4 ms·

First of all, this has nothing to do with free speech. Rational discussion is a very specific form of speech. It's a great cultural achievement that needs to be

First of all, this has nothing to do with free speech. Rational discussion is a very specific form of speech. It's a great cultural achievement that needs to be defended, it is not a natural or even inevitable outcome of free speech. Habermas for example studied in depth the conditions for speech to produce reason: E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality Secondly, yes, drawing the line is difficult, there are grey areas, and we should be careful, but refusing to draw a line is the opposite of being careful or rational. And it's not like free speech is the only value humanity ever came up by which to judge things. Taking for example the human rights declaration, freedom of expression is one of the basic rights. But sometimes rights are in conflict with each other. Then we have to make a choice how to weight the various rights. That's why we have libel and defamation laws everywhere.

Chris2048 9y ago
> It's a great cultural achievement that needs to be defended I agree, but in the context of an opponent capable of censoring you that doesn't appreciate this, all you can do is fall back on legal protections. In this case, the potential for a rational, productive discussion was cut short. A level of freedom to speech is required to promote rational debate. It's a necessary, bedrock requirement, even if not a sufficient one. > refusing to draw a line is the opposite of being careful or rational I don't think a line was drawn. The google rep alluded to "false assumptions" but didn't specify what they where, and even refused to link the memo. They clarified nothing but an atmosphere hostile to open discussion. > we have to make a choice how to weight the various rights True, but the rights are somewhat solidified. There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech". There is no such right "freedom to not be offended". Whatever right is being asserted here (by the offended parties) appears to be something new. > libel and defamation laws I think the author has been defamed - there are plenty articles "summarizing" the memo in ways that are not representative of it's content - even the label "anti-diversity". I was shocked to find a fairly sober article on the issue in the Atlantic, of all places: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-mos...
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  There'll no doubt be many responses along this line but... > There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech" ...is only true in certain limited circumstances, all pertaining to the government (fed, state, local), I believe. You do not, generally, even in the USA, have a right to "freedom of speech" wherever you are. And you definitely don't have "free (from consequences) speech" anywhere.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Since I'm not American, I'll leave this one for others. But, I'd ask what "freedom from consequences" means? There are certain consequences arising from free speech that are, in some sense, protected. Can I (as a non-government entity) fire someone for choosing a certain religion, for example? Wouldn't that be a "consequence" of their choice?
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > Can I (as a non-government entity) fire someone for choosing a certain religion, for example? Yes. Can you do it without consequences to yourself? No, because that is almost certainly a protected case in law.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        Then I'm not sure what your point is. "freedom" in this context usually relates to the law. As such "freedom to X" usually implies the legal framework to support X. If you are saying "freedom to X doesn't mean no legal consequences" then the phrase would be meaningless.
        zimpenfish 9y ago
        > "freedom" in this context usually relates to the law. Then where is the "a right to freedom of speech" enshrined in the law? The USA doesn't have that - only limited protection from the government. The UK certainly doesn't.

Chris2048 9y ago

> It's a great cultural achievement that needs to be defended I agree, but in the context of an opponent capable of censoring you that doesn't appreciate this, all you can do is fall back on legal protections. In this case, the potential for a rational, productive discussion was cut short. A level of freedom to speech is required to promote rational debate. It's a necessary, bedrock requirement, even if not a sufficient one. > refusing to draw a line is the opposite of being careful or rational I don't think a line was drawn. The google rep alluded to "false assumptions" but didn't specify what they where, and even refused to link the memo. They clarified nothing but an atmosphere hostile to open discussion. > we have to make a choice how to weight the various rights True, but the rights are somewhat solidified. There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech". There is no such right "freedom to not be offended". Whatever right is being asserted here (by the offended parties) appears to be something new. > libel and defamation laws I think the author has been defamed - there are plenty articles "summarizing" the memo in ways that are not representative of it's content - even the label "anti-diversity". I was shocked to find a fairly sober article on the issue in the Atlantic, of all places: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-mos...

zimpenfish 9y ago
There'll no doubt be many responses along this line but... > There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech" ...is only true in certain limited circumstances, all pertaining to the government (fed, state, local), I believe. You do not, generally, even in the USA, have a right to "freedom of speech" wherever you are. And you definitely don't have "free (from consequences) speech" anywhere.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Since I'm not American, I'll leave this one for others. But, I'd ask what "freedom from consequences" means? There are certain consequences arising from free speech that are, in some sense, protected. Can I (as a non-government entity) fire someone for choosing a certain religion, for example? Wouldn't that be a "consequence" of their choice?
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > Can I (as a non-government entity) fire someone for choosing a certain religion, for example? Yes. Can you do it without consequences to yourself? No, because that is almost certainly a protected case in law.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Then I'm not sure what your point is. "freedom" in this context usually relates to the law. As such "freedom to X" usually implies the legal framework to support X. If you are saying "freedom to X doesn't mean no legal consequences" then the phrase would be meaningless.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        > "freedom" in this context usually relates to the law. Then where is the "a right to freedom of speech" enshrined in the law? The USA doesn't have that - only limited protection from the government. The UK certainly doesn't.