4 ms·

Free speech, freedom of conscience, and non-discrimination are moral principles that go beyond US federal statute. "US federal law doesn't precisely reflect you

by wyager 9y ago

Free speech, freedom of conscience, and non-discrimination are moral principles that go beyond US federal statute. "US federal law doesn't precisely reflect your moral standpoint" isn't a very good argument against a belief.

wooter 9y ago
great answer to this oft repeated nonsense deflection
- dashundchen 9y ago
  No, it's not nonsense. The line has been drawn on once and many times after, by the Supreme court. When your speech impinges on the safety or rights of another citizen, you are not covered by free speech. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States Free speech is not carte blanche to invite violence or call for a genocide. Please watch the recent vice documentary to hear what and how the Charlottesville white supremacists prepared for. It's truly vile and genocidal. If you want to see a society who has been much more firm holding against racist nonsense, see Germany who has legislated against Nazi symbols and propoganda. Do you see why allowing indimidation and hateful violence run rampant is a bad idea?
  - wyager 9y ago
    > Please watch the recent vice documentary Why in the world would you expect this to give you anything resembling an unbiased or well-informed view? Go on twitter, 8chan, and liveleak; all the raw footage and discussion is there.
    - dashundchen 9y ago
      Direct quotes from a Charolettesville neo-nazi organizer: -- “I’m here to spread ideas, talk,” Cantwell says, “in hopes that somebody more capable will come along and do that, somebody like Donald Trump who does not give his daughter to a Jew.” “So, Donald Trump, but like, more racist?” VICE’s reporter questions. “A lot more racist than Donald Trump,” Cantwell responds. “I don’t think that you could feel about race the way I do and watch that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl, okay?” Video from Saturday’s protests show Black Lives Matter and anti-facist protestors with backpacks and signs. The white supremacists facing off against them pack helmets, shields and blunt weapons. After authorities force the crowd to disperse by police and declare a state of emergency, Cantwell says, “We’re here obeying the law,” he continues, “and the criminals are over there getting their way.” “So you’re the true nonviolent protestors?” the reporter asks. “We’re not nonviolent, we’ll fuckin’ kill people if we have to.” Soon, Cantwell’s pledge becomes chilling and devastatingly prescient.
  - Sacho 9y ago
    What you're saying is true - freedom of speech is not absolute, and there are well recognized, narrow exceptions to the First Amendment. That said, Schenck is an awful example of them, considering: - it does not advance your argument at all - Schenck was an anti-war protester who was trying to distribute flyers. Where's the "impinging on safety or rights of another citizen" there? - it has been rejected and abandoned as a doctrine, most notably via Brandenburg vs Ohio. (See https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...)
losteric 9y ago
All of civilization has been about limiting specific individual freedoms in order to guarantee others to the collective. Even in the US, freedom of speech is not unlimited. Perhaps we're finally learning that the freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination. It's about time we lost our naivety. Our European brethren learned this lesson during WWII.
- wyager 9y ago
  > freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination. Essentially any political viewpoint can be described in such a way as to fail this test. Do you really want to set the standard that if the execution of a viewpoint has a negative impact on some group, it's OK to use violence against anyone who holds that viewpoint? I guarantee you this won't play out how you want. > Our European brethren learned this lesson during WWII. The US has strong protections on free speech and other fundamental rights because "our European brethren" didn't, and therefore treated their colonies so poorly as to almost universally engender armed insurrection. Nothing much changed in this regard then or in WWII, so I'm not really sure what "lesson" you think you're referring to; that Germany should have more aggressively censored anti-incumbent sentiment in the aftermath of WWI? Yes, what a lovely lesson.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    >> freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination. > Essentially any political viewpoint can be described in such a way as to fail this test. I think it's an essential question about where to draw the line. Obviously there must be limits to speech: You can't shout 'kill all the X' to a group of people with baseball bats threatening a group of X (or commit slander or yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, etc.). Generally, it's almost always hard to find a clear, simple rule that applies effectively in all cases of reality - morality and law are like algorithms in that respect. That's why we have judges, juries, and sophisticated laws. But here's a proposed, relatively functional solution that is simple: Draw the line at intolerance - the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance itself. A few reasons: 1) Intolerance is a parasite on the rule of tolerance and free speech; it tries to stop others from having those rights. 2) It violates the basic social contract: You tolerate and respect me, and I'll do the same for you. If you break that contract, why should I keep tolerating you? 3) Look up the "Paradox of tolerance". > if the execution of a viewpoint has a negative impact on some group, it's OK to use violence against anyone who holds that viewpoint I didn't see anyone mention violence.
hasenj 9y ago
Free speech is largely an American thing. You may believe it's universal, but you would be wrong. It's not uncommon for religious people to think that the principles of their religion are so obvious and universal. This seems like a very similar attitude. But really, you're just used to it. That's all. As a person who was not born into western culture, I find the concept sort of weird in some way. Although I do accept it as a given in western cultures, I can't see it as either obvious nor universal.
- scrps 9y ago
  Articles 18-20, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Ratified by 48 nations, no votes against and 8 abstentions. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/inde...
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Article 19 comes close but is nowhere as clear cut as the US first amendment which actively prohibits the government from suppressing speech.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      It's quite clear in the context of the Preamble, which literally says that the non respect of such rights by the rule of law means that "man" is compelled to rebellion.
  - hasenj 9y ago
    That's too vague and soft and not strong enough to generate any controversy. Everyone assumes for granted that there are limits to that. Your freedom ends where mine begins.
pessimizer 9y ago
> Free speech, freedom of conscience, and non-discrimination are moral principles that go beyond US federal statute. What does this even mean? Free speech is severely limited to the point that I can be fined for singing most songs in a public place. What I can say to or about people is limited, and I can be charged with various crimes based on the content of that speech. What I say to a child can be interpreted as abuse just based on its explicitness. In many circumstances, I'm not allowed to tell anyone any significant news about what's going on within a company that I work for or have any connection to, for fear that they might profit. "Free speech" is about the government restraining people from political speech, and even that's been heavily restricted at different times - currently speech can be interpreted as giving material support to terrorists, conceivably opening one up for indefinite detention. We've jailed people for treason for anti-war speech. Free speech is not about anybody being forced to help you say whatever you want to say. You can't just literally translate the phrase, it's a shorthand. If you want to fight for businesses losing control of their platform in proportion to their size, I'd be glad to support you. Expropriate and renationalize, I say. If Cloudflare is a public utility, I'd demand that Nazis have the opportunity to use it as freely as everyone else. As for the rest, 1) there's no indication that Cloudflare can prevent them from thinking what they would like, and 2) non-discrimination is not a moral principle; if we didn't discriminate, we wouldn't need more than one word, or to learn our left from our right. Our norms are against certain types of discrimination, not the basic idea of distinguishing between things. There are differences between Nazis and Jews, for example. If we couldn't see them, we wouldn't be able to understand why some people wanted to murder other people, or discriminate accordingly when deciding who we should do business with.
eyelidlessness 9y ago
Alright then. Nazism is not a political position, it is a death cult. Nazis are murderers or would-be murderers who want me and everyone I love or care about dead. They are actively conspiring to make that a reality, sometimes achieving some fraction of it. Incitement to mass murder is not and should never be protected speech. They are also actively conspiring to eliminate free speech, freedom of conscience and non-discrimination. Protecting the direct efforts to destroy those moral principles, in the name of preserving them, is an obvious contradiction and an obvious failure to uphold those values. None of this is hypothetical or theoretical. We know what happened the last time they achieved real power. We know that they have escalated their violence as they have gained allies in power today. We should protect the free exchange of ideas. We should not protect or give a platform to a conspiracy to mass murder.

by wyager 9y ago

wooter 9y ago

great answer to this oft repeated nonsense deflection

dashundchen 9y ago
No, it's not nonsense. The line has been drawn on once and many times after, by the Supreme court. When your speech impinges on the safety or rights of another citizen, you are not covered by free speech. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States Free speech is not carte blanche to invite violence or call for a genocide. Please watch the recent vice documentary to hear what and how the Charlottesville white supremacists prepared for. It's truly vile and genocidal. If you want to see a society who has been much more firm holding against racist nonsense, see Germany who has legislated against Nazi symbols and propoganda. Do you see why allowing indimidation and hateful violence run rampant is a bad idea?
- wyager 9y ago
  > Please watch the recent vice documentary Why in the world would you expect this to give you anything resembling an unbiased or well-informed view? Go on twitter, 8chan, and liveleak; all the raw footage and discussion is there.
  - dashundchen 9y ago
    Direct quotes from a Charolettesville neo-nazi organizer: -- “I’m here to spread ideas, talk,” Cantwell says, “in hopes that somebody more capable will come along and do that, somebody like Donald Trump who does not give his daughter to a Jew.” “So, Donald Trump, but like, more racist?” VICE’s reporter questions. “A lot more racist than Donald Trump,” Cantwell responds. “I don’t think that you could feel about race the way I do and watch that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl, okay?” Video from Saturday’s protests show Black Lives Matter and anti-facist protestors with backpacks and signs. The white supremacists facing off against them pack helmets, shields and blunt weapons. After authorities force the crowd to disperse by police and declare a state of emergency, Cantwell says, “We’re here obeying the law,” he continues, “and the criminals are over there getting their way.” “So you’re the true nonviolent protestors?” the reporter asks. “We’re not nonviolent, we’ll fuckin’ kill people if we have to.” Soon, Cantwell’s pledge becomes chilling and devastatingly prescient.
- Sacho 9y ago
  What you're saying is true - freedom of speech is not absolute, and there are well recognized, narrow exceptions to the First Amendment. That said, Schenck is an awful example of them, considering: - it does not advance your argument at all - Schenck was an anti-war protester who was trying to distribute flyers. Where's the "impinging on safety or rights of another citizen" there? - it has been rejected and abandoned as a doctrine, most notably via Brandenburg vs Ohio. (See https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...)

losteric 9y ago

All of civilization has been about limiting specific individual freedoms in order to guarantee others to the collective. Even in the US, freedom of speech is not unlimited. Perhaps we're finally learning that the freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination. It's about time we lost our naivety. Our European brethren learned this lesson during WWII.

wyager 9y ago
> freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination. Essentially any political viewpoint can be described in such a way as to fail this test. Do you really want to set the standard that if the execution of a viewpoint has a negative impact on some group, it's OK to use violence against anyone who holds that viewpoint? I guarantee you this won't play out how you want. > Our European brethren learned this lesson during WWII. The US has strong protections on free speech and other fundamental rights because "our European brethren" didn't, and therefore treated their colonies so poorly as to almost universally engender armed insurrection. Nothing much changed in this regard then or in WWII, so I'm not really sure what "lesson" you think you're referring to; that Germany should have more aggressively censored anti-incumbent sentiment in the aftermath of WWI? Yes, what a lovely lesson.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  >> freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination. > Essentially any political viewpoint can be described in such a way as to fail this test. I think it's an essential question about where to draw the line. Obviously there must be limits to speech: You can't shout 'kill all the X' to a group of people with baseball bats threatening a group of X (or commit slander or yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, etc.). Generally, it's almost always hard to find a clear, simple rule that applies effectively in all cases of reality - morality and law are like algorithms in that respect. That's why we have judges, juries, and sophisticated laws. But here's a proposed, relatively functional solution that is simple: Draw the line at intolerance - the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance itself. A few reasons: 1) Intolerance is a parasite on the rule of tolerance and free speech; it tries to stop others from having those rights. 2) It violates the basic social contract: You tolerate and respect me, and I'll do the same for you. If you break that contract, why should I keep tolerating you? 3) Look up the "Paradox of tolerance". > if the execution of a viewpoint has a negative impact on some group, it's OK to use violence against anyone who holds that viewpoint I didn't see anyone mention violence.

hasenj 9y ago

Free speech is largely an American thing. You may believe it's universal, but you would be wrong. It's not uncommon for religious people to think that the principles of their religion are so obvious and universal. This seems like a very similar attitude. But really, you're just used to it. That's all. As a person who was not born into western culture, I find the concept sort of weird in some way. Although I do accept it as a given in western cultures, I can't see it as either obvious nor universal.

scrps 9y ago
Articles 18-20, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Ratified by 48 nations, no votes against and 8 abstentions. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/inde...
- r00fus 9y ago
  Article 19 comes close but is nowhere as clear cut as the US first amendment which actively prohibits the government from suppressing speech.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    It's quite clear in the context of the Preamble, which literally says that the non respect of such rights by the rule of law means that "man" is compelled to rebellion.
- hasenj 9y ago
  That's too vague and soft and not strong enough to generate any controversy. Everyone assumes for granted that there are limits to that. Your freedom ends where mine begins.

pessimizer 9y ago

> Free speech, freedom of conscience, and non-discrimination are moral principles that go beyond US federal statute. What does this even mean? Free speech is severely limited to the point that I can be fined for singing most songs in a public place. What I can say to or about people is limited, and I can be charged with various crimes based on the content of that speech. What I say to a child can be interpreted as abuse just based on its explicitness. In many circumstances, I'm not allowed to tell anyone any significant news about what's going on within a company that I work for or have any connection to, for fear that they might profit. "Free speech" is about the government restraining people from political speech, and even that's been heavily restricted at different times - currently speech can be interpreted as giving material support to terrorists, conceivably opening one up for indefinite detention. We've jailed people for treason for anti-war speech. Free speech is not about anybody being forced to help you say whatever you want to say. You can't just literally translate the phrase, it's a shorthand. If you want to fight for businesses losing control of their platform in proportion to their size, I'd be glad to support you. Expropriate and renationalize, I say. If Cloudflare is a public utility, I'd demand that Nazis have the opportunity to use it as freely as everyone else. As for the rest, 1) there's no indication that Cloudflare can prevent them from thinking what they would like, and 2) non-discrimination is not a moral principle; if we didn't discriminate, we wouldn't need more than one word, or to learn our left from our right. Our norms are against certain types of discrimination, not the basic idea of distinguishing between things. There are differences between Nazis and Jews, for example. If we couldn't see them, we wouldn't be able to understand why some people wanted to murder other people, or discriminate accordingly when deciding who we should do business with.

eyelidlessness 9y ago

Alright then. Nazism is not a political position, it is a death cult. Nazis are murderers or would-be murderers who want me and everyone I love or care about dead. They are actively conspiring to make that a reality, sometimes achieving some fraction of it. Incitement to mass murder is not and should never be protected speech. They are also actively conspiring to eliminate free speech, freedom of conscience and non-discrimination. Protecting the direct efforts to destroy those moral principles, in the name of preserving them, is an obvious contradiction and an obvious failure to uphold those values. None of this is hypothetical or theoretical. We know what happened the last time they achieved real power. We know that they have escalated their violence as they have gained allies in power today. We should protect the free exchange of ideas. We should not protect or give a platform to a conspiracy to mass murder.