5 ms·

i would absolutely defend the right of anyone to express their opinions in public, even if i despise their views. that's the principle of free speech. who decid

by nyolfen 10y ago

i would absolutely defend the right of anyone to express their opinions in public, even if i despise their views. that's the principle of free speech. who decides who is "hitler" in this scenario? who is the ultimate arbiter of acceptable speech? you might agree with them today but you should be incredibly wary of ceding the power to regulate speech to them lest you disagree with them tomorrow. why is the preference of the protestors more important than the civil rights of the speaker and the preferences of the inviters? it's alarming to me how common your viewpoint has become.

realo 10y ago
Well... There is this thing called "hate speech", you know... And at least here in Canada, it is totally illegal. No freedom there at all. Is hate speech allowed in the US, in the name of "freedom" and "amendments"? I hope not.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  > Is hate speech allowed in the US, in the name of "freedom" and "amendments"? I hope not. Yes, it is, and not by accident.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    It's not often I can be proud of the US, but this is one of those times I can be.
    - rubatuga 10y ago
      Alright, I applaud your love for free speech, but what good do you or anybody else get by inciting hatred on a particular group?
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Critical thinking and the free expression of ideas? Far more important than insuring you're not offended. There's a reason it's called "free speech", not "speech that mostly won't offend". No one has the right to not be offended by ideas in a public forum. If you're unable to handle that, show yourself out if the forum has been granted.
        rubatuga 10y ago
        Are you kidding me? You're saying you want to incite hatred just for the sake of free speech? Also this isn't about whether a group is offended, it's about their rights to feel safe within their own country. Why do we have laws outlawing things like stalking? Oh sure, it's alright because as long as they dont actually harm the victim, the stalker is simply exercising their right to move around. Although I gave you the benefit of the doubt, you have seriously misguided reasons for supporting hate speech.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        I'm saying I prefer the laws of my country where you're supposed to be an adult. Hate speech is still speech. If you don't defend free speech even when you despise the content the most, don't bother having the rights. Edit due to HN throttling: There are costs to living in a free society. I choose to live in the society that I do, and in most cases other options are available to those who don't share my country's ideals (and other country's they can emigrate to). I can empathize with those who feel persecuted while not being willing to compromise on inalienable rights. That's how tyranny begins.
        rubatuga 10y ago
        Do you not empathize with how it affects the wellbeing of the citizen in question? Wouldn't you agree that fear of a persons life being in danger is not something we should allow?
        LyndsySimon 10y ago
        > Are you kidding me? You're saying you want to incite hatred just for the sake of free speech? No one said that. Proponents of free speech are saying that freedom of speech extends to people with abhorrent views as well. > it's about their rights to feel safe within their own country There is no such right.
- nyolfen 10y ago
  we have free speech in the united states, and it's one of the things i'm extremely grateful for. it's unbelievable to me that nominally liberal western nations abridge the right, doubly so that someone would be so smug about their state determining what they're allowed to say
- rubatuga 10y ago
  I'm actually really surprised that the states doesn't make it illegal. I guess we Canadians take it for granted?
- jopython 10y ago
  What is hate speech?
jamescostian 10y ago
> who decides who is "hitler" in this scenario? Everyone decides for themselves. > who is the ultimate arbiter of acceptable speech? Ultimate arbiter? Nobody. Please tell me, who do you think is the ultimate arbiter? Do you think one individual in the crowd was the ultimate arbiter? What is their name? > you might agree with them today but you should be incredibly wary of ceding the power to regulate speech to them lest you disagree with them tomorrow If a crowd of people were that crazy about getting me to not speak at their college, I would happily leave and find another place, and write a Medium post about my views, not crying that people don't like me and don't want to hear them. > why is the preference of the protestors more important than the civil rights of the speaker and those who invited them? Why are the preferences of the speaker and those who invited them more important than those of the protestor? Do you think whoever is called a "speaker" should become "the ultimate arbiter of acceptable speech"? Because I don't. I don't like putting power in one person's hands.
- adekok 10y ago
  > If a crowd of people were that crazy about getting me to not speak at their college, I would happily leave and find another place, and write a Medium post about my views, not crying that people don't like me and don't want to hear them And when they violently protest your speeches in other public spaces? Where do you go? The issue here isn't that you are OK with finding another place to speak. You're free to do whatever makes you happy. The issue is that the places which should be open to public discourse are not. The places which have rules about acceptable behavior are applying those rules... selectively. The places which are supposed to be bastions of learning and questioning, have instead rigidly enforced "good think" ideas. That's upsetting to a wide range of the population.
  - jamescostian 10y ago
    > The issue is that the places which should be open to public discourse are not. The places which have rules about acceptable behavior are applying those rules... selectively. I like this quote. Let's talk about that word you used - "selectively". Should the protestors have been selectively told to shut up? Are you in favor of arbitrarily saying whoever is on a podium is the only one who can speak and that everyone else must shut up and agree with them?
andrepd 10y ago
Will you invite anyone who so wishes to speak at your home? At your school? You have a right to speak, you don't have a right to my megaphone. Use the internet, plenty of megaphones there. Your freedom of speech does not trump my freedom to not support you. I can't glue your mouth shut, I can't hit you or threaten to do so, but I sure as hell can not give you my microphone.
- nyolfen 10y ago
  at my home? no, that's private. at a public university? yes. the constitutionally enshrined right to free speech does in fact trump you arbitrarily enumerated 'right' to not be uncomfortable.
  - andrepd 10y ago
    I never invoked the right not to be "uncomfortable" so I would appreciate if you took down the straw-man. Are these public universities? Regardless, aren't the students in their right to organize counter-demonstrations? As long as they abide by the law and commit no crimes then surely the demonstration itself is not a crime no matter how it may irk some people?
    - rendall 10y ago
      << Regardless, aren't the students in their right to organize counter-demonstrations? As long as they abide by the law and commit no crimes then surely the demonstration itself is not a crime no matter how it may irk some people? >> I completely agree with you. Students should be able to organize counter-demonstrations as long as they abide by the law and commit no crimes. From the first paragraph of the article: "American college students are increasingly resorting to brute force, and sometimes criminal violence, to shut down ideas they don’t like." << Are these public universities? >> UCLA and Berkeley are public universities that are funded by taxes. Claremont McKenna College is not, although the speaker was invited.
- adekok 10y ago
  > I can't glue your mouth shut, I can't hit you or threaten to do so, but I sure as hell can not give you my microphone. When it's your personal microphone, that comment is reasonable. When it's a universities microphone, that comment is not reasonable. Universities have a set of rules as to who can and cannot rent their facilities. Those rules should be applied fairly and equitably to everyone. The upset here is that the rules are not being applied fairly or equitably. Worse, the people who claim to be for peace, for free speech, for openness and inclusion, are using violence to exclude the speech of people they don't like. Conflating "my" microphone with use of public facilities is a way to side-step the real topic.

by nyolfen 10y ago

realo 10y ago

Well... There is this thing called "hate speech", you know... And at least here in Canada, it is totally illegal. No freedom there at all. Is hate speech allowed in the US, in the name of "freedom" and "amendments"? I hope not.

LyndsySimon 10y ago
> Is hate speech allowed in the US, in the name of "freedom" and "amendments"? I hope not. Yes, it is, and not by accident.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  It's not often I can be proud of the US, but this is one of those times I can be.
  - rubatuga 10y ago
    Alright, I applaud your love for free speech, but what good do you or anybody else get by inciting hatred on a particular group?
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Critical thinking and the free expression of ideas? Far more important than insuring you're not offended. There's a reason it's called "free speech", not "speech that mostly won't offend". No one has the right to not be offended by ideas in a public forum. If you're unable to handle that, show yourself out if the forum has been granted.
      - rubatuga 10y ago
        Are you kidding me? You're saying you want to incite hatred just for the sake of free speech? Also this isn't about whether a group is offended, it's about their rights to feel safe within their own country. Why do we have laws outlawing things like stalking? Oh sure, it's alright because as long as they dont actually harm the victim, the stalker is simply exercising their right to move around. Although I gave you the benefit of the doubt, you have seriously misguided reasons for supporting hate speech.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        I'm saying I prefer the laws of my country where you're supposed to be an adult. Hate speech is still speech. If you don't defend free speech even when you despise the content the most, don't bother having the rights. Edit due to HN throttling: There are costs to living in a free society. I choose to live in the society that I do, and in most cases other options are available to those who don't share my country's ideals (and other country's they can emigrate to). I can empathize with those who feel persecuted while not being willing to compromise on inalienable rights. That's how tyranny begins.
        rubatuga 10y ago
        Do you not empathize with how it affects the wellbeing of the citizen in question? Wouldn't you agree that fear of a persons life being in danger is not something we should allow?
        LyndsySimon 10y ago
        > Are you kidding me? You're saying you want to incite hatred just for the sake of free speech? No one said that. Proponents of free speech are saying that freedom of speech extends to people with abhorrent views as well. > it's about their rights to feel safe within their own country There is no such right.
nyolfen 10y ago
we have free speech in the united states, and it's one of the things i'm extremely grateful for. it's unbelievable to me that nominally liberal western nations abridge the right, doubly so that someone would be so smug about their state determining what they're allowed to say
rubatuga 10y ago
I'm actually really surprised that the states doesn't make it illegal. I guess we Canadians take it for granted?
jopython 10y ago
What is hate speech?

jamescostian 10y ago

> who decides who is "hitler" in this scenario? Everyone decides for themselves. > who is the ultimate arbiter of acceptable speech? Ultimate arbiter? Nobody. Please tell me, who do you think is the ultimate arbiter? Do you think one individual in the crowd was the ultimate arbiter? What is their name? > you might agree with them today but you should be incredibly wary of ceding the power to regulate speech to them lest you disagree with them tomorrow If a crowd of people were that crazy about getting me to not speak at their college, I would happily leave and find another place, and write a Medium post about my views, not crying that people don't like me and don't want to hear them. > why is the preference of the protestors more important than the civil rights of the speaker and those who invited them? Why are the preferences of the speaker and those who invited them more important than those of the protestor? Do you think whoever is called a "speaker" should become "the ultimate arbiter of acceptable speech"? Because I don't. I don't like putting power in one person's hands.

adekok 10y ago
> If a crowd of people were that crazy about getting me to not speak at their college, I would happily leave and find another place, and write a Medium post about my views, not crying that people don't like me and don't want to hear them And when they violently protest your speeches in other public spaces? Where do you go? The issue here isn't that you are OK with finding another place to speak. You're free to do whatever makes you happy. The issue is that the places which should be open to public discourse are not. The places which have rules about acceptable behavior are applying those rules... selectively. The places which are supposed to be bastions of learning and questioning, have instead rigidly enforced "good think" ideas. That's upsetting to a wide range of the population.
- jamescostian 10y ago
  > The issue is that the places which should be open to public discourse are not. The places which have rules about acceptable behavior are applying those rules... selectively. I like this quote. Let's talk about that word you used - "selectively". Should the protestors have been selectively told to shut up? Are you in favor of arbitrarily saying whoever is on a podium is the only one who can speak and that everyone else must shut up and agree with them?

andrepd 10y ago

Will you invite anyone who so wishes to speak at your home? At your school? You have a right to speak, you don't have a right to my megaphone. Use the internet, plenty of megaphones there. Your freedom of speech does not trump my freedom to not support you. I can't glue your mouth shut, I can't hit you or threaten to do so, but I sure as hell can not give you my microphone.

nyolfen 10y ago
at my home? no, that's private. at a public university? yes. the constitutionally enshrined right to free speech does in fact trump you arbitrarily enumerated 'right' to not be uncomfortable.
- andrepd 10y ago
  I never invoked the right not to be "uncomfortable" so I would appreciate if you took down the straw-man. Are these public universities? Regardless, aren't the students in their right to organize counter-demonstrations? As long as they abide by the law and commit no crimes then surely the demonstration itself is not a crime no matter how it may irk some people?
  - rendall 10y ago
    << Regardless, aren't the students in their right to organize counter-demonstrations? As long as they abide by the law and commit no crimes then surely the demonstration itself is not a crime no matter how it may irk some people? >> I completely agree with you. Students should be able to organize counter-demonstrations as long as they abide by the law and commit no crimes. From the first paragraph of the article: "American college students are increasingly resorting to brute force, and sometimes criminal violence, to shut down ideas they don’t like." << Are these public universities? >> UCLA and Berkeley are public universities that are funded by taxes. Claremont McKenna College is not, although the speaker was invited.
adekok 10y ago
> I can't glue your mouth shut, I can't hit you or threaten to do so, but I sure as hell can not give you my microphone. When it's your personal microphone, that comment is reasonable. When it's a universities microphone, that comment is not reasonable. Universities have a set of rules as to who can and cannot rent their facilities. Those rules should be applied fairly and equitably to everyone. The upset here is that the rules are not being applied fairly or equitably. Worse, the people who claim to be for peace, for free speech, for openness and inclusion, are using violence to exclude the speech of people they don't like. Conflating "my" microphone with use of public facilities is a way to side-step the real topic.