Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020) • Hacker News Board

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#331

Post by rnk » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:12 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #315

slg wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two examples that come to mind: "In a Blow to Free Speech, Texas’ Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed Pending Appeal"[1] "A federal judge blocks part of Florida's 'STOP WOKE' Act on the grounds it violates business free speech rights" [2] [1] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas... [2] - https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-08-18/a-federal-judge-...

Neither of these restrict speech, and I'm not sure how one could construe the text of the laws toward that conclusion. The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is…

Social media use and restrictions related to that is absolutely a free speech impact. Posting on instagram or twitter is not free speech?

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#332

Post by slg » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:13 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #315

slg wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two examples that come to mind: "In a Blow to Free Speech, Texas’ Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed Pending Appeal"[1] "A federal judge blocks part of Florida's 'STOP WOKE' Act on the grounds it violates business free speech rights" [2] [1] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas... [2] - https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-08-18/a-federal-judge-...

Neither of these restrict speech, and I'm not sure how one could construe the text of the laws toward that conclusion. The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is…

>The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is banned".

The law prevents private social media companies from adding a warning to posts for things like misinformation. That is banning a speech for these companies.

>The second[1] looks like a workplace and education regulation, which is again well within the boundaries of things the government is charged with regulating.

Except when those regulations violate the first amendment. This law dictates what private businesses can say while training their employees. How is that not an issue of speech?

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#333

Post by betwixthewires » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:14 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #105

Dig1t wrote: post #55

I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…

I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud? I think what you mean is that people are calling for internet platforms to kick out certain groups. This is in no way a call against freedom of speech. I am not sure why people suddenly believe that being for 'free speech' means that other p…

Never? You must not get out much then. Just the other day, less than a week ago, there was a horde of people on this very site saying things like "words can be violence" in response to some internet drama being discussed. There are groups of people who want some utterances to be punishable under law, and they're ironically very vocal about it.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#334

Post by nyolfen » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:15 PM UTC

lynndotpy wrote: post #329

nyolfen wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'd also be careful not to conflate "people who think free speech is a bad idea" and "people who want limitations on speech." sorry, 'free speech except for special pleading for the ideas i don't like' is not free speech.

Cool quote out of context, but did you read the rest? I have difficulty believing you're arguing in good faith. If you are arguing in good faith, why are you on HackerNews? Censorship is built-in to the platform with votes and flags, and this is one of the most strictly moderated (censored) social media sites. This isn't special pleading, it's simple nuance. I don't think it's worthwhile to explain why StackExchange…

>I would reject the claim that there's an uptick in people who are against free-speech. I don't see anything to substantiate that.

it's hard for me to read this and believe you're arguing in good faith either. there is a level of political censorship ongoing in conventional social media that is unprecedented in my lifetime.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#335

Post by ModernMech » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:15 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #315

slg wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two examples that come to mind: "In a Blow to Free Speech, Texas’ Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed Pending Appeal"[1] "A federal judge blocks part of Florida's 'STOP WOKE' Act on the grounds it violates business free speech rights" [2] [1] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas... [2] - https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-08-18/a-federal-judge-...

Neither of these restrict speech, and I'm not sure how one could construe the text of the laws toward that conclusion. The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is…

Both cited laws were blocked by judges for violating the first amendment. So you’ll have to provide a better argument than they seem to you to be benign, or well within the bounds of government regulation powers. Because the courts disagree with you.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#336

Post by rnk » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:15 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #285

TimPC wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always surprises me the right wants to ban books. After all they want minors to read a book with beastiality in it. It will be fun to see what the courts say on banning the bible from elementary schools in Florida on the grounds that beastiality is not age appropriate.

Pretty sure the Bible also isn’t taught in public schools. This is why I strongly support school choice. Let the parents decide how to raise their children. Also that said, those sections of the Bible typically aren’t highlighted, aren’t graphic, don’t appear in all bibles and kids will get abridged versions.

You are wrong. I grew up in the south and we absolutely talked about things that were basically biblical in nature. The source of morals, right and wrong. We are way past that now, with cons in florida openly passing a law that says you can put up "in god we trust" in the school. https://www.foxnews.com/us/all-florida-public-schools-to-dis...

Similar things going on in the other new state determined to make laws against things that hurt their feelings, texas.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#337

Post by remarkEon » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:17 PM UTC

bee_rider wrote: post #158

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1619 project has been widely lambasted as unhistorical political educating. https://www.city-journal.org/1619-project-conspiracy-theory

This appears to be a single article with 0 sources, not evidence that it has been widely lambasted.

It's been talked about repeatedly in places like The Atlantic, that it's ideology masquerading as "history".

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians...

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/11/19/american-slavery-an...

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#338

Post by slg » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:21 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #319

29083011397778 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Florida's bill which prevents gay and lesbian teachers discussing their partners, for one. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/florida-don-t-say-gay-bill-des...

I found the law that this (Canadian) article is referencing, and the words "gay" or "homosexual" don't even appear in the text. How does this prevent gay and lesbian teachers from discussing their partners? I see a paragraph that says instruction on sexuality and sexual orientation can't begin before the third grade which seems pretty reasonable. I didn't get that until I was in, I think, fifth grade. https://www.fls…

>I found the law that this (Canadian) article is referencing, and the words "gay" or "homosexual" don't even appear in the text.

You could try search for other words or phrases like sexual orientation? You will find passages like this:

>Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

No one knows what those "state standards" are which creates a chilling effect around all discussions. Does this hypothetical conversation qualify?

First Grader: What do you do over Christmas Mrs. Smith?

Mrs. Smith: I went to visit my wife's family in Miami.

First Grader: But you are a woman, how do you have a wife?

Mrs. Smith: Not all women marry men. Some women marry other women.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#339

Post by ok_dad » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:22 PM UTC

phpisthebest wrote: post #216

ok_dad wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the alternative is to force someone else to host and reproduce your views who doesn’t want to, then I’d say that’s acceptable. I’d you want a large platform on which to spout your views, you should secure that yourself. Your 1st amendment right is to stand on a soapbox in the town square and yell as loud as you want, and that’s all.

That that is a very limited view of the concept / principle of free speech, While it may be technically correct in the context of US Constitutional law, people that make this claim expose their opposition to the wider concept of free expression and likely would be the first ones to support an amendment to weaken the 1st amendment

I simply stated that no one should be forced to reproduce your speech, and you came back stating that's a limited view (why? no evidence or reasoning) and then made an ad-hominem attack on me, insinuating I'm someone who secretly has some agenda to destroy free expression. Maybe you're the one with the agenda here, and I'm just stating my simple opinions and views?

I'm not going to engage further with someone who acts like that.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#340

Post by benreesman » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 7:22 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #304

pstuart wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about the policies bit. Sure, on the social front God, Guns, and Gays are powerful motivators to get those people to vote. But economic policies from the same side seem to be mainly about lowering the tax burden of the rich. What am I missing?

Not sure what your point is, but wealthy people are the source of investment capital. Less capital investment means a less prosperous economy, which negatively impacts about everybody.

Eh, I take your point but I think it’s at least debatable.

Bell Labs via sanctioned, de-facto subsidized monopoly gave us everything from the transistor to the laser to Unix (you know the list, some readers might not). DoD/ARPA/DARPA funding was responsible for countless innovations, notable to this readership TCP/IP etc. (again, you know the list probably better than I do).

Public funding for innovation demonstrably works extremely well at least under some circumstances.

Private investment capital has been demonstrably effective at growing that pie somewhat, but it’s arguably been privatizing the resulting wealth even faster than its grown it, and almost definitionally privatizing it into the pockets of people with significant equity portfolios.

We’ll obviously never know what would have happened if Bell had been broken up and parceled off in the 1930s instead of the 1980s, but it’s far from obvious to me at least that it would have been better.