4 ms·

>it still won't justify censorship and blocking do you deny countries the legal right to set their own limitations on free speech?

by osipov 11y ago

tedunangst 11y ago
That is the prevailing attitude here, that there should not be any limitations.
- osipov 11y ago
  Those are our ideals but the reality is that countries have long restricted free speech. And each countries makes its own judgements and decisions on what kind of speech can and should be restricted. Personally I find "free speech zones" in the US disgusting.
  - viraptor 11y ago
    That's how reality works. Our ideals are that people don't murder each other. Even if they do, it's not a reason to throw away the concept and agree that some murdering is ok since people do it anyway. So yeah - free speech is a thing we should aim for. Some disrespect it more than others and Russia is definitely not a great example to follow.
steve19 11y ago
Yes. Yes I Do. If Free Speech is defined as "whatever the government deems free speech" then the word itself becomes, at best, meaningless or, at worst, the twisted definition becomes itself a form of oppression. "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." - 1984 Free Speech is an absolute. Every country falls short of it in some respect, but that does not detract from the concept.
schoen 11y ago
This feels like one of the kinds of questions where people on HN and elsewhere have started to feel the need to say "I'm genuinely curious..." because otherwise they fear people will assume that it's a rhetorical question. I assumed that the parent comment was genuinely curious about whether people in this discussion think that governments should be allowed to set their own limitations on free speech. I've spent a lot of time helping people find technical means to access things that local legislation says they shouldn't, and promoting the work of people who do that, so apparently I think the answer is no. But I think most people worldwide tend to think the answer is yes, so it wouldn't be so unreasonable to parse the parent post as a question about what people in the discussion think.
drdaeman 11y ago
Well, not like I can deny this (that would be denying a matter of fact), but yes - my personal opinion is that I strongly disagree they should have such right. Not like my opinion matters, though. Another issue is, this is not even a limitation of someone's free speech, but limitation of my rights to read. I believe it's an important distinction.

>it still won't justify censorship and blocking do you deny countries the legal right to set their own limitations on free speech?

by osipov 11y ago

>it still won't justify censorship and blocking do you deny countries the legal right to set their own limitations on free speech?

tedunangst 11y ago

That is the prevailing attitude here, that there should not be any limitations.

osipov 11y ago
Those are our ideals but the reality is that countries have long restricted free speech. And each countries makes its own judgements and decisions on what kind of speech can and should be restricted. Personally I find "free speech zones" in the US disgusting.
- viraptor 11y ago
  That's how reality works. Our ideals are that people don't murder each other. Even if they do, it's not a reason to throw away the concept and agree that some murdering is ok since people do it anyway. So yeah - free speech is a thing we should aim for. Some disrespect it more than others and Russia is definitely not a great example to follow.

steve19 11y ago

Yes. Yes I Do. If Free Speech is defined as "whatever the government deems free speech" then the word itself becomes, at best, meaningless or, at worst, the twisted definition becomes itself a form of oppression. "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." - 1984 Free Speech is an absolute. Every country falls short of it in some respect, but that does not detract from the concept.

schoen 11y ago

This feels like one of the kinds of questions where people on HN and elsewhere have started to feel the need to say "I'm genuinely curious..." because otherwise they fear people will assume that it's a rhetorical question. I assumed that the parent comment was genuinely curious about whether people in this discussion think that governments should be allowed to set their own limitations on free speech. I've spent a lot of time helping people find technical means to access things that local legislation says they shouldn't, and promoting the work of people who do that, so apparently I think the answer is no. But I think most people worldwide tend to think the answer is yes, so it wouldn't be so unreasonable to parse the parent post as a question about what people in the discussion think.

drdaeman 11y ago

Well, not like I can deny this (that would be denying a matter of fact), but yes - my personal opinion is that I strongly disagree they should have such right. Not like my opinion matters, though. Another issue is, this is not even a limitation of someone's free speech, but limitation of my rights to read. I believe it's an important distinction.