6 ms·

You misunderstand me. I thought it was clear that I was talking about ideas, not threats or inciting mobs. You'll have a hard time finding any self-described fr

by ggreer 9y ago

You misunderstand me. I thought it was clear that I was talking about ideas, not threats or inciting mobs. You'll have a hard time finding any self-described free speech absolutist who thinks those should be permitted.

blowski 9y ago
Is it always clear when it’s one or the other? If I say “western society is decadent and as such should be overthrown” is that an idea or an incitement to violence?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ggreer 9y ago
  It's usually pretty clear, and if it's not then it's best to err on the side of free speech. Declaring one's desire to overthrow western society is not a threat or an incitement to violence. Here's an example of what counts as free speech in the US: "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J."[1] It has to be a true threat. Likewise, inciting a mob only applies to actual mobs on the verge of violence. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States#Watts_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_t...
  - michaelt 9y ago
    It's usually pretty clear Is it? Seems to me if I wanted to preach hate I'd wrap it in allusions, hypotheticals and you-know-what-I-mean Maybe letting that stuff through is the cost of free speech?
    - AndrewBissell 9y ago
      He's not saying "it's clear when someone is preaching hate" (it is certainly often couched in oblique language to avoid attracting ire and opposition), he's saying, "it's pretty clear when someone is making a threat or incitement to imminent, actual violence." Neither "The Jews will not replace us" nor "euthanize the rentiers" constitutes an imminent threat of violence.
      - blowski 9y ago
        How imminent and serious does it need to be for us to ban it?
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        I would say the second one does.
geofft 9y ago
> You misunderstand me. I thought it was clear that I was talking about ideas, not threats or inciting mobs. And who decides what's an "idea" and what's "threats or inciting mobs"? Would you be happy for the British government to say that of course the colonists have the right to free speech, but many of them are advocating threats and inciting mobs, which isn't allowed? Or for the king of Thailand to say the same thing about those who insult the king? Or for the Spanish government to say the same thing about Catalonian politicians? Or for Trump to say this about the women's march? What is a threat or a mob? Is a group of Nazis in Nazi uniforms marching down the street saying Nazi things somehow not a threat or a mob? The ACLU believes they have a right to free speech!
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Oh the other hand what about, Milo pushing his followers to send Leslie Jones racist imagery and slurs on Twitter? Is that an idea, or inciting a mob?
  - geofft 9y ago
    Yup, exactly. To be clear about my position, I believe that "free speech" is an impractical ideal, and we as a society need to be clear about what sorts of speech we value and what we don't, and if we don't do that, we're left with one of two bad options: either we have to err so hard on the side of free speech that we can't ban threats or incitement to violence or anything at all, or we let the government define "threats" in a way that is prone to government abuse just like everything else is.
    - eradicatethots 9y ago
      As the OP says, if you ban speech you are marking it as permanently unthinkable.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        In the case of, say, social media platforms banning violent threats against their other users, is that a bad thing?
jbpetersen 9y ago
There does need to be some sort of sane standard for determining whether something counts as a threat/incitement if they're not going to be permitted. Say I'm very popular on twitter, and say I don't like somebody for whatever reason. If there's a reasonable expectation that this will result in them being mobbed by my less personable followers, does that count as incitement? Or at what point does aggressive banter in good faith become an actual threat in [favorite multiplayer video game]?
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  I think we're not even at that point, yet. On Twitter, there are lots of people who receive violent threats, and they're told by Twitter that those are not a violation of the ToS.
woodruffw 9y ago
I understood you, but I think that you conflated freedom of conscience with freedom of speech. Freedom of conscience seems pretty uncontroversial, and it's what Paine is talking about in the quote you gave (on my interpretation). I think everybody agrees that freedom of conscience is both good and necessary in an open society. However, it's incorrect to think that absolute freedom of speech necessarily follows. > You'll have a hard time finding any self-described free speech absolutist who thinks those should be permitted. I've debated people who believe this. You and I don't have to agree with them, but they exist.
- AndrewBissell 9y ago
  How can anyone be said to have freedom of conscience when the range of thought they may encounter is circumscribed by censors?
  - woodruffw 9y ago
    First, the cases I've listed aren't ambitious ones -- there are no censors, only public courts looking at a case after the fact to determine whether someone's speech was indeed inciteful. Second, how can anybody discover facts about the world if they haven't been discovered yet? Truth and thought are not contingent upon prior art; at best, they just speed it up a bit.
- ggreer 9y ago
  > I understood you I'm sorry but you don't. (Also, don't I get to decide that, not you?) > Freedom of conscience seems pretty uncontroversial, and it's what Paine is talking about in the quote you gave (on my interpretation). Paine and Mill weren't just talking about freedom of conscience or thought. Paine thought it crucial to hear others' ideas so that he could avoid being wrong. That requires the ideas be expressed. Likewise with Mill. Chapter 2 of On Liberty is titled "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion"[1]. Throughout the text, Mill defends expression as well as thought, and condemns the silencing of any expression of opinion: > But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. 1. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Liberty/Chapter_2 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Liberty/Chapter_2
s73ver_ 9y ago
I think you'll find a lot of people who will disagree what constitutes "threats or inciting mobs".

by ggreer 9y ago

blowski 9y ago

Is it always clear when it’s one or the other? If I say “western society is decadent and as such should be overthrown” is that an idea or an incitement to violence?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ggreer 9y ago
It's usually pretty clear, and if it's not then it's best to err on the side of free speech. Declaring one's desire to overthrow western society is not a threat or an incitement to violence. Here's an example of what counts as free speech in the US: "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J."[1] It has to be a true threat. Likewise, inciting a mob only applies to actual mobs on the verge of violence. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States#Watts_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_t...
- michaelt 9y ago
  It's usually pretty clear Is it? Seems to me if I wanted to preach hate I'd wrap it in allusions, hypotheticals and you-know-what-I-mean Maybe letting that stuff through is the cost of free speech?
  - AndrewBissell 9y ago
    He's not saying "it's clear when someone is preaching hate" (it is certainly often couched in oblique language to avoid attracting ire and opposition), he's saying, "it's pretty clear when someone is making a threat or incitement to imminent, actual violence." Neither "The Jews will not replace us" nor "euthanize the rentiers" constitutes an imminent threat of violence.
    - blowski 9y ago
      How imminent and serious does it need to be for us to ban it?
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      I would say the second one does.

geofft 9y ago

> You misunderstand me. I thought it was clear that I was talking about ideas, not threats or inciting mobs. And who decides what's an "idea" and what's "threats or inciting mobs"? Would you be happy for the British government to say that of course the colonists have the right to free speech, but many of them are advocating threats and inciting mobs, which isn't allowed? Or for the king of Thailand to say the same thing about those who insult the king? Or for the Spanish government to say the same thing about Catalonian politicians? Or for Trump to say this about the women's march? What is a threat or a mob? Is a group of Nazis in Nazi uniforms marching down the street saying Nazi things somehow not a threat or a mob? The ACLU believes they have a right to free speech!

s73ver_ 9y ago
Oh the other hand what about, Milo pushing his followers to send Leslie Jones racist imagery and slurs on Twitter? Is that an idea, or inciting a mob?
- geofft 9y ago
  Yup, exactly. To be clear about my position, I believe that "free speech" is an impractical ideal, and we as a society need to be clear about what sorts of speech we value and what we don't, and if we don't do that, we're left with one of two bad options: either we have to err so hard on the side of free speech that we can't ban threats or incitement to violence or anything at all, or we let the government define "threats" in a way that is prone to government abuse just like everything else is.
  - eradicatethots 9y ago
    As the OP says, if you ban speech you are marking it as permanently unthinkable.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      In the case of, say, social media platforms banning violent threats against their other users, is that a bad thing?

jbpetersen 9y ago

There does need to be some sort of sane standard for determining whether something counts as a threat/incitement if they're not going to be permitted. Say I'm very popular on twitter, and say I don't like somebody for whatever reason. If there's a reasonable expectation that this will result in them being mobbed by my less personable followers, does that count as incitement? Or at what point does aggressive banter in good faith become an actual threat in [favorite multiplayer video game]?

s73ver_ 9y ago
I think we're not even at that point, yet. On Twitter, there are lots of people who receive violent threats, and they're told by Twitter that those are not a violation of the ToS.

woodruffw 9y ago

I understood you, but I think that you conflated freedom of conscience with freedom of speech. Freedom of conscience seems pretty uncontroversial, and it's what Paine is talking about in the quote you gave (on my interpretation). I think everybody agrees that freedom of conscience is both good and necessary in an open society. However, it's incorrect to think that absolute freedom of speech necessarily follows. > You'll have a hard time finding any self-described free speech absolutist who thinks those should be permitted. I've debated people who believe this. You and I don't have to agree with them, but they exist.

AndrewBissell 9y ago
How can anyone be said to have freedom of conscience when the range of thought they may encounter is circumscribed by censors?
- woodruffw 9y ago
  First, the cases I've listed aren't ambitious ones -- there are no censors, only public courts looking at a case after the fact to determine whether someone's speech was indeed inciteful. Second, how can anybody discover facts about the world if they haven't been discovered yet? Truth and thought are not contingent upon prior art; at best, they just speed it up a bit.
ggreer 9y ago
> I understood you I'm sorry but you don't. (Also, don't I get to decide that, not you?) > Freedom of conscience seems pretty uncontroversial, and it's what Paine is talking about in the quote you gave (on my interpretation). Paine and Mill weren't just talking about freedom of conscience or thought. Paine thought it crucial to hear others' ideas so that he could avoid being wrong. That requires the ideas be expressed. Likewise with Mill. Chapter 2 of On Liberty is titled "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion"[1]. Throughout the text, Mill defends expression as well as thought, and condemns the silencing of any expression of opinion: > But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. 1. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Liberty/Chapter_2 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Liberty/Chapter_2

s73ver_ 9y ago

I think you'll find a lot of people who will disagree what constitutes "threats or inciting mobs".