3 ms·

I've pondered replying to this, for about eight hours. I don't actually have anything nice to say - if I let myself be brutally honest. I'm not sure you unders

by KGIII 9y ago

I've pondered replying to this, for about eight hours. I don't actually have anything nice to say - if I let myself be brutally honest. I'm not sure you understand what freedom of expression really is. I'm not sure that you value it like I do. I'm not sure if you have the same views of the right of the individual as I do. That's okay. I accept your views. I think you're fundamentally wrong, as I've demonstrated in this sub-thread. To put this in perspective, I still respect you - even though we fundamentally disagree. That's the root of freedom of expression. You'll note that I don't tend to refer to it as Freedom of Speech, or the First Amendment. I speak of it as a social goal. I speak of it as something to aspire towards. If you're curious, the EFF and ACLU both agree with me. I need to be very, very clear. I don't like Nazis. I like the freedom to express myself, and any infringement on that is an infringement on my future liberties. Some things, such as credible threats of violence, are worth suppressing or penalizing. Others? Not so much. Sort of related, I am sorry that your comments have been moderated so poorly. I had nothing to do with it and, though I don't agree with you, I respect you, as a human, enough to pay attention to what you've said and to respond in kind. Without the liberty to express ourselves, most other enumerated rights lose value. In all but the rarest of cases, I will support the ideal of liberty. If you want to disagree further, this is not the place for it. I'm freely available at uninvolved@outlook.com - or we can pick a site of your choosing and keep it public.

vacri 9y ago
> I'm not sure you understand what freedom of expression really is. If we're being honest, then frankly, this is patronising. Just because I don't 100% agree with you is no reason to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about. This is a cancer in American political dialogue, that everything is 0 or 100%, and everyone can be split into two camps, for and against. > I'm not sure that you value it like I do. This is more accurate. I'm actually strongly for freedom of expression. The difference between us is that I'm not a purist that thinks freedom of expression trumps any other human right. The problem with the 'even the nazis!' stuff is that people end up acting on their beliefs. We know how nazis treated people, and have painful, painful evidence of that. And as I've said time and time again, if you think some of the stuff nazis had ideas about were right, then argue those ideas. Just don't use the brand. Here's a clear example of where freedom of expression oversteps the bounds[1]. Bananas with nooses around them, directed at a black sorority at American University. "Let the courts deal with that" is nonsensical; blacks have a long tradition of the courts not working for them, particularly in the context of the lynchings that this action is supposed to invoke memories of. And even if you could find the culprit and eventually get it to the courts, all the culprit has to do with your ideal is show that they weren't threatening to actually do something, instead just making a joke. So even though the banana-hangers never actually intended to lynch someone, they've gotten entertainment from making other people scared. The problem with free-speech purism is that it pretends that dog-whistle politics[2] doesn't exist, that there's no subtextual threats - something has to be an actual threat before action is required... but of course people are not that stupid. The banana-hangers here are analogous to the nazi protestors - they're referencing earlier atrocities to make people scared and get their way, while not openly directing threats at specific individuals. Basically, the ideals you should have for your culture should include "don't make other people miserable just for your entertainment". Freedom-of-expression purism is a simplistic ideal that requires throwing out a lot of common sense. And look at it - even the country that has in its constitution that the government can't restrict freedom of speech... has lots of restrictions on freedom of speech. Classified information. 'Free speech zones'. Private details of others. Medical records. No hiring limitations based on race, gender, or religion. No sexual harrassment. Similarly, the EFF and the ACLU should support Google's decision to reject Stormer's application[3]. Google hasn't stopped Stormer from expressing themselves outside of google's network. Yes, there's the 60-day issue, but as I explained and referenced above, that's a 'slipped through the cracks' problem, not vigilante justice. In any case, a 60-day abeyance is nothing compared to the waits required for "take it to the courts". If someone has your stuff, it's going to take a long time to get the issue to a court, and often longer still until you actually get your stuff back. In short, freedom of expression is an ideal, but it's not the only ideal. Managing a complex human society requires more than simplistic ideals. And as a simple proof of that, the denizens of the Stormer wilfully engage in tactics to silence other people with fear. They are working against this ideal of freedom of expression that you are so passionate about, and have an effect in real terms, not philosophical ones. By protecting their expression (and protecting them from the consequences of their actions) you enable them to suppress others' expression. An own-goal. Re: the downvoting, don't worry about it. I know it's not you because you can't downvote responses to your own comments. But even if it was, it's just a few downvotes. The real problem is with the way HN ghosts your comment if you get just a single disagreement on balance. But it's been that way forever and it ain't gonna change. > If you want to disagree further, this is not the place for it I don't really understand this point - HN is a general interest forum, where political debate is welcomed. I prefer to keep these debates public, but don't really see the point of moving to a different forum. [1] http://defendernetwork.com/news/national/akas-american-university-taunted-nooses-bananas/ http://defendernetwork.com/news/national/akas-american-unive... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics [3] In fact the EFF does support Google's right to choose, but then talks about the dangers of it philosophically. I couldn't find any ACLU opinion on the Stormer issue. SPLC, another civil rights outfit, isn't a fan of the Stormer though.

by KGIII 9y ago

vacri 9y ago

> I'm not sure you understand what freedom of expression really is. If we're being honest, then frankly, this is patronising. Just because I don't 100% agree with you is no reason to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about. This is a cancer in American political dialogue, that everything is 0 or 100%, and everyone can be split into two camps, for and against. > I'm not sure that you value it like I do. This is more accurate. I'm actually strongly for freedom of expression. The difference between us is that I'm not a purist that thinks freedom of expression trumps any other human right. The problem with the 'even the nazis!' stuff is that people end up acting on their beliefs. We know how nazis treated people, and have painful, painful evidence of that. And as I've said time and time again, if you think some of the stuff nazis had ideas about were right, then argue those ideas. Just don't use the brand. Here's a clear example of where freedom of expression oversteps the bounds[1]. Bananas with nooses around them, directed at a black sorority at American University. "Let the courts deal with that" is nonsensical; blacks have a long tradition of the courts not working for them, particularly in the context of the lynchings that this action is supposed to invoke memories of. And even if you could find the culprit and eventually get it to the courts, all the culprit has to do with your ideal is show that they weren't threatening to actually do something, instead just making a joke. So even though the banana-hangers never actually intended to lynch someone, they've gotten entertainment from making other people scared. The problem with free-speech purism is that it pretends that dog-whistle politics[2] doesn't exist, that there's no subtextual threats - something has to be an actual threat before action is required... but of course people are not that stupid. The banana-hangers here are analogous to the nazi protestors - they're referencing earlier atrocities to make people scared and get their way, while not openly directing threats at specific individuals. Basically, the ideals you should have for your culture should include "don't make other people miserable just for your entertainment". Freedom-of-expression purism is a simplistic ideal that requires throwing out a lot of common sense. And look at it - even the country that has in its constitution that the government can't restrict freedom of speech... has lots of restrictions on freedom of speech. Classified information. 'Free speech zones'. Private details of others. Medical records. No hiring limitations based on race, gender, or religion. No sexual harrassment. Similarly, the EFF and the ACLU should support Google's decision to reject Stormer's application[3]. Google hasn't stopped Stormer from expressing themselves outside of google's network. Yes, there's the 60-day issue, but as I explained and referenced above, that's a 'slipped through the cracks' problem, not vigilante justice. In any case, a 60-day abeyance is nothing compared to the waits required for "take it to the courts". If someone has your stuff, it's going to take a long time to get the issue to a court, and often longer still until you actually get your stuff back. In short, freedom of expression is an ideal, but it's not the only ideal. Managing a complex human society requires more than simplistic ideals. And as a simple proof of that, the denizens of the Stormer wilfully engage in tactics to silence other people with fear. They are working against this ideal of freedom of expression that you are so passionate about, and have an effect in real terms, not philosophical ones. By protecting their expression (and protecting them from the consequences of their actions) you enable them to suppress others' expression. An own-goal. Re: the downvoting, don't worry about it. I know it's not you because you can't downvote responses to your own comments. But even if it was, it's just a few downvotes. The real problem is with the way HN ghosts your comment if you get just a single disagreement on balance. But it's been that way forever and it ain't gonna change. > If you want to disagree further, this is not the place for it I don't really understand this point - HN is a general interest forum, where political debate is welcomed. I prefer to keep these debates public, but don't really see the point of moving to a different forum. [1] http://defendernetwork.com/news/national/akas-american-university-taunted-nooses-bananas/ http://defendernetwork.com/news/national/akas-american-unive... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics [3] In fact the EFF does support Google's right to choose, but then talks about the dangers of it philosophically. I couldn't find any ACLU opinion on the Stormer issue. SPLC, another civil rights outfit, isn't a fan of the Stormer though.