4 ms·

You're conflating "Freedom of speech" with "The right to be listened to" and "The right to have a platform". Those concepts are inherently fuzzy and related in

You're conflating "Freedom of speech" with "The right to be listened to" and "The right to have a platform". Those concepts are inherently fuzzy and related in messy ways. Back in the day, AT&T claimed that it had built its long-distance network, and that it was in its rights to exclude others from using it. The effect of this was monopoly, however, so regulators stepped in and new laws were passed. If "de-platforming" has the effect of censorship, then it might as well be censorship. If de-platforming resulted in no-one wanting to listen to certain speakers, then it would be private citizens convincing other private citizens in a way consistent with democratic values. But in actuality, de-platforming as practiced on college campuses often results in a group of people too intimidated to talk and too intimidated to attend, contrary to their desires. It's not convincing people. It's threatening and bullying them while just avoiding running afoul of law enforcement. (Or, in some cases, showing up in large enough numbers to frustrate law enforcement.) Would you really call those people anti-establishment? They voted in favour of the corruption of the political system Do you actually believe that all of them knew that's what they were doing? I know for a fact that some subset of them want the system to get more corrupt, so it will collapse sooner. David Pakman recently interviewed an ex-white supremacist who claimed that subgroup voted for Trump so the system would fail sooner.

fao_ 10y ago
"Those concepts are inherently fuzzy and related in messy ways." No, they're really not. The one has a strict legal definition and is enshrined in law, and the others don't and aren't. "But in actuality, de-platforming as practiced on college campuses often results in a group of people too intimidated to talk and too intimidated to attend, contrary to their desires. " And what about the people who have felt intimidated by the hate speech and haven't attended because of that? "If "de-platforming" has the effect of censorship, then it might as well be censorship." But it isn't censorship. That person can speak their views outside of that building. They are only prohibited from having a platform to spread their views. They can still publish a book of them and market it. Nobody has lost any of their rights, unless you're stating that you automatically have a right to enter any building and preach your views. Nobody would get upset if $person was denied entrance to a funeral home for preaching their views there, because we all understand that that is inappropriate behaviour. A church can expell a person for preaching atheistic views, and nobody gets annoyed. But as soon as someone does it for a white supremacist, a nazi, andor a person preaching for the extermination of certain groups, it's suddenly "against their free speech". Or, for an even better example, think of twitter as a publishing company. If I go to twitter with a book (tweet), they are not legally obliged to publish it. The fact that they do not wish to publish it, or that they stop publishing it (removal of the tweet), is not an infringement of my free speech. I can start my own publishing company (with pretty much every website host), or go to another publishing company (like /pol/) to have my ideas heard. In addition, people writing to the publisher and stating that my book (tweet) should not be published, because of the views that are held in my book (tweet), that is also not an infringement of my free speech. If the government decides that what I say is unseemly, and they purge it from all forms of media, from libraries, etc. and state that my views are not to be published, then that is censorship. [An orthogonal point here is that people like yourself often argue that these people should not be able to write protests to the publisher (twitter). As per your own definition, wouldn't that count as infringement of their free speech? It's interesting how you readily support that views should not be removed, but condone that people should not be allowed to protest against views, or that people should not be allowed to write their point of views in emails and posts about twitter. Surely the right to advocate what you call 'censorship', falls under what you call 'free speech'?]
- stcredzero 10y ago
  No, they're really not. The one has a strict legal definition and is enshrined in law, and the others don't and aren't. Sorry, but it is a historical fact that "strict legal definitions" are fuzzy, and the definition of a "right" changes with technology and cultural changes. If such changes didn't happen, then wiretapping wouldn't be illegal and it would still be illegal to overfly someone's farm in an airplane. Hate speech existing as a legal term is evidence against what you say. And what about the people who have felt intimidated by the hate speech and haven't attended because of that? Can you point to specific instances of this happening? A church can expell a person for preaching atheistic views, and nobody gets annoyed. But as soon as someone does it for a white supremacist, a nazi, andor a person preaching for the extermination of certain groups, it's suddenly "against their free speech". This is breathtaking intellectual dishonesty here. Preaching for the extermination of certain groups is hate speech. Are you saying that all de-platforming is only targeted at hate speech? In that case, you are simply lying. If not, then this is the dishonest tactic of trying associating your opponent with a villainous group. If de-platforming were only focused against hate speech, there would be no debate, as hate speech is not protected speech. De-platforming, as practiced, is used to silence anything certain people don't like. As practiced, it's a form of group intimidation that uses the same mechanism of effect as hate speech. Hate speech only became a legal term recently. De-platforming on college campuses should also become something legally prohibited. [An orthogonal point here is that people like yourself often argue that these people should not be able to write protests to the publisher (twitter). As per your own definition, wouldn't that count as infringement of their free speech? It's interesting how you readily support that views should not be removed, but condone that people should not be allowed to protest against views, or that people should not be allowed to write their point of views in emails and posts about twitter. Surely the right to advocate what you call 'censorship', falls under what you call 'free speech'?] You do realize that you made a false assumption about my views here for weak probabalistic reasons, then proceeded to ascribe them to me? As a test: which logical fallacy is this? I've often seen this tactic online. There's even the same (il)logical structure, down to count and ordering of sentences. It's almost like it's deliberately taught to people!
  - fao_ 10y ago

fao_ 10y ago

"Those concepts are inherently fuzzy and related in messy ways." No, they're really not. The one has a strict legal definition and is enshrined in law, and the others don't and aren't. "But in actuality, de-platforming as practiced on college campuses often results in a group of people too intimidated to talk and too intimidated to attend, contrary to their desires. " And what about the people who have felt intimidated by the hate speech and haven't attended because of that? "If "de-platforming" has the effect of censorship, then it might as well be censorship." But it isn't censorship. That person can speak their views outside of that building. They are only prohibited from having a platform to spread their views. They can still publish a book of them and market it. Nobody has lost any of their rights, unless you're stating that you automatically have a right to enter any building and preach your views. Nobody would get upset if $person was denied entrance to a funeral home for preaching their views there, because we all understand that that is inappropriate behaviour. A church can expell a person for preaching atheistic views, and nobody gets annoyed. But as soon as someone does it for a white supremacist, a nazi, andor a person preaching for the extermination of certain groups, it's suddenly "against their free speech". Or, for an even better example, think of twitter as a publishing company. If I go to twitter with a book (tweet), they are not legally obliged to publish it. The fact that they do not wish to publish it, or that they stop publishing it (removal of the tweet), is not an infringement of my free speech. I can start my own publishing company (with pretty much every website host), or go to another publishing company (like /pol/) to have my ideas heard. In addition, people writing to the publisher and stating that my book (tweet) should not be published, because of the views that are held in my book (tweet), that is also not an infringement of my free speech. If the government decides that what I say is unseemly, and they purge it from all forms of media, from libraries, etc. and state that my views are not to be published, then that is censorship. [An orthogonal point here is that people like yourself often argue that these people should not be able to write protests to the publisher (twitter). As per your own definition, wouldn't that count as infringement of their free speech? It's interesting how you readily support that views should not be removed, but condone that people should not be allowed to protest against views, or that people should not be allowed to write their point of views in emails and posts about twitter. Surely the right to advocate what you call 'censorship', falls under what you call 'free speech'?]

stcredzero 10y ago
No, they're really not. The one has a strict legal definition and is enshrined in law, and the others don't and aren't. Sorry, but it is a historical fact that "strict legal definitions" are fuzzy, and the definition of a "right" changes with technology and cultural changes. If such changes didn't happen, then wiretapping wouldn't be illegal and it would still be illegal to overfly someone's farm in an airplane. Hate speech existing as a legal term is evidence against what you say. And what about the people who have felt intimidated by the hate speech and haven't attended because of that? Can you point to specific instances of this happening? A church can expell a person for preaching atheistic views, and nobody gets annoyed. But as soon as someone does it for a white supremacist, a nazi, andor a person preaching for the extermination of certain groups, it's suddenly "against their free speech". This is breathtaking intellectual dishonesty here. Preaching for the extermination of certain groups is hate speech. Are you saying that all de-platforming is only targeted at hate speech? In that case, you are simply lying. If not, then this is the dishonest tactic of trying associating your opponent with a villainous group. If de-platforming were only focused against hate speech, there would be no debate, as hate speech is not protected speech. De-platforming, as practiced, is used to silence anything certain people don't like. As practiced, it's a form of group intimidation that uses the same mechanism of effect as hate speech. Hate speech only became a legal term recently. De-platforming on college campuses should also become something legally prohibited. [An orthogonal point here is that people like yourself often argue that these people should not be able to write protests to the publisher (twitter). As per your own definition, wouldn't that count as infringement of their free speech? It's interesting how you readily support that views should not be removed, but condone that people should not be allowed to protest against views, or that people should not be allowed to write their point of views in emails and posts about twitter. Surely the right to advocate what you call 'censorship', falls under what you call 'free speech'?] You do realize that you made a false assumption about my views here for weak probabalistic reasons, then proceeded to ascribe them to me? As a test: which logical fallacy is this? I've often seen this tactic online. There's even the same (il)logical structure, down to count and ordering of sentences. It's almost like it's deliberately taught to people!
- fao_ 10y ago