6 ms·

Agree! I am all for playing nice but I am also an advocate for freedom of speech. I fear we are losing that. The whole safe space movement was stifling freedom

by 20years 10y ago

Agree! I am all for playing nice but I am also an advocate for freedom of speech. I fear we are losing that. The whole safe space movement was stifling freedom of speech and now this will hurt it even more.

JacobJans 10y ago
> The whole safe space movement was stifling freedom of speech Consider that certain people's freedom of speech is already stifled. What should we do about that? Want to trade places with them?
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Could you be more specific? Who's? If we're talking about an online context, barring the kind of censorship we're talking about here, that's strictly false. A tweet is a tweet is a tweet.
- ZoF 10y ago
  This comment makes zero sense in this context. The parent poster said he was for defending free speech, why would he want to switch places to somewhere where it's restricted? What is your objection even? That because free speech is restricted in e.g. North Korea we should start restricting it elsewhere? Or are you implying that oppressed demographics(e.g. homosexuals, black people, etc.) are having their freedom of speech stifled and therefore restrictions in free speech as a result of the 'safe space' movement are justified? That's the only reasonably understandable(albeit flawed in my personal opinion) interpretation of your comment I can really make. Care to clarify?
  - stonecraftwolf 10y ago
    How is it flawed? A TOS that discourages hate speech and enforces some sort of standard seems far less stifling than intimidation by rape and death threats. It's funny to see people get bent out of shape at the idea that they might have to watch what they say when the consequences of saying something offensive are just that a platform might not let them publish everything they want to while there are large groups of people who already have to watch what they say because the consequences of saying something that another group disagrees with are rape threats, death threats, and harassment campaigns.
    - ZoF 10y ago
      >It's funny to see people get bent out of shape at the idea that they might have to watch what they say I strongly believe in free speech and I will absolutely be 'bent out of shape' when people or groups try to stifle it. >there are large groups of people who already have to watch what they say because the consequences of saying something that another group disagrees with are rape threats, death threats, and harassment campaigns. Please provide me a modern day example of this in the US.(where these companies are located)
- PKop 10y ago
  We should unstifle it. Are you claiming that safe-space movements that stifle free speech are justified, because someone else's free speech was stifled? Please give us an example with details of what exactly you are talking about.
  - JacobJans 10y ago
    > safe-space movements that stifle free speech Safe spaces do not stifle free speech. Just as your ability to limit who enters your home (if you have one) does not stifle free speech, safe spaces do not stifle free speech. I would argue that they actually increase freedom of speech, because they give certain individuals freedom to express themselves without fear of retribution. Something that can be rather difficult achieve for some people. Of course, there are problems with the safe space movement. For example, they often highlight racial/ethnic/gender differences between people. In my analysis, it seems that marginalized people have realized the world is not going to change any time soon, and that they will continue to be marginalized – which is the motivation for creating a safe place. Should Facebook/Twitter be a "safe space"? Probably not – but Facebook has been very succcesful at creating such safe spaces with their Groups platform, which seem to be gaining more and more traction.
    - PKop 10y ago
      There are countless examples of "safe-spaces" being argued for on campus to shut down campus speakers, debate, not allowing video of protests, etc. Would you like links for reference? But first, since you're defending the concept, how would you define a safe space... and how is the space kept "safe"?
    - advantark 10y ago
      Safe spaces are echo chambers. Only people who align with their own views are allowed, so those views are the only ones expressed. It's "Free" as long as you say what they want to hear.
    - the_watcher 10y ago
      > Safe spaces do not stifle free speech. Yes, they do, by definition.
ben_jones 10y ago
I learned at the age of 12 that you do -NOT- have freedom of speech on the internet. I was on some internet forum causing a ruckus and one of the moderators told me to stop posting or whatever. I countered with "free speech!" and got banned off the forum. Most of the internet we choose to use is a collection of walled gardens. People can kick you out of their garden, that's how it works.
- x1798DE 10y ago
  Just because someone doesn't have to give it to you doesn't mean it's a good idea for those people to restrict it.
- MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
  I don't think anyone on here was saying or implying that that's NOT how it should work. In fact, at least one commenter stated that they wouldn't have it any other way. We're discussing a normative conclusion that even though "people can kick you out of their garden, that's now it works", perhaps people shouldn't choose to kick others out of their "garden" because of disagreements and free speech issues (though they're always welcome to do so).
  - ry_ry 10y ago
    I know it's frowned upon to discuss downvotes, but I think it's relevant to the conversation. Godwin-evoking private forum moderators exercising their right to police their turf aside, I always find self-moderating upvote/karma systems on forums interesting. Ostensibly the point is to allow users to control the tone of the site, and promote interesting, relevant content. In practice it is used to bury unpopular opinions and register distain. Some comments are justifiably downvoted for being of spectacularly low quality, whilst many others are hit for not reflecting prevailing opinion - essentially we (internet commentators in general, not specifically HN, although it's hardly exempt) actively squash Free Speech on a daily basis.
st3v3r 10y ago
It is not stifling freedom of speech. Not one iota. Remember, you do not have the right to force someone to listen to you. And remember, most of the stuff we're talking about here are twitter eggs saying they're going to rape someone's family to death because a video game was delayed. No reasonable person would consider that protected speech.
- stvswn 10y ago
  Who is arguing that listeners be "forced" to hear hate speech? The question at hand is: do we want to be permitted to hear hate speech? Twitter and Facebook (and the law in some jurisdictions) are saying: "no, you may not encounter these subjects where we have the power to stop you, because it may inspire bad things within you -- either personal pain, or worse yet, radicalization." Your second point is that none of this content is any good, anyway -- that we're better off getting rid of it. FB and Twitter can do what they like, and there is something to be said for removing low quality content in order to achieve a better product. But "hate speech" seems much broader than that. In Chaplinsky (a terrible SCOTUS decision that has been abandoned in practice), a WWI-era court decided that an anti-war protester couldn't disseminate anti-war rhetoric to his fellow immigrants (in Yiddish, btw). This was "like shouting fire in a crowded theater." Some things are just too dangerous to say out loud. Are we so certain of our current taboos that we really don't want to hear from the fringe? Are we really OK with giving up our right to hear controversial viewpoints and decide their merits for ourselves? Because that's what these rules/laws do -- they don't force you to hear anything. You are always free to block, ignore, etc. They prevent you from encountering the content in the first place -- someone gets to decide for you what is and isn't "safe," because they're afraid you'll be influenced by it. For me, I don't want to be kept ignorant of something because someone decides I'm better off not hearing. Even if that speech is violent, racist, conspiratorial, or just plain nutty. I can decide when divert my attention. It's part of being an adult -- learning that words can't hurt you.
  - 20years 10y ago
    Couldn't have said it better myself.
  - deleted 10y ago
MBCook 10y ago
If everyone abandons all of these platforms (and any replacements that pop-up) due to death threats what does that do to free speech online? If tons of people are self-censoring or avoiding speaking at all for fear of being doxxed and getting death or rape threats, do we really have free speech?
- advantark 10y ago
  There is a difference between the two. Getting doxxed is caused by social regulation going awry. Getting removed by a company is that company controlling the narrative. Neither is good, but one still allows for the freedom of expression.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    I'm sorry but I fail to see a difference between the two. In either case users are leaving/avoiding a platform due to abuse and this free speech on the platform is lessened (except, of course, for the harassers). "You will be judged by the company you keep" is starting to bite these platforms, and they're trying to do something about it.
- StanislavPetrov 10y ago
  >If tons of people are self-censoring or avoiding speaking at all for fear of being doxxed and getting death or rape threats, do we really have free speech? Yes we do. If you self-censor because you are afraid of the consequences of your speech, that makes you a coward. Far better for cowards to cower in fear silently then for everyone to be forcibly silenced to placate cowardice.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    So if you think a movie is good, but you're afraid to post that because there are people making death threats to people posting the "wrong" opinion then you're in the wrong for being a coward? Because banning death threats is forcibly silencing people? Please tell me I'll reading that wrong.

by 20years 10y ago

JacobJans 10y ago

> The whole safe space movement was stifling freedom of speech Consider that certain people's freedom of speech is already stifled. What should we do about that? Want to trade places with them?

Karunamon 10y ago
Could you be more specific? Who's? If we're talking about an online context, barring the kind of censorship we're talking about here, that's strictly false. A tweet is a tweet is a tweet.
ZoF 10y ago
This comment makes zero sense in this context. The parent poster said he was for defending free speech, why would he want to switch places to somewhere where it's restricted? What is your objection even? That because free speech is restricted in e.g. North Korea we should start restricting it elsewhere? Or are you implying that oppressed demographics(e.g. homosexuals, black people, etc.) are having their freedom of speech stifled and therefore restrictions in free speech as a result of the 'safe space' movement are justified? That's the only reasonably understandable(albeit flawed in my personal opinion) interpretation of your comment I can really make. Care to clarify?
- stonecraftwolf 10y ago
  How is it flawed? A TOS that discourages hate speech and enforces some sort of standard seems far less stifling than intimidation by rape and death threats. It's funny to see people get bent out of shape at the idea that they might have to watch what they say when the consequences of saying something offensive are just that a platform might not let them publish everything they want to while there are large groups of people who already have to watch what they say because the consequences of saying something that another group disagrees with are rape threats, death threats, and harassment campaigns.
  - ZoF 10y ago
    >It's funny to see people get bent out of shape at the idea that they might have to watch what they say I strongly believe in free speech and I will absolutely be 'bent out of shape' when people or groups try to stifle it. >there are large groups of people who already have to watch what they say because the consequences of saying something that another group disagrees with are rape threats, death threats, and harassment campaigns. Please provide me a modern day example of this in the US.(where these companies are located)
PKop 10y ago
We should unstifle it. Are you claiming that safe-space movements that stifle free speech are justified, because someone else's free speech was stifled? Please give us an example with details of what exactly you are talking about.
- JacobJans 10y ago
  > safe-space movements that stifle free speech Safe spaces do not stifle free speech. Just as your ability to limit who enters your home (if you have one) does not stifle free speech, safe spaces do not stifle free speech. I would argue that they actually increase freedom of speech, because they give certain individuals freedom to express themselves without fear of retribution. Something that can be rather difficult achieve for some people. Of course, there are problems with the safe space movement. For example, they often highlight racial/ethnic/gender differences between people. In my analysis, it seems that marginalized people have realized the world is not going to change any time soon, and that they will continue to be marginalized – which is the motivation for creating a safe place. Should Facebook/Twitter be a "safe space"? Probably not – but Facebook has been very succcesful at creating such safe spaces with their Groups platform, which seem to be gaining more and more traction.
  - PKop 10y ago
    There are countless examples of "safe-spaces" being argued for on campus to shut down campus speakers, debate, not allowing video of protests, etc. Would you like links for reference? But first, since you're defending the concept, how would you define a safe space... and how is the space kept "safe"?
  - advantark 10y ago
    Safe spaces are echo chambers. Only people who align with their own views are allowed, so those views are the only ones expressed. It's "Free" as long as you say what they want to hear.
  - the_watcher 10y ago
    > Safe spaces do not stifle free speech. Yes, they do, by definition.

ben_jones 10y ago

I learned at the age of 12 that you do -NOT- have freedom of speech on the internet. I was on some internet forum causing a ruckus and one of the moderators told me to stop posting or whatever. I countered with "free speech!" and got banned off the forum. Most of the internet we choose to use is a collection of walled gardens. People can kick you out of their garden, that's how it works.

x1798DE 10y ago
Just because someone doesn't have to give it to you doesn't mean it's a good idea for those people to restrict it.
MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
I don't think anyone on here was saying or implying that that's NOT how it should work. In fact, at least one commenter stated that they wouldn't have it any other way. We're discussing a normative conclusion that even though "people can kick you out of their garden, that's now it works", perhaps people shouldn't choose to kick others out of their "garden" because of disagreements and free speech issues (though they're always welcome to do so).
- ry_ry 10y ago
  I know it's frowned upon to discuss downvotes, but I think it's relevant to the conversation. Godwin-evoking private forum moderators exercising their right to police their turf aside, I always find self-moderating upvote/karma systems on forums interesting. Ostensibly the point is to allow users to control the tone of the site, and promote interesting, relevant content. In practice it is used to bury unpopular opinions and register distain. Some comments are justifiably downvoted for being of spectacularly low quality, whilst many others are hit for not reflecting prevailing opinion - essentially we (internet commentators in general, not specifically HN, although it's hardly exempt) actively squash Free Speech on a daily basis.

st3v3r 10y ago

It is not stifling freedom of speech. Not one iota. Remember, you do not have the right to force someone to listen to you. And remember, most of the stuff we're talking about here are twitter eggs saying they're going to rape someone's family to death because a video game was delayed. No reasonable person would consider that protected speech.

stvswn 10y ago
Who is arguing that listeners be "forced" to hear hate speech? The question at hand is: do we want to be permitted to hear hate speech? Twitter and Facebook (and the law in some jurisdictions) are saying: "no, you may not encounter these subjects where we have the power to stop you, because it may inspire bad things within you -- either personal pain, or worse yet, radicalization." Your second point is that none of this content is any good, anyway -- that we're better off getting rid of it. FB and Twitter can do what they like, and there is something to be said for removing low quality content in order to achieve a better product. But "hate speech" seems much broader than that. In Chaplinsky (a terrible SCOTUS decision that has been abandoned in practice), a WWI-era court decided that an anti-war protester couldn't disseminate anti-war rhetoric to his fellow immigrants (in Yiddish, btw). This was "like shouting fire in a crowded theater." Some things are just too dangerous to say out loud. Are we so certain of our current taboos that we really don't want to hear from the fringe? Are we really OK with giving up our right to hear controversial viewpoints and decide their merits for ourselves? Because that's what these rules/laws do -- they don't force you to hear anything. You are always free to block, ignore, etc. They prevent you from encountering the content in the first place -- someone gets to decide for you what is and isn't "safe," because they're afraid you'll be influenced by it. For me, I don't want to be kept ignorant of something because someone decides I'm better off not hearing. Even if that speech is violent, racist, conspiratorial, or just plain nutty. I can decide when divert my attention. It's part of being an adult -- learning that words can't hurt you.
- 20years 10y ago
  Couldn't have said it better myself.
- deleted 10y ago

MBCook 10y ago

If everyone abandons all of these platforms (and any replacements that pop-up) due to death threats what does that do to free speech online? If tons of people are self-censoring or avoiding speaking at all for fear of being doxxed and getting death or rape threats, do we really have free speech?

advantark 10y ago
There is a difference between the two. Getting doxxed is caused by social regulation going awry. Getting removed by a company is that company controlling the narrative. Neither is good, but one still allows for the freedom of expression.
- MBCook 10y ago
  I'm sorry but I fail to see a difference between the two. In either case users are leaving/avoiding a platform due to abuse and this free speech on the platform is lessened (except, of course, for the harassers). "You will be judged by the company you keep" is starting to bite these platforms, and they're trying to do something about it.
StanislavPetrov 10y ago
>If tons of people are self-censoring or avoiding speaking at all for fear of being doxxed and getting death or rape threats, do we really have free speech? Yes we do. If you self-censor because you are afraid of the consequences of your speech, that makes you a coward. Far better for cowards to cower in fear silently then for everyone to be forcibly silenced to placate cowardice.
- MBCook 10y ago
  So if you think a movie is good, but you're afraid to post that because there are people making death threats to people posting the "wrong" opinion then you're in the wrong for being a coward? Because banning death threats is forcibly silencing people? Please tell me I'll reading that wrong.