Against Xkcd 1357

To be honest, I used to kinda like xkcd, but I've grown to dislike it due to its overuse.

I hate when this one is used as a response https://xkcd.com/927/. Same with the Bobby Tables one.

Context:

This comic was written after Brendan Eich (creator of JavaScript) was appointed, and then stepped down 11 days layer, as CEO of Mozilla. He previously donated $1000 to Prop 8 which enraged a lot of people (who called for his removal). A lot of other people were enraged that his free speech was being infringed, and Randall Monroe made xkcd 1357 two weeks after Eich stepped down in response.

All that said, I tend to agree with the general premise of this article, which is that for a healthy society, free speech ought to extend far beyond the bare minimum government limits imposed by the Constitution.

Setting aside the fact that this one comic probably did not have some giant causative effect on Internet culture — it just encapsulated the zeitgeist of a moment, as comics often do — the author is going to have to get more way specific to make a good counterpoint, I think. The argument could be made, for example, that more and more as the years go on, being kicked off a “platform” or “community” is like being kicked off the Internet. However, I think the point in the comic stands.

Calling people out for calling people out on grounds that it’s un-American seems to be what this article is trying to do. There’s still no right to have a TV show or right to not be yelled at.

This topic hits a number of beliefs I hold and I disagree with many parts of this post.

> Not Twitter. Not Facebook. This simple comic.

If we removed this comic and kept Facebook and Twitter, our problems w/ understanding Free Speech are largely solved? Hardly. Not to mention social media has become the beast we as a group don't know how to handle yet it ravages our landscape.

> It’s wrong because it contains a profound misunderstanding— that America’s founding documents are nothing more than legal tools.

Also vehemently disagree - it is exactly because it is a set of "legal tools" that it boils up into society. Through the interpretation of the Supreme Court and other judges.

The author is basically stating this is a belief system and that belief system is so much more than a legal document. But lest we forget, legal documents - especially the legal founding of our country - is rooted in beliefs.

I'll admit, Hamilton the musical helped me connect to the founding fathers like I never had as a highschool student studying the material. That the beliefs of a bunch of 20-40 year olds (who are insanely smarter than me), wrote essays based on beliefs and philosophy, to form our country - legally.

By legally, I mean an agreement which we start from and enforce. The enforcement is key and XKCD rightly touches on where that line is drawn.

There is a reason why, legally, the Bill of Rights for Freedom of Speech does not reach further into society. You run the danger of telling people how to live which is extremely against the founding ideals.

Please, go live in a country where the legal precedence of free speech does not allow you to speak against its leaders.

Honestly, how many people outside of the college educated and software development set read XKCD? How would it even be possible for it to be as influential as claimed?