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

Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

geoff.greer.fm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 118 posts

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#71

Post by [deleted] »

colanderman wrote: post #62
shkkmo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both government and private parties can pose separate risks to free speech, but the value of freedom of speech in a society does not change based on where those risks are coming from. The point your are making is against the strawman argument that the first amendment should prohibit private companies editorial decisions. I haven't seen anyone making that claim. When the bill of rights was drafted, it was inconceivabl…

I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities. (Your 2nd paragraph seems against, but your 3rd paragraph seems for.) Regardless, I'm not arguing either, I'm stating facts backed by case law as outlined in the linked Wikipedia article to support the thesis that the phrase "free speech" is used to mean many different things…

[deleted]

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#73

Post by [deleted] »

ggreer wrote: post #57
woodruffw wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood you, but I think that you conflated freedom of conscience with freedom of speech. Freedom of conscience seems pretty uncontroversial, and it's what Paine is talking about in the quote you gave (on my interpretation). I think everybody agrees that freedom of conscience is both good and necessary in an open society. However, it's incorrect to think that absolute freedom of speech necessarily follows. > You…

> I understood you I'm sorry but you don't. (Also, don't I get to decide that, not you?) > Freedom of conscience seems pretty uncontroversial, and it's what Paine is talking about in the quote you gave (on my interpretation). Paine and Mill weren't just talking about freedom of conscience or thought. Paine thought it crucial to hear others' ideas so that he could avoid being wrong. That requires the ideas be expresse…

[deleted]

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#74

Post by AndrewBissell »

michaelt wrote: post #65
ggreer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's usually pretty clear, and if it's not then it's best to err on the side of free speech. Declaring one's desire to overthrow western society is not a threat or an incitement to violence. Here's an example of what counts as free speech in the US: "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J."[1] It has to be a true threat. Likewise, inciting a mob only applies to actual m…

It's usually pretty clear Is it? Seems to me if I wanted to preach hate I'd wrap it in allusions, hypotheticals and you-know-what-I-mean Maybe letting that stuff through is the cost of free speech?

He's not saying "it's clear when someone is preaching hate" (it is certainly often couched in oblique language to avoid attracting ire and opposition), he's saying, "it's pretty clear when someone is making a threat or incitement to imminent, actual violence."

Neither "The Jews will not replace us" nor "euthanize the rentiers" constitutes an imminent threat of violence.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#75

Post by [deleted] »

eradicatethots wrote: post #54
geofft wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, exactly. To be clear about my position, I believe that "free speech" is an impractical ideal, and we as a society need to be clear about what sorts of speech we value and what we don't, and if we don't do that, we're left with one of two bad options: either we have to err so hard on the side of free speech that we can't ban threats or incitement to violence or anything at all, or we let the government define "th…

As the OP says, if you ban speech you are marking it as permanently unthinkable.

[deleted]

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#76

Post by leftistcensor04 »

wahern wrote: post #70
leftistcensor04 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider Ben Shapiro - one of the brightest political minds of this generation, and an orthodox jew. Regularly branded as a nazi white supremacist by leftist mobs. Hilarious.

Being Jewish, or adhering to Orthodox Judaism, doesn't prevent you from adopting or espousing fascist or racist ideologies. And smart people are often better than most at crafting self-serving rationalizations. It's inexcusable the way some people on the left throw around the term Nazi, just like it's inexcusable when conservatives use it. But surely you understand that with both liberal and conservative usage the ep…

I accept your challenge. Produce one fascist or racist statement made by Ben Shapiro.

The point I'm making is that "progressive philosophy" dictates that an argument is won almost entirely based on "victim" points. By imagining a concept "victims" and "injustices", progressive leftists believe they are able to completely control narratives, expression, and speech as we know it.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#77

Post by zeveb »

noobermin wrote: post #16

But really, who is advocating the government do anything other than the fringes? The discussion around "Free Speech" is the concept, not the government's role in regulation of it or lack there of.

> But really, who is advocating the government do anything other than the fringes?

Former senator Harry Reid called for the repeal of the First Amendment in 2014, in response to the Citizens United ruling which held that the First Amendment protects the right to show a film critical of a political candidate prior to an election. Whether or not one supports that action, I'd say that's certainly not on the fringes.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#78

Post by woodruffw »

ggreer wrote: post #57
woodruffw wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood you, but I think that you conflated freedom of conscience with freedom of speech. Freedom of conscience seems pretty uncontroversial, and it's what Paine is talking about in the quote you gave (on my interpretation). I think everybody agrees that freedom of conscience is both good and necessary in an open society. However, it's incorrect to think that absolute freedom of speech necessarily follows. > You…

> I understood you I'm sorry but you don't. (Also, don't I get to decide that, not you?) > Freedom of conscience seems pretty uncontroversial, and it's what Paine is talking about in the quote you gave (on my interpretation). Paine and Mill weren't just talking about freedom of conscience or thought. Paine thought it crucial to hear others' ideas so that he could avoid being wrong. That requires the ideas be expresse…

> I'm sorry but you don't. (Also, don't I get to decide that, not you?)

Yes, you do. Sorry if that came off as blunt - I only think that I understood you.

You're right that Mill considers both thought and speech in On Liberty, which is why I said Paine and not Mill.

That being said, Mill should be taken holistically -- he's a Utilitarian[1], and is firmly committed to his version of the principle of utility (the "Greatest Happiness Principle"). Reading a practical prescription of free speech as a moral (or even lesser, legal) prescription would lead to a contradiction in any circumstance where the GHP says that restricting speech would promote happiness (e.g., where incitement leads to murder).

[1]: Specifically, on my interpretation, he's an act utilitarian. I've seen him read as an rule utilitarian (and parts 4 and on of his Utilitarianism can support that reading), but his first formulation of the GHP is pretty unambiguous:

> [...] actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness [...]

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#79

Post by shkkmo »

colanderman wrote: post #62
shkkmo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both government and private parties can pose separate risks to free speech, but the value of freedom of speech in a society does not change based on where those risks are coming from. The point your are making is against the strawman argument that the first amendment should prohibit private companies editorial decisions. I haven't seen anyone making that claim. When the bill of rights was drafted, it was inconceivabl…

I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities. (Your 2nd paragraph seems against, but your 3rd paragraph seems for.) Regardless, I'm not arguing either, I'm stating facts backed by case law as outlined in the linked Wikipedia article to support the thesis that the phrase "free speech" is used to mean many different things…

> I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities.

That might be because I thought it was obvious that the second amendment doesn't prohibit private entities from restricting speech. In fact, it is much more likely to prevent Congress from passing any law to limit the abilities of private entities to limit speech (since those editorial decisions count as speech.)

> If supporters of "free speech" clarified what exactly what flavor of "free speech" they are talking about (1st amendment prohibition of federal restrictions;

My point is that there is no "flavor" of free speech only "flavors" of censorship. The importance of freedom of speech and its value to society does not change based on which "flavors" of censorship are being used.

Ultimately, our misunderstandings might be based on you trying to refute an argument which does not occur in the article and of which you provide no concrete examples.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#80

Post by s73ver_ »

gozur88 wrote: post #67
s73ver_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the cases I listed above, I cannot agree. I think it is perfectly fine to prevent rape threats from being written. I don't believe things like that fall under free speech. And while we're on the subject of preventing speech, realize that, if you're of the mind that we should allow those things, you're not preventing speech from being silenced. You're just changing the speech that is silenced. Someone who is consta…

There's a big difference between "I stopped contributing because people said things that upset me" and "I got arrested for saying something." I don't accept the premise that people who are upset by what they read are somehow shut out of the conversation.

Yet, they are. And as for the "I was arrested for saying something," I think that can be pretty disingenuous, given that "something" can range from "All (ethnic group) are a bunch of (ethnic slur)" to violent threats. I don't believe the first one should be an arrestable offense, but I don't believe that either of them have a place in polite society.
Post reply on HN