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

521–530 of 606 posts

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

#521

Post by cwhiz »

_0ffh wrote: post #242
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 “…

Unfortunately, too many people tend towards binary thinking. "Either you're with us to the last detail, or you're the enemy and we'll do everything to destroy you." All attempts at nuanced dialogue are thus drowned out by the extremists. This is not a healthy dynamic for social peace.

No doubt. My comment that says “You have to accept the bad with the good” is at -2. People don’t actually want free speech, they want people to speak the way they want.

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

#522

Post by romwell »

miracle2k wrote: post #70
romwell wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ha…

The new orthodoxy requires this quote to be something awful, and upon reading it, that was my immediate thought as well. "He really said that ?". But it really isn't. In fact, it continues to be an opinion of a large section of the society. He is only saying that the police are not totally racist, maybe only a bit! Disagree as much as you want, this is an opinion beyond the pale now? And the fact that the culture cau…

>He is only saying that the police are not totally racist, maybe only a bit

Let's not be facetious here, shall we?

He said that we don't know that racism is a major problem in police forces. In fact, we do know that; the structural racism is what many people are protesting against.

Structural racism manifests itself in the rules and protocols, in traditions and patterns in actions. To say that it is a major problem does not imply that the majority of individual policemen are racists. What it means is that the black people are disproportionately affected by the negative effects of policing, including brutality.

To say that "we don't know that" is unacceptable ignorance for a public figurehead of a reputable institution.

Because we do know that.

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

#523

Post by randcraw »

jakeogh wrote: post #427
randcraw wrote: post #419

Free speech != hate speech. There's a big difference between stating a reasoned point of view that some might find offensive and stating something that's intended only to offend. The first is essential to a free society and deserves our enthusiastic protection. The second is only destructive and should be shunned. Behaving offensively is not strictly in the eye of the beholder. If you hate something/someone, do not s…

"hate speech" == whatever you want it to be Hitchens - Free Speech (2006): https://youtu.be/olefVguutfo

But that reduces the term to be meaningless. Unless you attempt to draw a line between what is and isn't hate, you cannot address it by law or even in discourse.

If we want less of it, first we must define it. Only then can we draw a line so we can say, "Free speech stops here. Beyond this, the cost is too high (and the benefit too small)."

The courts have drawn lines in the past when it comes to speech inviting bodily harm. Weaponized speech intended only to injure is little different.

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

#524

Post by romwell »

kmlx wrote: post #102
romwell wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ha…

everything you quoted is... objectively true

No, it is not. Unless by "we" you take to mean the chaplain in question - in which case, it is unacceptable ignorance.

Let me reiterate.

He said that we don't know that racism is a major problem in police forces. In fact, we do know that; the structural racism is what many people are protesting against.

Structural racism manifests itself in the rules and protocols, in traditions and patterns in actions. To say that it is a major problem does not imply that the majority of individual policemen are racists. What it means is that the black people are disproportionately affected by the negative effects of policing, including brutality.

To say that "we don't know that" is unacceptable ignorance for a public figurehead of a reputable institution, because it implies that MIT doesn't know that.

But MIT does. We do. You, perhaps, don't, and it does not look good, but this is a chance for you to learn.

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

#525

Post by romwell »

LandR wrote: post #158
romwell wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ha…

It might imply racism, it might imply that there are major issues with the police use of force in America. It might imply major problems with a lack of training of US police officers, both in techniques used to control someone but also when it's appropriate to use those techniques and for how long. It might even imply, and I reckon it probably does, that there are some sociopaths in the police form that are wholy unf…

> I suspect that his death was a gross mistake

The officer that killed Floyd made a gross mistake.

Each of the three officers that were on the scene and watched Chauvin kill Floyd also made a gross mistake by not intervening in an active murder that lasted over 8 minutes.

After the murder, all the policemen involved made a gross mistake by lying on the police report about Floyd resisting arrest, and describing his death as a "medical distress".

Then the people in the justice system made a gross mistake by not opening a murder investigation and not charging anyone.

And the entire police department made a gross mistake by not making any arrests in regards to the murder they knew happened.

All these gross mistakes were happening as the video was widely circulated, and people were out there demanding justice.

And after many violent protests, there are still good chances that the justice system will make another gross mistake and acquit the people involved due to the concept of "qualified immunity", which is, of course, also a gross mistake.

Along with these gross mistakes happening on a regular basis across the country, the repeated pattern of gross mistakes makes me wonder if our police and justice systems are... a gross mistake.

Does it make you wonder? I hope it does.

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

#526

Post by augustt »

mellosouls wrote: post #66
augustt wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not call it bravery. She started her career as an anti-conservative blogger and then realized there was money to be made in being conservatives' token minority friend.

The nicest names she gets called are things like "conservatives' token minority friend". Whatever else she is, she's damned brave.

No, Candace "if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine" Owens is not brave because she gets called out for being a sack of shit.

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

#527

Post by etherael »

notahacker wrote: post #519
etherael wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please, enlighten me. Name me a state which conforms to your ideals of 'free speech absolutism' My point wasn't that there was, it was that the things you were pointing out were easily avoided by not going to the jurisdictions in which they were prevalent. Ironically, the answer to your question not that long ago would have been what is considered western countries. > No, I believe that your display of visceral hos…

So in a world in which the President of the United States openly expresses envy of how Kim Il Sung is treated by his compatriots, calls the free press 'the enemy of the people', sees reversing Section 230 as a pre-election priority and even feels the need to wade into stuff as trivial as NFL to insist they use firings to chill protest, you are trying to argue the only things free speech absolutists should be concerne…

> So in a world in which the President of the United States openly expresses envy of how Kim Il Sung is treated

The fact that a politician is narcissistic is as unsurprising as it is irrelevant to the discussion topic at hand.

> calls the free press 'the enemy of the people'

To be fair, the attacks on the modern "free press" pulling them up for their transparent lying on a great deal of issues are frequently perfectly justified, and the fact that they are called out for lying isn't restricting their free speech, it's pointing out that they're full of shit. If they were restricted from speaking to begin with there would be no need to point out when they were lying and being manipulative after the fact.

As much as they are full of shit, lie through their teeth, and constantly push narratives that don't hold up to the slightest scrutiny, I still don't believe they should be silenced. That's what free speech absolutism actually means.

> you are trying to argue the only things free speech absolutists should be concerned about come from people with comparatively little power on the left of the political spectrum saying they are offended by things. Right.

I'm not arguing that at all, being a free speech absolutist is arguing that all infringement on free speech is abhorrent. It's simply a point of indisputable fact that the majority of modern infringement on free speech comes from the left and their associated cancel culture cancerous nonsense, the fact you can't even accept this is frankly baffling, but likely emblematic of your observation that it will be impossible for anybody who is aware of that blatant indisputable fact to come to agreement with you.

> The allegedly much worse examples you've cited of the left eroding free speech are the 'me too' movement

Completely incorrect once again, my previous reference to me-too'ism was regarding your defense of the erosion of free speech in the western world being ok because there are other complete shitholes in the world that erode it in a different way, it had nothing to do with the movement you misinterpreted it as.

> but one thing we both have in common is that clearly neither of us are free speech absolutists.

Your confusion is dizzying.

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

#528

Post by CraigJPerry »

cglace wrote: post #506
CraigJPerry wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

self-censor? Your original post makes no sense then, how can you self-censor a word that you self deem to be benign? You’d have to recognise that the word wasn’t benign in that context first?

Go back to the original parent of this thread. The concept was he self censored due to the fear of someone being offended.

Thats not true - where does he self censor?

> So what should I do? Just shut my mouth and don't say anything? Then the slave trade will continue to operate freely... All speech besides threats of violence needs to be free, or we can't progress as a society.

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

#529

Post by randcraw »

toast0 wrote: post #437
randcraw wrote: post #419

Free speech != hate speech. There's a big difference between stating a reasoned point of view that some might find offensive and stating something that's intended only to offend. The first is essential to a free society and deserves our enthusiastic protection. The second is only destructive and should be shunned. Behaving offensively is not strictly in the eye of the beholder. If you hate something/someone, do not s…

These sound like guidelines for a discussion site, but I don't think there's a basis in the law for the US freedom of speech to be freedom of constructive speech or freedom of civil exchange. There are plenty of hateful people and group that say reprehensible things in public and face no government sanctions. And, as much as I dislile the reprehensible things they say, I feel that's appropriate. The governments of th…

Public speech has long been limited by law: slander, libel, sedition, public nuisance, public safety, violation of NDA, violation of gag orders, indecency, and more.

Your argument is only that no amount of hate speech is too much. But I see no principle in civil rights that defends the repercussions that ensue from purely bilious expression, any more than the claim that mercilessly berating some individual unto suicide should be an act of free expression. Verbal misconduct often leads to penalties in civil court. The question here is whether it should also lead to criminal penalties, as speech that is intended only to injure.

It seems to me that a civil society cannot coexist with the unfettered right to speak hate. One of the two must win out. I hope it's civility. So far, I think it's been hate.

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

#530

Post by Retric »

vore wrote: post #473
Retric wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Challenge accepted. Pederasty is so far from our cultural norms it’s current form is meaningless compared to a socially accepted version. In a society with active mentoring of youth by people across the gender and sexual orientation spectrum pederasty would reduce the stigma’s associated with homosexuals thus increasing social cohesion. War is a stress test for societies. By destroying less efficient social structure…

> Pederasty [...] would reduce the stigma’s associated with homosexuals thus increasing social cohesion. Increasing acceptance of gay people by checks notes encouraging adults to have sex with minors. And before you accuse me of cutting out a part of your argument, you haven't actually given a definition of pederasty that's not the one everyone understands, which is "adult men having sex with minors".

It’s gender specific so men having sex with boys, from ~17 down to pre-pubescent.

Anyway, the point was not to convince anyone just to discuss the topic in a positive manor without provoking a massive negative response from HN. Consider taking some issue you strongly disagree with and making a single positive argument about it. For example, the upside of infanticide?

Post reply on HN