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

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

journals.sagepub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–506 of 506 posts

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

#501

Post by MarkMarine »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #140
MarkMarine wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% Freedom of speech in the terms of the first amendment is the government not infringing on your speech (like, throwing you in jail for criticizing it) It has zero to do with what you can say on twitter, or if the people you’re deciding to say something to band together and decide you’re an asshole who should be ignored or fired.

> 100% Freedom of speech in the terms of the first amendment Freedom of speech is a principle, not an amendment. The first amendment exemplifies the principle of freedom of speech, but does not define the bounds of that principle.

Do you think that you should be free to say whatever you want, and the person you say it to should have the freedom to punch you in the fucking face infringed on?

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

#502

Post by wpietri »

naasking wrote: post #497
wpietri wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Something to ask yourself: Did the Nazis just magically fade? Or did people perhaps do things to counter them? And did that Nazis do any harm while people were waiting for them to fade on their own? We're talking about whether taking actions against speech is warranted, not whether actions against people taking actions like ethnic cleansing are warranted. > How did the ethnic cleansing happen? A lot of verbal abuse…

You are conflating "possibility of violence" with actual violence. Speech alone, in the format of threats and harassment and vague but menacing comments, already imply the possibility of violence.

The notion that Jews should just ignore threats and wait to be victims of actual violence is ridiculous.

And turning back to the digital realm, speech alone can be harmful. You can read many accounts from victims and researchers to know that digital ethnic cleaning can be achieved from a keyboard. The choice platforms face is whether to keep Nazis or the people they are working to drive off the platforms. From your comments, I get that you think they should prefer the Nazis, but I hope you can at least understand why platforms don't find that a good plan, either morally or financially.

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

#503

Post by naasking »

wpietri wrote: post #502
naasking wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something to ask yourself: Did the Nazis just magically fade? Or did people perhaps do things to counter them? And did that Nazis do any harm while people were waiting for them to fade on their own? We're talking about whether taking actions against speech is warranted, not whether actions against people taking actions like ethnic cleansing are warranted. > How did the ethnic cleansing happen? A lot of verbal abuse…

You are conflating "possibility of violence" with actual violence. Speech alone, in the format of threats and harassment and vague but menacing comments, already imply the possibility of violence. The notion that Jews should just ignore threats and wait to be victims of actual violence is ridiculous. And turning back to the digital realm, speech alone can be harmful. You can read many accounts from victims and resear…

> Speech alone, in the format of threats and harassment and vague but menacing comments, already imply the possibility of violence.

Threats imply the possibility of violence. Harassment may or may not imply the possibility of violence. "Vague but menacing comments" are entirely subjective and do not imply the possibility of violence or they wouldn't be "vague". Frankly, I don't think I'm the one guilty of conflating separate concepts.

> The notion that Jews should just ignore threats and wait to be victims of actual violence is ridiculous.

No one is saying they should ignore threats. Tolerating speech is not tantamount to ignoring threats. This is why Jewish lawyers working for the ACLU fought for the rights of Nazis to protest in Skokie.

> And turning back to the digital realm, speech alone can be harmful.

Censoring speech can also be harmful, yet you don't seem to have considered that aspect at all.

> From your comments, I get that you think they should prefer the Nazis, but I hope you can at least understand why platforms don't find that a good plan, either morally or financially.

Neither you or anyone else has presented a valid moral case for violating free speech principles in these cases, and I have considerable evidence suggesting that violating such principles are generally harmful. Speech that directly implies violence is already illegal. Various forms of harassment are already illegal. If law enforcement is failing to enforce those laws, that's an argument for justice reform, not for violating free speech principles. My position follows trivially from these basic facts and nothing you've said contradicts them.

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

#504

Post by wpietri »

naasking wrote: post #503
wpietri wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are conflating "possibility of violence" with actual violence. Speech alone, in the format of threats and harassment and vague but menacing comments, already imply the possibility of violence. The notion that Jews should just ignore threats and wait to be victims of actual violence is ridiculous. And turning back to the digital realm, speech alone can be harmful. You can read many accounts from victims and resear…

> Speech alone, in the format of threats and harassment and vague but menacing comments, already imply the possibility of violence. Threats imply the possibility of violence. Harassment may or may not imply the possibility of violence. "Vague but menacing comments" are entirely subjective and do not imply the possibility of violence or they wouldn't be "vague". Frankly, I don't think I'm the one guilty of conflating…

I have certainly considered that censoring speech is harmful. Which is why I think we should minimize government involvement in this and let private platforms decide what they want to publish, and which people they want to associate with.

What you still haven't grappled with is that lots of individuals are working, solo and together, to restrict speech of marginalized groups. You seem to be very exercised about keeping Nazis active on Twitter, but not at all concerned about the speech of the people they are trying to censor.

> If law enforcement is failing to enforce those laws, that's an argument for justice reform

Oh? And how much work are you doing on this? Because if you are putting your time into "theoretical free speech rights of Nazis are very important" to the exclusion of "people targeted by Nazis must not be driven from the public square", then your priorities "follow trivially" from that.

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

#505

Post by MiguelX413 »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #382
MiguelX413 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This but unironically and unsarcastically, the problem is the centralization of infrastructure itself.

Centralization of infrastructure that benefits from the economies of scale shouldn’t be a problem.

Centralization is THE problem.

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

#506

Post by bandyaboot »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #467
bandyaboot wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the poster is saying that "no one should tolerate any person who is intolerant", by definition, that includes themselves. The poster has waived their own right to tolerance from the POV of literally any group who views said poster as "intolerant" according to the very principle they are advocating. Here’s an analogy. Group A says “violence is never ok”. Person B says “No, it’s ok to beat the shit out of someone…

> " Group A says “violence is never ok”. " Setting aside that using violence as the example of harm done is prejudicial, this flaw in this analogy is the "never ok", which is a hidden assumption of the mythical "free speech absolutism" that nearly no one subscribes to. As I have remarked elsewhere in this thread, believing that interfering with speech in some situations is wrong does not logically imply a belief that…

The fact that the real world belief and the analogized belief are both absolutes is not an important detail of the point that the analogy gets at.
Post reply on HN