3 ms·

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Since this is the internet I'll note that I'm being sarcastic, and attempting to demonstrate the int

by defen 11y ago

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Since this is the internet I'll note that I'm being sarcastic, and attempting to demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of such a statement, which we hear all the time when these sorts of things happen.

gliese1337 11y ago
Uh, yeah, actually it does. Not all consequences, but some very specific and very important ones. That's the entire legal definition of "freedom of speech"- that actions actions cannot be taken against you to restrict your freedom to say what you want, nor to punish you after the fact. When such restrictions or punishments are in place, you are not, in fact, free to speak. Now private universities, for example, not being governmental institutions, are not required by the constitution to guarantee free speech rights within their domain. But there are good reasons why that right was encoded in the constitution to limit the power of our national government, and they apply just as well to the governing bodies of universities and other private institutions.
- dmix 11y ago
  Universities and private institutions lack the check on that power that the government has with the judicial system. So even a policy of ardent free speech in these institutions would be on weak ground without a system to accuse or appeal misjudgment by the power holders. The best system they have is public discourse... the media or internet, But modern corporate media, much like University administrators, have demonstrated to be extremely unwilling to offend anybody. They rarely take a strong stances towards freedom of speech, preferring to appease via resignations and public apologies. Additionally if Reddit is any indication the internet is not a great place for thoughtful political discussion.
rdancer 11y ago
I'm afraid sarcasm is often lost on our more zealous comrades.
- gliese1337 11y ago
  sarcasm is often lost on our more zealous comrades. While this is often true, in this particular case I don't think you can blame "our comrades", regardless of zealousness, for that. This is simply not an effective deployment of sarcasm. The effectiveness of sarcasm depends on the audience's ability to discern that what you say is obviously ridiculous or otherwise at odds with what you really think. When it is not reasonable to expect that your audience can make that deduction, you have failed at using sarcasm. This is much easier to accomplish in person, where body language and vocal inflection add to your meaning, and thus sarcasm must be used more sparingly and skillfully in written media. It is also much easier when you have a well-known reputation, especially concerning the topics you wish to satirize. A relatively anonymous text-based forum such as HN is thus one of the most difficult places to effectively deploy sarcasm. In this case, the poster did not establish his true feelings ahead of time, nor engage in sufficient hyperbole to make the statement clearly ridiculous, nor even employ quotes to distance the words from his own opinion. No, he simply made a statement that is completely plausible to interpret as his genuine opinion, given how common such statements actually are. This does nothing to demonstrate the "intellectual bankruptcy" of such a statement. It's just sloppy rhetoric. If you know before you post that you're going to have to explain how you didn't really mean that, and we're supposed to take it as sarcasm, then maybe try a different rhetorical tactic, because you have already admitted failure at this one.
gluelogic 11y ago
It's really disconcerting that you can no longer tell satire from an earnest statement regarding such blatant Doublethink.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Pattern matching. The exact phrase used by 'defen is usually used to promote censorship and/or antisocial behaviour. It's important, per Poe's law, to qualify such statements with a proper sarcasm mark, to compensate for lack of cues that would be present in face-to-face voice communication.

by defen 11y ago

gliese1337 11y ago

Uh, yeah, actually it does. Not all consequences, but some very specific and very important ones. That's the entire legal definition of "freedom of speech"- that actions actions cannot be taken against you to restrict your freedom to say what you want, nor to punish you after the fact. When such restrictions or punishments are in place, you are not, in fact, free to speak. Now private universities, for example, not being governmental institutions, are not required by the constitution to guarantee free speech rights within their domain. But there are good reasons why that right was encoded in the constitution to limit the power of our national government, and they apply just as well to the governing bodies of universities and other private institutions.

dmix 11y ago
Universities and private institutions lack the check on that power that the government has with the judicial system. So even a policy of ardent free speech in these institutions would be on weak ground without a system to accuse or appeal misjudgment by the power holders. The best system they have is public discourse... the media or internet, But modern corporate media, much like University administrators, have demonstrated to be extremely unwilling to offend anybody. They rarely take a strong stances towards freedom of speech, preferring to appease via resignations and public apologies. Additionally if Reddit is any indication the internet is not a great place for thoughtful political discussion.

rdancer 11y ago

I'm afraid sarcasm is often lost on our more zealous comrades.

gliese1337 11y ago
sarcasm is often lost on our more zealous comrades. While this is often true, in this particular case I don't think you can blame "our comrades", regardless of zealousness, for that. This is simply not an effective deployment of sarcasm. The effectiveness of sarcasm depends on the audience's ability to discern that what you say is obviously ridiculous or otherwise at odds with what you really think. When it is not reasonable to expect that your audience can make that deduction, you have failed at using sarcasm. This is much easier to accomplish in person, where body language and vocal inflection add to your meaning, and thus sarcasm must be used more sparingly and skillfully in written media. It is also much easier when you have a well-known reputation, especially concerning the topics you wish to satirize. A relatively anonymous text-based forum such as HN is thus one of the most difficult places to effectively deploy sarcasm. In this case, the poster did not establish his true feelings ahead of time, nor engage in sufficient hyperbole to make the statement clearly ridiculous, nor even employ quotes to distance the words from his own opinion. No, he simply made a statement that is completely plausible to interpret as his genuine opinion, given how common such statements actually are. This does nothing to demonstrate the "intellectual bankruptcy" of such a statement. It's just sloppy rhetoric. If you know before you post that you're going to have to explain how you didn't really mean that, and we're supposed to take it as sarcasm, then maybe try a different rhetorical tactic, because you have already admitted failure at this one.

gluelogic 11y ago

It's really disconcerting that you can no longer tell satire from an earnest statement regarding such blatant Doublethink.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Pattern matching. The exact phrase used by 'defen is usually used to promote censorship and/or antisocial behaviour. It's important, per Poe's law, to qualify such statements with a proper sarcasm mark, to compensate for lack of cues that would be present in face-to-face voice communication.