8 ms·

It's great to read such eloquent defense of such an important idea. I would ask that anybody with terrible ideas be allowed to speak at length and convince all

by b6 9y ago

It's great to read such eloquent defense of such an important idea. I would ask that anybody with terrible ideas be allowed to speak at length and convince all the peaceful tolerant listeners of the terribleness of the ideas. Sadly, the importance of freedom of expression seems dead in the minds of many Americans.

s0l1dsnak3123 9y ago
The situation is an order of magnitude worse in the UK.
- simonh 9y ago
  Perhaps, but then we have effective safeguards over here that the US doesn't have. Particularly, we have a truly independent and non-politicised judiciary. That's a big deal. We don't have the absolute and uncompromisingly worded constitutional rights of the US, but we're also far less likely to suffer erosion or elimination of those rights in practice that we see in the US. E.g. If the UK government wanted to have National Security Letters they'd just pass a law allowing them to do so. But there's no way the judiciary would allow them to create and apply such letters otherwise, the way it happened in the US. So yes the security state here does go too far IMHO but it's much more explicit and open to public debate and challenge.
  - jopsen 9y ago
    Indeed, also EU member nations are subject to European Court of Human Rights. Even if the UK leaves the EU, it's not unlikely you'll maintain a relationship to some of that. Depending on how hard/soft brexit turns out to be.
    - beojan 9y ago
      > Indeed, also EU member nations are subject to European Court of Human Rights. Council of Europe members. Russia is a Council of Europe member, so the UK isn't leaving that. On the other hand, it also isn't as effective as you might think.
- alacombe 9y ago
  or in Europe in general.
adventured 9y ago
In the near-term (10-15 years), fortunately, the Supreme Court is very likely to shield freedom of speech from this latest cultural assault. The primary question is what direction the authoritarian types will attack it from legally / politically. The main vehicle has to be the intentionally vague hate speech approach, which they've been readying and building up for decades. To regulate it into action, they'll have to argue the Internet (the primary medium that matters now) is under FCC broadcast control just as with traditional radio and broadcast TV. Then they'll task any Internet content publishing platforms with obeying and enforcing the new hate speech limitations. Those new rules will vary with the political winds and be aggressively abused by each administration and major political shift in DC. It'll become a form of shifting thought terror brought down upon the American people (what can/can't I express changing every 4 to 8 years); by the time the public realizes what has happened, it'll be far too late, their speech - their last line of defense - will be gone.
- rthwoywaa 9y ago
  The approach they are using right now, and very successfully, is to force the large companies to censor for them. Internally to the company they will say "this and this and this should be deleted". They accuse anyone that disagrees of creating a hostile work environment (illegal per anti-discrimination laws). Without anyone left to disagree, they can get basically all they ask for. They then disingeniously say "this is the decision of a private company, free speech only applies to the government" even though they were the ones that forced the company's hand. Complete censorship is not possible with this strategy, because there will always be other ways to get the speech out, but it may well be censored from as large a percentage of people as in a dictatorship.
  - simonh 9y ago
    How is the government forcing large companies to censor? I've not come across any instances of this. Pressure maybe, but there's a world of difference between pressure and force. See Apple's refusal to assist in decrypting the contents of their phones. Personally I agree with the ACLU position on this, but also believe that privately owned publishing platforms should be free to establish their own policies on what they will or will not carry. That's their right as private entities. Excepting explicit regulation such as common carrier. I don't think anyone is saying it would be OK for the phone companies to cut off KKK members phone service.
PeanutCurry 9y ago
I realize I'm risking downvotes with this one, but I think it's worth acknowledging. While Charlottesville was a tragedy, and the time is not right imo to discuss it with the public at large precisely because it was a tragedy and people are still mourning, the event was overall as peaceful as any severely political protest ever is. The deaths and injuries that occurred should not be simply discounted as if the people are simply disposable, but the majority of activists on both sides did not cause those deaths and injuries. Unless there is a major point of information that I am ignorant of, the driver who has catapulted the event into the national spotlight acted essentially in isolation even if his ideology was not held in isolation at the event. He acted heinously, and now is not the time for taking easy solace, but I think there's some merit in the reality that by and large people on both sides were able to demonstrate with the -relative- peacefulness of a generic controversial American protest with orbital counter protests.
- ygaf 9y ago
  This is why I couldn't believe that terrorism was invoked. (for a second, before accepting the unscrupulous cleverness of it) Terrorism is when a message is sent to the people at large, not what happens between warring protestors. Terrorism is what Theresa May wants to tap internet communications for.
  - Shivetya 9y ago
    to me the key difference is terrorism is premeditated. this violence was the act of one individual and is blown out of proportion. what was not communicated is that only these "alt-right" groups had permission to march and demonstrate and the police were told to not intervene when counter groups who assembled in similar manner without permission were allowed free reign to incite the issue. I am all for letting these "alt-right/left" groups march to their hearts content provided their faces are visible. it gives them an outlet and lets the rest of us know who they are. so while their message may be repugnant they have the right to march. the ACLU recent preening/posturing/etc is shameful compared to their past actions. far too many groups are piling on declaring how they are against violence which is non declaration. Of course violence cannot be supported. the real danger is if we force these groups underground that some of their members may act out with much more terrible violence.
jopsen 9y ago
the boundaries for freedom of speech will always be tested, and as the document reveals this the first time freedom of speech is debated.. and won't be the last either. But I for one don't believe there is any serious efforts to limit freedom of speech in America, we're still far from that point :)
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  Major typo: > as the document reveals this [IS NOT] the first time freedom of speech is debated.. and won't be the last either. I presume that's what you intended to write?
nimish 9y ago
You and the ACLU have been tripped up by the paradox of tolerance: there is a time and place to analyze ideas destructive to open society, but that is not the same as what happened in Charlottesville or Germany in the '30s
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  The paradox of tolerance is that in order to be extremely tolerant to some you must become intolerant of others, it has nothing to do with violence.
- lagadu 9y ago
  > there is a time and place to analyze ideas destructive to open society I hope you realize this is the type of speech we should expect from a totalitarian regime. Who determines whether something is destructive to society? Always and everywhere should be the time and place to analyse any ideas regardless of whether anyone thinks they're destructive or not.
  - syshum 9y ago
    >>Who determines whether something is destructive to society? This is a key question people want to avoid Every group has their own idea as to what is destructive to society, Ask Anti-fa they will tell it is the White Supremacists, Ask the White Supremacists and they will tell you it is Anti-fa Ask me and I will tell you it is both... Ask Christians and they will give you a whole list of speech that is destructive, Ask Atheists and they will give you a whole list of speech that is destructive, Ask <insert group>, and they will give you a whole list of speech that is destructive, So who is right? None of them.... not even me. What is actually destructive to society is Censorship... Both by government and by society at large
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  > there is a time and place to analyze ideas destructive to open society Just like there's a time and place to question the war effort, right? Besides, some people want closed borders, not an open society - why should only ideas that favour openness be allowed?
tcbawo 9y ago
It is a noble sentiment that bears remembering. Although, we should ruminate on what it means in a world of attention span saturation, where competing ideas are essentially DDoSed. If you look in depth at cult deprogramming techniques, there is a danger to isolation and concentration of ideas.

by b6 9y ago

s0l1dsnak3123 9y ago

The situation is an order of magnitude worse in the UK.

simonh 9y ago
Perhaps, but then we have effective safeguards over here that the US doesn't have. Particularly, we have a truly independent and non-politicised judiciary. That's a big deal. We don't have the absolute and uncompromisingly worded constitutional rights of the US, but we're also far less likely to suffer erosion or elimination of those rights in practice that we see in the US. E.g. If the UK government wanted to have National Security Letters they'd just pass a law allowing them to do so. But there's no way the judiciary would allow them to create and apply such letters otherwise, the way it happened in the US. So yes the security state here does go too far IMHO but it's much more explicit and open to public debate and challenge.
- jopsen 9y ago
  Indeed, also EU member nations are subject to European Court of Human Rights. Even if the UK leaves the EU, it's not unlikely you'll maintain a relationship to some of that. Depending on how hard/soft brexit turns out to be.
  - beojan 9y ago
    > Indeed, also EU member nations are subject to European Court of Human Rights. Council of Europe members. Russia is a Council of Europe member, so the UK isn't leaving that. On the other hand, it also isn't as effective as you might think.
alacombe 9y ago
or in Europe in general.

adventured 9y ago

In the near-term (10-15 years), fortunately, the Supreme Court is very likely to shield freedom of speech from this latest cultural assault. The primary question is what direction the authoritarian types will attack it from legally / politically. The main vehicle has to be the intentionally vague hate speech approach, which they've been readying and building up for decades. To regulate it into action, they'll have to argue the Internet (the primary medium that matters now) is under FCC broadcast control just as with traditional radio and broadcast TV. Then they'll task any Internet content publishing platforms with obeying and enforcing the new hate speech limitations. Those new rules will vary with the political winds and be aggressively abused by each administration and major political shift in DC. It'll become a form of shifting thought terror brought down upon the American people (what can/can't I express changing every 4 to 8 years); by the time the public realizes what has happened, it'll be far too late, their speech - their last line of defense - will be gone.

rthwoywaa 9y ago
The approach they are using right now, and very successfully, is to force the large companies to censor for them. Internally to the company they will say "this and this and this should be deleted". They accuse anyone that disagrees of creating a hostile work environment (illegal per anti-discrimination laws). Without anyone left to disagree, they can get basically all they ask for. They then disingeniously say "this is the decision of a private company, free speech only applies to the government" even though they were the ones that forced the company's hand. Complete censorship is not possible with this strategy, because there will always be other ways to get the speech out, but it may well be censored from as large a percentage of people as in a dictatorship.
- simonh 9y ago
  How is the government forcing large companies to censor? I've not come across any instances of this. Pressure maybe, but there's a world of difference between pressure and force. See Apple's refusal to assist in decrypting the contents of their phones. Personally I agree with the ACLU position on this, but also believe that privately owned publishing platforms should be free to establish their own policies on what they will or will not carry. That's their right as private entities. Excepting explicit regulation such as common carrier. I don't think anyone is saying it would be OK for the phone companies to cut off KKK members phone service.

PeanutCurry 9y ago

I realize I'm risking downvotes with this one, but I think it's worth acknowledging. While Charlottesville was a tragedy, and the time is not right imo to discuss it with the public at large precisely because it was a tragedy and people are still mourning, the event was overall as peaceful as any severely political protest ever is. The deaths and injuries that occurred should not be simply discounted as if the people are simply disposable, but the majority of activists on both sides did not cause those deaths and injuries. Unless there is a major point of information that I am ignorant of, the driver who has catapulted the event into the national spotlight acted essentially in isolation even if his ideology was not held in isolation at the event. He acted heinously, and now is not the time for taking easy solace, but I think there's some merit in the reality that by and large people on both sides were able to demonstrate with the -relative- peacefulness of a generic controversial American protest with orbital counter protests.

ygaf 9y ago
This is why I couldn't believe that terrorism was invoked. (for a second, before accepting the unscrupulous cleverness of it) Terrorism is when a message is sent to the people at large, not what happens between warring protestors. Terrorism is what Theresa May wants to tap internet communications for.
- Shivetya 9y ago
  to me the key difference is terrorism is premeditated. this violence was the act of one individual and is blown out of proportion. what was not communicated is that only these "alt-right" groups had permission to march and demonstrate and the police were told to not intervene when counter groups who assembled in similar manner without permission were allowed free reign to incite the issue. I am all for letting these "alt-right/left" groups march to their hearts content provided their faces are visible. it gives them an outlet and lets the rest of us know who they are. so while their message may be repugnant they have the right to march. the ACLU recent preening/posturing/etc is shameful compared to their past actions. far too many groups are piling on declaring how they are against violence which is non declaration. Of course violence cannot be supported. the real danger is if we force these groups underground that some of their members may act out with much more terrible violence.

jopsen 9y ago

the boundaries for freedom of speech will always be tested, and as the document reveals this the first time freedom of speech is debated.. and won't be the last either. But I for one don't believe there is any serious efforts to limit freedom of speech in America, we're still far from that point :)

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
Major typo: > as the document reveals this [IS NOT] the first time freedom of speech is debated.. and won't be the last either. I presume that's what you intended to write?

nimish 9y ago

You and the ACLU have been tripped up by the paradox of tolerance: there is a time and place to analyze ideas destructive to open society, but that is not the same as what happened in Charlottesville or Germany in the '30s

KekDemaga 9y ago
The paradox of tolerance is that in order to be extremely tolerant to some you must become intolerant of others, it has nothing to do with violence.
lagadu 9y ago
> there is a time and place to analyze ideas destructive to open society I hope you realize this is the type of speech we should expect from a totalitarian regime. Who determines whether something is destructive to society? Always and everywhere should be the time and place to analyse any ideas regardless of whether anyone thinks they're destructive or not.
- syshum 9y ago
  >>Who determines whether something is destructive to society? This is a key question people want to avoid Every group has their own idea as to what is destructive to society, Ask Anti-fa they will tell it is the White Supremacists, Ask the White Supremacists and they will tell you it is Anti-fa Ask me and I will tell you it is both... Ask Christians and they will give you a whole list of speech that is destructive, Ask Atheists and they will give you a whole list of speech that is destructive, Ask <insert group>, and they will give you a whole list of speech that is destructive, So who is right? None of them.... not even me. What is actually destructive to society is Censorship... Both by government and by society at large
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
> there is a time and place to analyze ideas destructive to open society Just like there's a time and place to question the war effort, right? Besides, some people want closed borders, not an open society - why should only ideas that favour openness be allowed?

tcbawo 9y ago

It is a noble sentiment that bears remembering. Although, we should ruminate on what it means in a world of attention span saturation, where competing ideas are essentially DDoSed. If you look in depth at cult deprogramming techniques, there is a danger to isolation and concentration of ideas.