5 ms·

I'm sorry, but I see no moral courage in defending racists harassing someone. Quite the opposite, in fact.

by s73ver 10y ago

orthecreedence 10y ago
Well maybe you'd like the first amendment to be removed? Just because something has no cultural value doesn't stop someone, in this country, from having the right to say it. That's the beauty of our country. We can say great things, boring things, vile things, agreeable things, dissenting things and it's all protected. You remove protection for one, and you risk losing all of it. I agree it's within Twitter's rights to censor the data flowing through their own platform, it's fairly impossible to argue otherwise. That said, I think speech should absolutely be protected, even for racist dickheads. Otherwise, who decides what's "right" and what's "wrong?" Some government committee? A handful of corporations? What happens when your opinions are suddenly unpopular? Whoops, should have defended (or at the very least accepted) the idea of free speech for all people and ideas.
- dpark 10y ago
  I don't see that defending the right to free/unpopular/hate speech is the same as providing a platform for it. A grocery store owner might not want anyone to stand in their store screaming epithets about black people, or ranting about Trump, or Clinton, or whatever. That doesn't mean the store owner believes these things should be blocked, just that they should be done somewhere else.
  - maxlybbert 10y ago
    Incidentally, California state law allows people to collect signatures and get their message out (as long as they don't disturb the peace) in any public place, and includes grocery stores in "public place." I remember seeing people collecting signatures at the mall when I was a teenager. The mall always posted a professionally printed sign saying, essentially, "these people have a right to do this, but we don't agree with them and we ask you to ignore them."
- s73ver 10y ago
  "Well maybe you'd like the first amendment to be removed?" See, this is what I'm talking about. I said I see no moral value in racists harassing people. And make no mistake, the topic we were discussing is exactly that. Racists harassing someone on a private company's platform. And now you're trying to make it like I want the 1st Amendment repealed. Despite the fact that Twitter is not bound by the 1st Amendment, nor have I called for anyone to be jailed. "Just because something has no cultural value doesn't stop someone, in this country, from having the right to say it." No, but that thing being harassment, which the event in question absolutely was, does stop you from having a right to say it. "We can say great things, boring things, vile things, agreeable things, dissenting things and it's all protected. You remove protection for one, and you risk losing all of it." I do not agree in the slightest. I'm pretty sure Twitter can not allow hate speech and harassment on their private platform, and free speech would be absolutely fine. There would be no chilling effect whatsoever. "That said, I think speech should absolutely be protected, even for racist dickheads." And I believe they have absolutely no right to harass another user, which is what we're talking about. "Otherwise, who decides what's "right" and what's "wrong?"" I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that advocating for the genocide of an entire people falls very squarely within the "wrong" category, with absolutely no risk of any slippery slope. "What happens when your opinions are suddenly unpopular?" I don't call for the genocide of an entire people, and I don't make racist remarks. I'll be fine. "Whoops, should have defended (or at the very least accepted) the idea of free speech for all people and ideas." Yeah, no. I'm still never going to defend or accept the idea that harassment should be tolerated.
  - orthecreedence 10y ago
    Great points, and as short as your comment was, I somehow missed the distinction between right to free speech and right to harass people. I do think that line is, also, a bit of a gray area. I also have to admit, I don't know exactly what happened with Yiannopolis' account (seemingly removed for violating TOS, although the alt-right seems to cry "censorship!!"). I think after reading your response, while I share your views on a lot of things, I still think things like racial cleansing should be protected speech, slippery slope or not. I think the people who subscribe to these ideas are vile people, but I do think they have the right to express their ideas, whether or not I want to hear it.
- vectorpush 10y ago
  > Just because something has no cultural value doesn't stop someone, int he country, from having the right to say it. Nobody is denying them that right. You don't have a right to a twitter account. If someone won't allow you to post on their website, you're free to post it on your own website. That's free speech.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    It says something about the platforms integrity if it only silence one side of the equation even though it might be its right to do so.
    - vectorpush 10y ago
      > It says something about the platforms integrity And? I don't have a stake in the integrity of twitter or any other private business. If I don't like the product, I don't use it, same as any other business. Frankly, my default assumption regarding any business is that its integrity only goes as far as it affects the bottom line, and that has proven to be true with pretty much every business I've encountered. None of this has anything to do with free speech.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Your right of free speech ends at the point where it reduces my safety. We do not have unlimited rights of speech, and for good reason. To paraphrase Justice robert Jackson, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
  - olleromam91 10y ago
    Speech != action.
Mikhail_Edoshin 10y ago
How come? It's outright dangerous to do that, so if you do, it does require courage :)

I'm sorry, but I see no moral courage in defending racists harassing someone. Quite the opposite, in fact.

by s73ver 10y ago

I'm sorry, but I see no moral courage in defending racists harassing someone. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Well maybe you'd like the first amendment to be removed? Just because something has no cultural value doesn't stop someone, in this country, from having the right to say it. That's the beauty of our country. We can say great things, boring things, vile things, agreeable things, dissenting things and it's all protected. You remove protection for one, and you risk losing all of it. I agree it's within Twitter's rights to censor the data flowing through their own platform, it's fairly impossible to argue otherwise. That said, I think speech should absolutely be protected, even for racist dickheads. Otherwise, who decides what's "right" and what's "wrong?" Some government committee? A handful of corporations? What happens when your opinions are suddenly unpopular? Whoops, should have defended (or at the very least accepted) the idea of free speech for all people and ideas.

dpark 10y ago
I don't see that defending the right to free/unpopular/hate speech is the same as providing a platform for it. A grocery store owner might not want anyone to stand in their store screaming epithets about black people, or ranting about Trump, or Clinton, or whatever. That doesn't mean the store owner believes these things should be blocked, just that they should be done somewhere else.
- maxlybbert 10y ago
  Incidentally, California state law allows people to collect signatures and get their message out (as long as they don't disturb the peace) in any public place, and includes grocery stores in "public place." I remember seeing people collecting signatures at the mall when I was a teenager. The mall always posted a professionally printed sign saying, essentially, "these people have a right to do this, but we don't agree with them and we ask you to ignore them."
s73ver 10y ago
"Well maybe you'd like the first amendment to be removed?" See, this is what I'm talking about. I said I see no moral value in racists harassing people. And make no mistake, the topic we were discussing is exactly that. Racists harassing someone on a private company's platform. And now you're trying to make it like I want the 1st Amendment repealed. Despite the fact that Twitter is not bound by the 1st Amendment, nor have I called for anyone to be jailed. "Just because something has no cultural value doesn't stop someone, in this country, from having the right to say it." No, but that thing being harassment, which the event in question absolutely was, does stop you from having a right to say it. "We can say great things, boring things, vile things, agreeable things, dissenting things and it's all protected. You remove protection for one, and you risk losing all of it." I do not agree in the slightest. I'm pretty sure Twitter can not allow hate speech and harassment on their private platform, and free speech would be absolutely fine. There would be no chilling effect whatsoever. "That said, I think speech should absolutely be protected, even for racist dickheads." And I believe they have absolutely no right to harass another user, which is what we're talking about. "Otherwise, who decides what's "right" and what's "wrong?"" I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that advocating for the genocide of an entire people falls very squarely within the "wrong" category, with absolutely no risk of any slippery slope. "What happens when your opinions are suddenly unpopular?" I don't call for the genocide of an entire people, and I don't make racist remarks. I'll be fine. "Whoops, should have defended (or at the very least accepted) the idea of free speech for all people and ideas." Yeah, no. I'm still never going to defend or accept the idea that harassment should be tolerated.
- orthecreedence 10y ago
  Great points, and as short as your comment was, I somehow missed the distinction between right to free speech and right to harass people. I do think that line is, also, a bit of a gray area. I also have to admit, I don't know exactly what happened with Yiannopolis' account (seemingly removed for violating TOS, although the alt-right seems to cry "censorship!!"). I think after reading your response, while I share your views on a lot of things, I still think things like racial cleansing should be protected speech, slippery slope or not. I think the people who subscribe to these ideas are vile people, but I do think they have the right to express their ideas, whether or not I want to hear it.
vectorpush 10y ago
> Just because something has no cultural value doesn't stop someone, int he country, from having the right to say it. Nobody is denying them that right. You don't have a right to a twitter account. If someone won't allow you to post on their website, you're free to post it on your own website. That's free speech.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  It says something about the platforms integrity if it only silence one side of the equation even though it might be its right to do so.
  - vectorpush 10y ago
    > It says something about the platforms integrity And? I don't have a stake in the integrity of twitter or any other private business. If I don't like the product, I don't use it, same as any other business. Frankly, my default assumption regarding any business is that its integrity only goes as far as it affects the bottom line, and that has proven to be true with pretty much every business I've encountered. None of this has anything to do with free speech.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Your right of free speech ends at the point where it reduces my safety. We do not have unlimited rights of speech, and for good reason. To paraphrase Justice robert Jackson, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
- olleromam91 10y ago
  Speech != action.

Mikhail_Edoshin 10y ago

How come? It's outright dangerous to do that, so if you do, it does require courage :)