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

Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 165 posts

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#71

Post by cubefox »

whoopdedo wrote: post #37
indy wrote: post #8

There seems to be a generational divide on this topic. A lot of younger people seem to be fine with restrictions on free speech, often under the guise of various progressive causes

History ebbs and flows like the tide. A hundred years ago young people saw how censorship, racism, and authoritarianism were being used to maintain the status quo. A wave of free expression and individuality grew throughout the 20th century as a way to disrupt the power balance. They encouraged diversity of thought, even things you didn't agree with, and expected that freedom of expression would allow the "good" idea…

The so-called "systemic" racism is mostly a conspiracy theory unsupported by evidence. But even if it exists, your theory makes no sense here, since nobody doubts that racism was more prevalent in the past. So free speech can't be blamed to have caused it.

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#72

Post by lowbloodsugar »

jwalton wrote: post #25
diego_moita wrote: post #3

I believe that an intelligent person should be able to hold two conflicting perceptions at the same time. Therefore, I understand and accept that free speech is a foundation for a civilized life, that there should be no restraints on free speech. But, I also acknowledge that free speech isn't so free at all. For a long time and in many places in the world there are minorities without the right to speech. And the barr…

By way of counter argument, I would point out that in almost any country on earth where free speech is not enshrined as it is in western democracies, minorities fare far worse. I don’t want free speech to help justify oppression, I want free speech so that the oppressed can have a voice. > even more with the rise of anti-immigrant right-wing parties If you give the government the power to regulate speech, and one of…

The first thing the right wing party does is to roll back such rights. In the US they did it by installing authoritarian Supreme Court justices. You're worried about speech? Women no longer have control over their own bodies! Meanwhile books the right don't like are banned.

At the time of this video, the UK supposedly had free speech rights as it was still part of the EU, but of course, the EU's version of "free speech rights" is actually "you have free speech except when we don't want you to". And in any case, as demonstrated in the video, it doesn't matter if you have the right to free speech or to protest, if the government can simply arrest you for something else. For example, if anyone causes property damage during a protest, the police can and will arrest you for it. People in the UK don't realize that their life can be truly fucked by such a charge. You go out for a nice peaceful protest with your teenage kid, and a few months later you have to sell your house because insurance companies will not insure it because of your criminal record, and your mortgage company can and will foreclose since you don't have insurance.

Authoritarians (be they on the left or the right) are incredibly good at procedural totalitarianism. You may have a nice piece of paper explaining your free speech rights, and you may eventually win when you get your day in court, but guess what? The courts are underfunded, the lawyers are over-priced, the pro-bono liberal lawyers are stretched too thin, and you got denied bail. Who is going to gofundme your legal fees when all your friends are in jail too?

A government is simply the application of force. The enemies of freedom have done a fantastic job at using "free speech" to get voters to elect authoritarians. When trump talks about being friends with Russia, that is not hypothetical, it's not bemusing. Russia is literally an ally of the the confederacy 2.0, and this time they aren't going to lose. Your pretty first amendment isn't stopping them now and we have a "democrat" president.

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#73

Post by cubefox »

LeafItAlone wrote: post #58
mellosouls wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After years of people being genuinely damaged in their careers and reputation it is disappointing that these disingenuous questions ("sealioning") are still asked in threads like these. Here's a start for you: https://www.google.com/search?q=cancel+culture+examples

Is “cancel culture” itself just not another form of free speech?

Firing someone over speech is not even a speech act. It's censorship.

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#74

Post by mellosouls »

LeafItAlone wrote: post #65
mellosouls wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in the sense "you're free to say only what I agree with"

Who is the “I”? Can one sole person single-handedly cancel another?

Sure, if they are powerful enough either individually or in influence, but cancel culture is generally a mob/groupthink activity.

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#75

Post by revelio »

dmbche wrote: post #20
mellosouls wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the overwhelming dominance in cancel culture over the last few years has been from the left. Sure, the right has also been up to its old tricks in tired corners (it dominated in previous times like the McCarthy era), but lets be realistic about who the modern problem is mainly with in the West or we won't solve it.

What books were banned by "the left"?

[flagged]

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#76

Post by LeafItAlone »

cubefox wrote: post #73
LeafItAlone wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is “cancel culture” itself just not another form of free speech?

Firing someone over speech is not even a speech act. It's censorship.

Must a business remain associated with an individual who goes against their “brand” and whose views may be costing them sales?

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#79

Post by revelio »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #43
rightbyte wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it is a worrying symptom that you associate free speech advocacy with the 'alt right'?

I don't see how it would be worrying. The alt right are basically the only major suppressed group in the Western world at the moment, and I have no problem with that. Even they are not silenced by the government, so even their free speech is being protected. However, people generally don't like what they say, and want to silence or ignore them - without government involvement. Of course free speech would be extremely…

You don't actually have any definition of "alt right", it's a made up term used to mean anyone who isn't an extreme progressive.

> Even they are not silenced by the government, so even their free speech is being protected.

They are very much being silenced by the government. See the Twitter Files for just one piece of evidence. You aren't aware of it because of course, evidence of suppression is the first thing that gets suppressed by any such system.

Regardless, the reason the government is usually treated as special in these discussions it because it was previously assumed that the government was the only entity that could systematically suppress speech. That isn't the case any longer.

Fundamentally you won't be able morally to complain if one day the left is being systematically censored, cancelled and driven underground, because as you admit, that is your own goal too.

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#80

Post by Ygg2 »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #43
rightbyte wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it is a worrying symptom that you associate free speech advocacy with the 'alt right'?

I don't see how it would be worrying. The alt right are basically the only major suppressed group in the Western world at the moment, and I have no problem with that. Even they are not silenced by the government, so even their free speech is being protected. However, people generally don't like what they say, and want to silence or ignore them - without government involvement. Of course free speech would be extremely…

> The alt right are basically the only major suppressed group in the Western world at the moment, and I have no problem with that.

Reminds me of this quote from a man for all seasons:

    William Roper : So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
    
    Sir Thomas More : Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    
    William Roper : Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
    
    Sir Thomas More : Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
What prevents next Trump-like to use the same censorship machinery people construct to fight alt-right into going after them? Or lets say you decide, enough is enough and right/Republicans needs to be banned, what then? You just made the next China.
Post reply on HN