of the article, that while you can say whatever you like, you are not shielded from the consequences of saying that.

It's appropriate to share one of those memes just as stupid, harmful and widespread as that xkcd comic here. Maybe even more so, maybe this really does refute the author's premise. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would justify any kind of punishment for speech. The consequence for critizizing Kim Jong Un in Noth Korea is that you get thrown into a labor camp. Freedom of speech, after all, does not mean freedom from consequences.

The fundamental error here is to speak of consequences as if they are things that just happen, like a law of nature, and not a conscious attempt to punish people.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#39

Post by amadeuspagel »

haltingproblem wrote: post #15

I think this is a poorly written article devoid of substantiative argument. The author's substack earned a unsubscribe based on it. It has become fashionable to argue the "I might disagree with you but I will defend to death your right to express it" to which is appended "in the NY Times, on Facebook, on Twitter, on Youtube and every private channel that exists." First, the disagreeable opinion part is wrong since ev…

"in the NY Times, on Facebook, on Twitter, on Youtube"

One of these things is not like the others.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#40

Post by cgrealy »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #38
cgrealy wrote: post #13

There are so many things wrong with that article, but let's start with this one: > Yet in many other countries— perhaps still in most of them— mob justice, unethical businesses behavior without complaint, and complete disregard for any rights of criminals is a normal daily occurrence. Their citizens know that far away silly Americans bother with fair trials and non-ironically litigating the temperature of coffee, but…

> What's truly amazing is that the author fundamentally misses the point of the article, that while you can say whatever you like, you are not shielded from the consequences of saying that. It's appropriate to share one of those memes just as stupid, harmful and widespread as that xkcd comic here. Maybe even more so, maybe this really does refute the author's premise. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would justify…

The consequences frequently are an attempt to punish people and often justifiably so.

If someone says something racist, homophobic or sexist, then yeah, maybe I want to punish them by not buying their product or not voting for them or whatever.

But we can judge the response on its merits too.

Being thrown in jail for criticism of the government? Not ok. (Reductio ad absurdum, btw... no one has suggested that what someone says gives you carte blanche)

Boycotting homophobic sandwich restaurant? Totally fine.

Firing your employee for something they said on their own time? Exceptionally murky and very much case by case.

Post reply on HN