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

Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 606 posts

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#51

Post by missosoup »

uniqueid wrote: post #50
missosoup wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively How'd that work out with the Trump election and the massive resurgence of outright racism and sexism? How far does one's subjective view of the world around them have to diverge from reality before they stop and think, huh, maybe this doesn't work at all. Silencing dissenting views has never worked in history. Not once. It just incre…

> Silencing dissenting views has never worked in history There may be a grain of truth to that, but I don't think a historian, even one who agreed with its thrust, would feel comfortable with it as a blanket statement. I don't really want to have this sort of heated debate this evening. Sorry.

It's simple. Name one historical example where this strategy of systemic censorship of an ideology worked and didn't blow back.

You can't. There aren't any. It always blows back. America is just failing to learn from a lesson that's been taught to various empires for millennia.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#52

Post by uniqueid »

missosoup wrote: post #51
uniqueid wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Silencing dissenting views has never worked in history There may be a grain of truth to that, but I don't think a historian, even one who agreed with its thrust, would feel comfortable with it as a blanket statement. I don't really want to have this sort of heated debate this evening. Sorry.

It's simple. Name one historical example where this strategy of systemic censorship of an ideology worked and didn't blow back. You can't. There aren't any. It always blows back. America is just failing to learn from a lesson that's been taught to various empires for millennia.

You got me! Enjoy your evening :)

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#53

Post by im3w1l »

gguevaraa wrote: post #16
rbecker wrote: post #2

Just in case someone finds the examples in the article all acceptable censorship, here's a few more off the top of my head: Evergreen professor forced to resign for opposing day of white absence: https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-weinstei... UCLA professor placed under investigation for reading MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-lect... Dat…

This one[0] gets the noggin' joggin'. Cambridge defends one of their profs saying "White Lives Don't Matter" yet were quick to rescind their invitation for Jordan Peterson for "controversial" comments [1]. [0]: https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/19539 [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/cambridge-...

And on the other hand, saying "White Lives Matter" got not only the man saying it fired. His girlfriend was found to be guilty by association and also fired.

https://tribuna.com/en/chelsea/news/2020-06-25-burnley-fan-b...

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#54

Post by Klinky »

tomnipotent wrote: post #26
elliekelly wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how often were those characters the butt of the joke or gay for comedic relief?

As of 2015, same-sex marriage is legal across all 50 states (no idea about territories). Progress can sometimes can incredibly ugly, and I wish it wasn't, but a win is a win.

Civil Rights Act was 1964, and we're still struggling to live up to standard proposed by the law.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#56

Post by sfj »

uniqueid wrote: post #45
missosoup wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an excellent summary of what's going on. Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. Instead it makes them more hostile and causes them to double down. I'm pretty confused how America keeps going down this path even after an actual 50% of the entire population revolted against the 'good' ideologies and voted in Trump with religious fervour. Pretending th…

> Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a > 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively. Look at the anti-vaxers, "chem trails", or 5G conspiracy theorists: the majority of these paranoiacs didn't independently arrive at these theories.

> However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively. Look at the anti-vaxers, "chem trails", or 5G conspiracy theorists: the majority of these paranoiacs didn't independently arrive at these theories.

That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If everytime someone tries to blow the whistle on something, they are called a conspiracy theorist and allowed to be censored, you are basically giving the people in charge infinite power and zero accountability.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#57

Post by legostormtroopr »

smt88 wrote: post #33
drtillberg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A chaplin recently had to resign in apology at a distinguished academic institution for ... making factual and insightful comments about the George Floyd incident.[1] McCarthy eventually was shamed and disgraced by his casual destructiveness. "Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" [1] https://nypost.com/2020/06/17/mit-chaplain-resigns-over-em…

Saying someone "didn't live a virtuous life" is not factual. In this case, it's an irrelevant and tasteless opinion about a victim. It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed.

> It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed.

No it doesn't. This is wild hyperbole. No one deserves to be shot in the back.

However, people are painting him out to be an angel - quite literally there are multiple artworks of George Floyd with a halo and wings [1]. The reality is he was human, and one with a complicated criminal past who was jailed 8 times [2] including for drug offenses. Is saying that someone with a criminal record like that "didn't live a virtuous life" really a fireable offense?

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=george+floyd+angel&client=fi...

[2] https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal...

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#58

Post by gentleman11 »

mrfusion wrote: post #39

Jon Stuart Mill “On Liberty” full text: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liber... Has anyone read it? I found it eye opening for these kind of discussions.

There are some pretty decent librevox recordings available also

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#59

Post by romwell »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #57
smt88 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying someone "didn't live a virtuous life" is not factual. In this case, it's an irrelevant and tasteless opinion about a victim. It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed.

> It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed. No it doesn't. This is wild hyperbole. No one deserves to be shot in the back. However, people are painting him out to be an angel - quite literally there are multiple artworks of George Floyd with a halo and wings [1]. The reality is he was human, and one with a complicated criminal past who was jailed 8 times [2] including for drug offenses. Is…

>Is saying that someone with a criminal record like that "didn't live a virtuous life" really a fireable offense?

Talk about wild hyperboles!

“In the wake of George Floyd’s death, most people in the country have framed this as an act of racism,” Moloney’s email continued. “I don’t think we know that. Many people have claimed that racism is a major problem in police forces. I don’t think we know that.”

The Chaplain has said enough things that association with him became a liability for an institution like MIT, that is all.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#60

Post by vladvasiliu »

missosoup wrote: post #37
cwhiz wrote: post #34

Shouting people down in public and on the internet doesn’t change opinions. People just talk more quietly or take more care with whom they share their thoughts and opinions. Cancel culture, outrage culture, and the general “social justice” movement is not much more than a wide scale attempt to silence dissenting thought. Build your own bubble, and shout down anyone who thinks or speaks differently. Yell and call it “…

This is an excellent summary of what's going on. Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. Instead it makes them more hostile and causes them to double down. I'm pretty confused how America keeps going down this path even after an actual 50% of the entire population revolted against the 'good' ideologies and voted in Trump with religious fervour. Pretending th…

Is it really a case of wanting to silence those views? To me it looks more like PR. "We don't associate with people with bad opinions, so we're good".

I would even go so far as to say that "companies" don't really care. The reason being is that for firing someone, you must have hired them first. But they consider there's something to gain, image-wise, by taking this kind of stand. This, they hope, can be transfered to dollars, so it looks like a good strategy.

Post reply on HN