6 ms·

I disagree. I think it's more disturbing how normalized it is to frame hate-speech and harassment as simply criticism.

by s73ver 10y ago

Spivak 10y ago
Surely this is really the fundamental disagreement. Group 1: I would rather deal with harassment and hate speech than risk erroneously silencing someone I need to hear. Group 2: I would rather risk silencing someone who's voice ought to be heard than allow someone use speech to hurt another person with harassment or hate. --- Group 1 isn't trying to promote hate speech or harassment, they're just worried about the potentially malicious intentions of those that want to decide what speech falls under those banners. Group 2 isn't trying to silence opinions they disagree with, they're just worried that people are getting better at subtly codifying their hate speech in a way that gives them plausible deniability to out-groups but is obviously hateful to the in-group. I think the important takeaway is that neither 'side' is evil and despite the fact that it causes heated arguments one should maintain respect for those they disagree with.
- sbov 10y ago
  This is also commonly the case: Group 1: I would rather others deal with harassment and hate speech than risk erroneously silencing someone I need to hear.
- ColanR 10y ago
  As long as both sides do agree this is accurate, this seems like a great summary of the perspectives involved.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sanderjd 10y ago
  That may be an interesting debate, but it is a derailment from what's going on here. This is just about the executive of the US federal government attempting to determine the identity of an anonymous dissident.
- tshaddox 10y ago
  Your description of the groups is oversimplifying things and isn't a very "fundamental" dichotomy at all. The key phrase is "silencing someone." There is a continuum of power that a private individual or corporation or government can have to "silence" someone. At one end of the continuum is an individual hanging up the phone when they decide they've heard enough from whoever called them. I think most of us would agree that this doesn't violate the principles of free speech, even if the caller was expressing valid ideas. At the other end of the continuum is a government imprisoning someone for their speech. I think most of us would agree that this violates the principles (and laws) of free speech, except in certain circumstances (e.g. falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre). But there are cases in the middle of the continuum where things aren't so clear. If I run a small blog with occasional guest writers, a lot of us would probably agree that I can choose at will which content I publish without violating the principles of free speech. But what if my blog has millions of viewers? What if it has become more of a "news site" or "forum" than a "blog?" What if it's the largest such site in the world, and the only one with significant market share? Perhaps then many of us would accuse me of violating the principles of free speech, since I have significant power to "silence" certain people or ideas.
  - warlox 10y ago
    The first amendment does not guarantee a right to a platform.
  - jamescostian 10y ago
    I'm still a bit confused about libertarianism. Is this argument libertarian? It feels like it is because you're arguing in favor of allowing people to do as they please (freedom of speech) so long as it doesn't cause clear hurt to others (like yelling "fire" and giving someone a heart attack). You're arguing for the govt to get out of our way, and for private entities to fill in gaps, without restrictions. But if what you want is this unrestricted freedom, then shouldn't you be happy about Twitter? After all, by removing Milo, Twitter exercised the very freedom you seem to advocate for. They are a private entity, doing as they please. Why should Twitter be forced to store Milo's data on their servers and serve it up to users if Twitter, a private entity, chooses not to? I understand libertarianism in many social contexts (e.g. "People who aren't straight are not hurting anyone by not being straight, so there should not be any draconian laws against people for not being straight"), but I can't wrap my head around libertarianism in the context of all these "free-speech" arguments. I feel like I'm missing something, which would make a lot of sense considering how little I have read about libertarianism
- lifeformed 10y ago
  I think Group 2 is, in practice, more reasonable. It seems like the only time someone gets banned is when they're a huge asshole about whatever controversial opinion they may have. I've yet to see a tactful, levelheaded person be banned for their controversial views. It's like the only casualties with Group 2's ideals are annoying assholes, which hardly feels like a loss. To me, having terrible people silenced in your community seems far better of a "drawback" than having marginalized people harassed in your community.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > I think the important takeaway is that neither 'side' is evil I disagree. While group 2 may not intend evil, they are attempting to control others' speech. By their own standard, effect matters, not intent. To exercise control over others against their will is evil. Therefore they are evil. Their sole principle is that the ends justify the means, which is the equivalent of might-makes-right. By that priniciple, whoever happens to be in power will get away with whatever they want. In other words, opportunistic authoritarianism rather than the rule of law.
- s73ver 10y ago
  I cannot agree with the way you've set up those groups. Mainly because I don't think it's that difficult to ban the harassment and hate speech without erroneously silencing someone who shouldn't be silenced. I don't buy the slippery slope argument on this one. I honestly think that Group 1 is more often, "I'm fine with the others being harassed, so I'm going to pretend we're talking about criticism or something like that instead of harassment."

I disagree. I think it's more disturbing how normalized it is to frame hate-speech and harassment as simply criticism.

by s73ver 10y ago

I disagree. I think it's more disturbing how normalized it is to frame hate-speech and harassment as simply criticism.

Surely this is really the fundamental disagreement. Group 1: I would rather deal with harassment and hate speech than risk erroneously silencing someone I need to hear. Group 2: I would rather risk silencing someone who's voice ought to be heard than allow someone use speech to hurt another person with harassment or hate. --- Group 1 isn't trying to promote hate speech or harassment, they're just worried about the potentially malicious intentions of those that want to decide what speech falls under those banners. Group 2 isn't trying to silence opinions they disagree with, they're just worried that people are getting better at subtly codifying their hate speech in a way that gives them plausible deniability to out-groups but is obviously hateful to the in-group. I think the important takeaway is that neither 'side' is evil and despite the fact that it causes heated arguments one should maintain respect for those they disagree with.

sbov 10y ago
This is also commonly the case: Group 1: I would rather others deal with harassment and hate speech than risk erroneously silencing someone I need to hear.
ColanR 10y ago
As long as both sides do agree this is accurate, this seems like a great summary of the perspectives involved.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sanderjd 10y ago
That may be an interesting debate, but it is a derailment from what's going on here. This is just about the executive of the US federal government attempting to determine the identity of an anonymous dissident.
tshaddox 10y ago
Your description of the groups is oversimplifying things and isn't a very "fundamental" dichotomy at all. The key phrase is "silencing someone." There is a continuum of power that a private individual or corporation or government can have to "silence" someone. At one end of the continuum is an individual hanging up the phone when they decide they've heard enough from whoever called them. I think most of us would agree that this doesn't violate the principles of free speech, even if the caller was expressing valid ideas. At the other end of the continuum is a government imprisoning someone for their speech. I think most of us would agree that this violates the principles (and laws) of free speech, except in certain circumstances (e.g. falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre). But there are cases in the middle of the continuum where things aren't so clear. If I run a small blog with occasional guest writers, a lot of us would probably agree that I can choose at will which content I publish without violating the principles of free speech. But what if my blog has millions of viewers? What if it has become more of a "news site" or "forum" than a "blog?" What if it's the largest such site in the world, and the only one with significant market share? Perhaps then many of us would accuse me of violating the principles of free speech, since I have significant power to "silence" certain people or ideas.
- warlox 10y ago
  The first amendment does not guarantee a right to a platform.
- jamescostian 10y ago
  I'm still a bit confused about libertarianism. Is this argument libertarian? It feels like it is because you're arguing in favor of allowing people to do as they please (freedom of speech) so long as it doesn't cause clear hurt to others (like yelling "fire" and giving someone a heart attack). You're arguing for the govt to get out of our way, and for private entities to fill in gaps, without restrictions. But if what you want is this unrestricted freedom, then shouldn't you be happy about Twitter? After all, by removing Milo, Twitter exercised the very freedom you seem to advocate for. They are a private entity, doing as they please. Why should Twitter be forced to store Milo's data on their servers and serve it up to users if Twitter, a private entity, chooses not to? I understand libertarianism in many social contexts (e.g. "People who aren't straight are not hurting anyone by not being straight, so there should not be any draconian laws against people for not being straight"), but I can't wrap my head around libertarianism in the context of all these "free-speech" arguments. I feel like I'm missing something, which would make a lot of sense considering how little I have read about libertarianism
lifeformed 10y ago
I think Group 2 is, in practice, more reasonable. It seems like the only time someone gets banned is when they're a huge asshole about whatever controversial opinion they may have. I've yet to see a tactful, levelheaded person be banned for their controversial views. It's like the only casualties with Group 2's ideals are annoying assholes, which hardly feels like a loss. To me, having terrible people silenced in your community seems far better of a "drawback" than having marginalized people harassed in your community.
alphapapa 10y ago
> I think the important takeaway is that neither 'side' is evil I disagree. While group 2 may not intend evil, they are attempting to control others' speech. By their own standard, effect matters, not intent. To exercise control over others against their will is evil. Therefore they are evil. Their sole principle is that the ends justify the means, which is the equivalent of might-makes-right. By that priniciple, whoever happens to be in power will get away with whatever they want. In other words, opportunistic authoritarianism rather than the rule of law.
s73ver 10y ago
I cannot agree with the way you've set up those groups. Mainly because I don't think it's that difficult to ban the harassment and hate speech without erroneously silencing someone who shouldn't be silenced. I don't buy the slippery slope argument on this one. I honestly think that Group 1 is more often, "I'm fine with the others being harassed, so I'm going to pretend we're talking about criticism or something like that instead of harassment."