4 ms·

Before someone comments noting that the 1st amendment only restricts government and is not binding on twitter: please note that free speech is a valuable commun

by cderwin 10y ago

Before someone comments noting that the 1st amendment only restricts government and is not binding on twitter: please note that free speech is a valuable community principle for the same reasons it is a valuable legal principle. The "marketplace of ideas" is very real and very valuable and ought not be censored. Moreover, it is very hard to consider social networks in this day and age to be acting as anything other than an online proxy for public space, and it is no less wrong to censor speech on twitter than it is for campuses to censor speech.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
Should there be an absolute right to speech, however, especially when it can be used to, for example, silence other people? This is something that countries differ on. The US's notion of near-absolute free speech is rather unusual.
- cderwin 10y ago
  First off, it's not practical to ban all speech supporting censorship, because then all speech supporting that specific policy (including your own comment) would also have to be banned. I'm not aware of other countries suppressing speech that is intended to censor others, though I am aware that countries like France criminally censor anti-semitic remarks such as holocaust denial. Is this what you mean? I've never heard of the rationale behind that censorship being that that speech is intended to silence others. In any case, I do think there should be a near-absolute right to speech for three reasons. The first is a slippery slope argument -- any time you criminalize behavior that is open to human interpretation, the power of that interpretation can and will be abused. The risk of censorship is too great to put in the hands of regulators or politicians, even with n degrees of "oversight". Speech also cannot cause direct harm, and censoring does cause harm in that it takes away someone's right. For that reason, it seems reasonable to censor speech that actually cause harm to happen, though idle threats or general instructions do not qualify. Lastly, banning speech does not allow the ideas it represents to be addressed in a serious manner, meaning that proponents of that speech will always (likely somewhat correctly) be able to claim said speech was banned in order to enable attacks son that sort of speech. This goes hand-in-hand with the idea that eventually whatever speech that would be banned would just be defeated in the marketplace of ideas, and banning speech just prevents it from being struck down as irresponsible on even ground. I think this can be evidenced by their being no more serious a problem with holocaust denial in the United States than elsewhere in the west where it is banned. As you can probably tell, my opinions fall very close to the Supreme Court's interpretatin of the first amendment, so I guess I am a bit biased in my opinion.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    > Speech also cannot cause direct harm Can it not? It can be used to humiliate people to the point of suicide. It can be used to target someone for violence. In the case of people with photosensitive epilepsy, particular visuals could kill them. Even if the harm in some of these is “indirect”, it's not less problematic. Another issue is the Overton window.
maxerickson 10y ago
On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to remove some disruptive individual from a lecture (think someone repeatedly shouting the name of a soda in order to disrupt the lecture, not an invited speaker). This is the same sort of removal of ideas from the marketplace that you are talking about, it's just probably not one you want to use as a test for what you have articulated.
- spikels 10y ago
  There is a clear difference in these two examples. Trump tweeting does directly interfere with other Twitter users use of the platform while someone yelling at a lecture does. Twitter's attempts to "police" its users has been both a failure and damaged the reputation of the platform.
- cderwin 10y ago
  The two are fundamentally different platforms. Twitter is an open space provided as a free service to the public at large, while a lecture is a fundamentally closed platform (only the lecturer speaks) only open to those enrolled in a specific class. That said, even in the example you give it is not always considered appropriate to remove people causing disruption. Consider, for example, a conservative speaker giving a guest lecture being protested against -- often loud enough the the lecturer needs to shout to be heard by his audience, even though protesters are outside. Here is a relevant video of Ben Shapiro giving a lecture at Penn State: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLpa6fsTxCA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLpa6fsTxCA
  - rtpg 10y ago
    What about someone being disruptive at a open presentation? Or someone showing up to your local game meetup and being generally disagreeable? What about a public park that has gotten ruined because someone keeps on doing donuts with their motorbike on the grass? A library whose books keep on getting ruined by certain people? Even public services need to have some maintenance to not fall apart. There's a reason we call 4chan moderators "janitors".
  - maxerickson 10y ago
fullshark 10y ago
Yeah this is pretty much my take (even though I was that person you mentioned)
- cderwin 10y ago
  Sorry about that! I didn't mean to single you out, I've just seen people substitute "but [blank] isn't the gov't" for an actual justifiable reason to ban speech that I wanted to say something.
cderwin 10y ago
Replying to myself because parent was flagged: why was it flagged? It didn't say anything outright offensive or disturbing, and even though its tone was bordering on rude, it certainly raised a valid point (just look at the civil discussion below it). It is particularly troubling that a comment against suppressing speech on forums like this would be censored. I understand that HN is not Times Square but it is a public forum, and I do think a reasonable assumption of freedom of expression is warranted.
- grzm 10y ago
  even though its tone was bordering on rude I think this is likely it. The HN guidelines specifically state: Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html In my experience, members will down-vote if a comment is uncivil, even if the content contains a valid point. The mods have mentioned numerous times (and rightly in my opinion) that civility is even more important when commenting on divisive topics.

by cderwin 10y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

Should there be an absolute right to speech, however, especially when it can be used to, for example, silence other people? This is something that countries differ on. The US's notion of near-absolute free speech is rather unusual.

cderwin 10y ago
First off, it's not practical to ban all speech supporting censorship, because then all speech supporting that specific policy (including your own comment) would also have to be banned. I'm not aware of other countries suppressing speech that is intended to censor others, though I am aware that countries like France criminally censor anti-semitic remarks such as holocaust denial. Is this what you mean? I've never heard of the rationale behind that censorship being that that speech is intended to silence others. In any case, I do think there should be a near-absolute right to speech for three reasons. The first is a slippery slope argument -- any time you criminalize behavior that is open to human interpretation, the power of that interpretation can and will be abused. The risk of censorship is too great to put in the hands of regulators or politicians, even with n degrees of "oversight". Speech also cannot cause direct harm, and censoring does cause harm in that it takes away someone's right. For that reason, it seems reasonable to censor speech that actually cause harm to happen, though idle threats or general instructions do not qualify. Lastly, banning speech does not allow the ideas it represents to be addressed in a serious manner, meaning that proponents of that speech will always (likely somewhat correctly) be able to claim said speech was banned in order to enable attacks son that sort of speech. This goes hand-in-hand with the idea that eventually whatever speech that would be banned would just be defeated in the marketplace of ideas, and banning speech just prevents it from being struck down as irresponsible on even ground. I think this can be evidenced by their being no more serious a problem with holocaust denial in the United States than elsewhere in the west where it is banned. As you can probably tell, my opinions fall very close to the Supreme Court's interpretatin of the first amendment, so I guess I am a bit biased in my opinion.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  > Speech also cannot cause direct harm Can it not? It can be used to humiliate people to the point of suicide. It can be used to target someone for violence. In the case of people with photosensitive epilepsy, particular visuals could kill them. Even if the harm in some of these is “indirect”, it's not less problematic. Another issue is the Overton window.

maxerickson 10y ago

On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to remove some disruptive individual from a lecture (think someone repeatedly shouting the name of a soda in order to disrupt the lecture, not an invited speaker). This is the same sort of removal of ideas from the marketplace that you are talking about, it's just probably not one you want to use as a test for what you have articulated.

spikels 10y ago
There is a clear difference in these two examples. Trump tweeting does directly interfere with other Twitter users use of the platform while someone yelling at a lecture does. Twitter's attempts to "police" its users has been both a failure and damaged the reputation of the platform.
cderwin 10y ago
The two are fundamentally different platforms. Twitter is an open space provided as a free service to the public at large, while a lecture is a fundamentally closed platform (only the lecturer speaks) only open to those enrolled in a specific class. That said, even in the example you give it is not always considered appropriate to remove people causing disruption. Consider, for example, a conservative speaker giving a guest lecture being protested against -- often loud enough the the lecturer needs to shout to be heard by his audience, even though protesters are outside. Here is a relevant video of Ben Shapiro giving a lecture at Penn State: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLpa6fsTxCA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLpa6fsTxCA
- rtpg 10y ago
  What about someone being disruptive at a open presentation? Or someone showing up to your local game meetup and being generally disagreeable? What about a public park that has gotten ruined because someone keeps on doing donuts with their motorbike on the grass? A library whose books keep on getting ruined by certain people? Even public services need to have some maintenance to not fall apart. There's a reason we call 4chan moderators "janitors".
- maxerickson 10y ago

fullshark 10y ago

Yeah this is pretty much my take (even though I was that person you mentioned)

cderwin 10y ago
Sorry about that! I didn't mean to single you out, I've just seen people substitute "but [blank] isn't the gov't" for an actual justifiable reason to ban speech that I wanted to say something.

cderwin 10y ago

Replying to myself because parent was flagged: why was it flagged? It didn't say anything outright offensive or disturbing, and even though its tone was bordering on rude, it certainly raised a valid point (just look at the civil discussion below it). It is particularly troubling that a comment against suppressing speech on forums like this would be censored. I understand that HN is not Times Square but it is a public forum, and I do think a reasonable assumption of freedom of expression is warranted.

grzm 10y ago
even though its tone was bordering on rude I think this is likely it. The HN guidelines specifically state: Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html In my experience, members will down-vote if a comment is uncivil, even if the content contains a valid point. The mods have mentioned numerous times (and rightly in my opinion) that civility is even more important when commenting on divisive topics.