4 ms·

> You're being incredibly nebulous about "the problem" You're right. The article is titled Why are Millennials wary of freedom. That's the problem I'm talking

> You're being incredibly nebulous about "the problem" You're right. The article is titled Why are Millennials wary of freedom. That's the problem I'm talking about. There's data in that article, that irrespective of where they find themselves on the political spectrum, newer generations seem to devalue the merits of free speech and democracy. Now why is that? I think its just because of a subtle reason. Newer generations of listeners don't have the amount of intrinsic valor you give to free speech. They don't see all form of it as a requirement to a free society. I think they might even see it as a threat to their freedoms. If you take even Canada, or Germany, you'll see they actually have outlawed forms of speech which is legal in the US. Hate speech is illegal for example. In germany insult is also illegal. In Canada, all speech can be restricted if it can be shown to be hurtful to a free and democratic society. For example, fake news is illegal in Canada. Similarly, no speech can be restricted if it can be shown to be beneficial to a free and democratic society. Now, I think there's a certain amount of speech right now, which is hateful and insulting, and some of it could be demonstrated to be hurtful to a free and democratic society. You said "Any argument for free speech necessarily empowers unacceptable speech, and any argument against free speech necessarily criminalizes acceptable speech." Well, it seems that some other countries have managed to find a better balance and contradict that statememt, yet remained very free and democratic. I agree with you on the 99%. Speech is hard to classify, what someone said, wanted to say, thought they said, and what someone heard, wanted to hear and thought they heard is very fuzzy. And almost all speech should definitly be free. But where I disagree is on the last mile. I feel all newer generations all find that there's a large swat of hate speech right now, that isn't too hard to misunderstand, and they'd be okay if we forcibly toned it down. Which a lot of other free and democratic countries like Canada and Germany already do. So I'm not saying to just restrict random vague things and make it law. I'm saying I think a bill to restrict certain nefarious speeches should be put forward, debated, refined and then signed into law. A good starting point for that is hate speech, insult, and incitement to do the same. Offcourse I'll leave it that these would come with more defined context and specifications as to what qualifies as such. And now, that to me, would help freedom and the safeguard of the free society. By limiting speech such as hate speech, which targets freedom of others, you protect freedom. By toning down noisy speech of no utility like insults, you allow debates on freedom to be heard more clearly. Ya, I'm okay with others preventing me from propagating my own hate and from shouting insults. If many people interpret my speech as such, and I didn't intend it to be, really, I'm okay being forced to reword myself, and express myself in a way that they understand. This should be possible, if I'm truly not trying to promote hate and express insult, then there's a better way I can express my thoughts then, and if I can't figure it out, well too bad for me. That's fine, really, it's not worth talking if no one understands what I want to say. Even more so if they undersrand I'm just insulting and hating with no good reason. I think you just don't believe that this level of precision is possible. And I believe it is, based from data in what Canada and Germany restrict and the way their societies have turned out. You can debate all matter of controversy without hating and insulting. None of this stands because of my own ideas. And examples of recent corporations taking actions against employees debating hot topics and getting fired over it is irrelevant, as that's more of a debate about corporate power, and the bounds of a contract. In fact, you can see that by the fact that while non of the restrictions I suggest are in place currently, they were still fired. But, I have to say, you're making me think twice. I don't believe in the outrageous dangers of such restrictions, but you've made me think that maybe there's also little gain, and so the whole exercise might be a bit of a waste of time and effort. Yes, maybe being so close to the line is too much work, for little good. Maybe I worry about hateful and insulting speech too much, and its harmless, or maybe you're right, preventing that kind of speech is just covering up the inevitable, if people chose to hate and insult, society might be going that way no matter what restrictions are put in place. I'll be thinking about that. Thank you for the discourse.

white-flame 9y ago
> The article is titled Why are Millennials wary of freedom. That's the problem I'm talking about. Ah, ok. Since you were always pointing to insults and demagoguing and such as things that must be legally silenced, I thought you were placing the content of the discourse as the problem. > newer generations seem to devalue the merits of free speech and democracy. Now why is that? The simplest reasonable answer is just that they're distanced further from the solved problems of the past, and from the solutions deemed necessary to counteract or prevent those problems. And thus, history begins to repeat itself. I hope you're not excluding yourself from the label of devaluing the merits of free speech, because obviously you're promoting a reduction of free speech as well, for reasons you still haven't made clear. > I'm saying I think a bill to restrict certain nefarious speeches Again, who defines the "certain nefarious" categories? We already have a term that acts a barrier that when crossed triggers the law: Damages. Your rights end where my nose starts. But as long as you're not that far, you're within your rights. I think that's the cleanest boundary to draw. > And now, that to me, would help freedom and the safeguard of the free society. "Hate" and "insulting" speech doesn't harm anything, except maybe blood pressure temporarily. It's damaging actions that do, and that's completely irrespective of whether they're driven by this ill-defined usage of "hate" or not. So leave the thoughtcrime alone, and police the actual crime. The only "hate" you actually need to worry about is that which manifests into action, which would be policed anyway. > Now, I think there's a certain amount of speech right now, which is hateful and insulting, and some of it could be demonstrated to be hurtful to a free and democratic society. I'll bite. Name one common case, where legal speech and not action is the problem. "Hurtful" as in feelings is a nonstarter as a literally anti-American concept: Diversity itself hurts feelings and offends beliefs, and we are an intentionally diverse nation. > Well, it seems that some other countries have managed to find a better balance and contradict that statememt, yet remained very free and democratic. I'd posit it has nothing to do with the laws, and more to do with having a more unified cultural identity than the USA. There are also tons of other factors which show you can't simply translate the effectiveness & outcome of a law across borders, especially when they're at the core of particular social unrest. > I think you just don't believe that this level of precision is possible. It's not the precision of censorship that's a problem, it's that you feel some sort of (what I would personally call tyrannical) passion to punish these targeted people in this way. Remember, you're talking about social media and such, where people socialize and banter with their friends, where people get into arguments over disagreements just like in real life, and where everybody overpublishes flippant reactionary stuff that would previously have been private. That's a lot of very new & very raw human interaction and personal expression going on there. Let it settle. > And examples of recent corporations taking actions against employees debating hot topics and getting fired over it is irrelevant, as that's more of a debate about corporate power, and the bounds of a contract. I agree. That's angry mob stuff, not legal stuff, and has its own problems. > But, I have to say, you're making me think twice. I don't believe in the outrageous dangers of such restrictions, but you've made me think that maybe there's also little gain, and so the whole exercise might be a bit of a waste of time and effort. Thank you. Yes, that's a lot of what I was pointing at. But in places like Germany, the speech legislation has galvanized underground Nazi movements which keep popping up and growing. In the long view, it's probably better for the speech itself to be free and deposed, than for it to be illegal and foment in private as secret underdogs and martyrs. So it's not just for little gain, it's easily damaging (because it will be applied "legally" aka by the letter of the law) and counterproductive by galvanizing counter elements. > I don't believe in the outrageous dangers of such restrictions How different is this from the dangers of drug laws? Exposure laws as I brought up before? Laws around suspicion of terror? These have already destroyed tons of lives beyond their intended targets. There's a lot of danger in vague ideas gaining a specific legal wording, and having a police & court system bound to enforcing those words. It's best to only legislate the subset that has can be more objectively tested in court. If you search around, you'll also see plenty of cases of hate speech laws being overapplied in the countries you venerate here as well. Laws are dangerous things (and moreso in the USA than most smaller 1st world countries), and we should not be passing permanent law to deal with temporary flare-up problems. BTW, go read some legal stories from this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15492907 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15492907 > Maybe I worry about hateful and insulting speech too much, and its harmless It's certainly not harmful enough to summon Justice to bring wrath down on people's personal interactions (ie, social media interactions) through the letter of the law. > or maybe you're right, preventing that kind of speech is just covering up the inevitable, if people chose to hate and insult, society might be going that way no matter what restrictions are put in place. You can't control what others believe & say, society-wide. This is especially true if you're using a stick instead of a carrot. It's simply out of your hands. Just focus on your actions, and your own sphere of influence. You will be subjected to people who find you just as disagreeable as they are to you. That's life, and it's a two-way street. You don't get to destroy them, just as you wouldn't want them destroying you; you get to coexist with them in this big ol' melting pot of diversity. But I'm still left questioning why "hate" and "insult", when it's just bloviating words in an impersonal setting such as broad internet discussions, need to be punished. Surely your own words are formally "hating" and "insulting" what you disagree with, in calling someone's earnest words "worse speech" than others, labeling people as "demagogues", openly advocating to suppress & punish other people's words & expressions via new laws. Even the notion of labeling "hate" is basically prejudiced hate & insult if the only thing it's based on is a shallow disagreement. It doesn't matter how rational it's dressed up. The KKK has engineered very specific rationalizations and tempered sounding non-prosecutable speech over the years, for instance. That doesn't make it any less "hate", does it? So shouting/insulting/etc is orthogonal to all of this, and shouldn't be a basis for your punishment proposals either.

white-flame 9y ago

> The article is titled Why are Millennials wary of freedom. That's the problem I'm talking about. Ah, ok. Since you were always pointing to insults and demagoguing and such as things that must be legally silenced, I thought you were placing the content of the discourse as the problem. > newer generations seem to devalue the merits of free speech and democracy. Now why is that? The simplest reasonable answer is just that they're distanced further from the solved problems of the past, and from the solutions deemed necessary to counteract or prevent those problems. And thus, history begins to repeat itself. I hope you're not excluding yourself from the label of devaluing the merits of free speech, because obviously you're promoting a reduction of free speech as well, for reasons you still haven't made clear. > I'm saying I think a bill to restrict certain nefarious speeches Again, who defines the "certain nefarious" categories? We already have a term that acts a barrier that when crossed triggers the law: Damages. Your rights end where my nose starts. But as long as you're not that far, you're within your rights. I think that's the cleanest boundary to draw. > And now, that to me, would help freedom and the safeguard of the free society. "Hate" and "insulting" speech doesn't harm anything, except maybe blood pressure temporarily. It's damaging actions that do, and that's completely irrespective of whether they're driven by this ill-defined usage of "hate" or not. So leave the thoughtcrime alone, and police the actual crime. The only "hate" you actually need to worry about is that which manifests into action, which would be policed anyway. > Now, I think there's a certain amount of speech right now, which is hateful and insulting, and some of it could be demonstrated to be hurtful to a free and democratic society. I'll bite. Name one common case, where legal speech and not action is the problem. "Hurtful" as in feelings is a nonstarter as a literally anti-American concept: Diversity itself hurts feelings and offends beliefs, and we are an intentionally diverse nation. > Well, it seems that some other countries have managed to find a better balance and contradict that statememt, yet remained very free and democratic. I'd posit it has nothing to do with the laws, and more to do with having a more unified cultural identity than the USA. There are also tons of other factors which show you can't simply translate the effectiveness & outcome of a law across borders, especially when they're at the core of particular social unrest. > I think you just don't believe that this level of precision is possible. It's not the precision of censorship that's a problem, it's that you feel some sort of (what I would personally call tyrannical) passion to punish these targeted people in this way. Remember, you're talking about social media and such, where people socialize and banter with their friends, where people get into arguments over disagreements just like in real life, and where everybody overpublishes flippant reactionary stuff that would previously have been private. That's a lot of very new & very raw human interaction and personal expression going on there. Let it settle. > And examples of recent corporations taking actions against employees debating hot topics and getting fired over it is irrelevant, as that's more of a debate about corporate power, and the bounds of a contract. I agree. That's angry mob stuff, not legal stuff, and has its own problems. > But, I have to say, you're making me think twice. I don't believe in the outrageous dangers of such restrictions, but you've made me think that maybe there's also little gain, and so the whole exercise might be a bit of a waste of time and effort. Thank you. Yes, that's a lot of what I was pointing at. But in places like Germany, the speech legislation has galvanized underground Nazi movements which keep popping up and growing. In the long view, it's probably better for the speech itself to be free and deposed, than for it to be illegal and foment in private as secret underdogs and martyrs. So it's not just for little gain, it's easily damaging (because it will be applied "legally" aka by the letter of the law) and counterproductive by galvanizing counter elements. > I don't believe in the outrageous dangers of such restrictions How different is this from the dangers of drug laws? Exposure laws as I brought up before? Laws around suspicion of terror? These have already destroyed tons of lives beyond their intended targets. There's a lot of danger in vague ideas gaining a specific legal wording, and having a police & court system bound to enforcing those words. It's best to only legislate the subset that has can be more objectively tested in court. If you search around, you'll also see plenty of cases of hate speech laws being overapplied in the countries you venerate here as well. Laws are dangerous things (and moreso in the USA than most smaller 1st world countries), and we should not be passing permanent law to deal with temporary flare-up problems. BTW, go read some legal stories from this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15492907 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15492907 > Maybe I worry about hateful and insulting speech too much, and its harmless It's certainly not harmful enough to summon Justice to bring wrath down on people's personal interactions (ie, social media interactions) through the letter of the law. > or maybe you're right, preventing that kind of speech is just covering up the inevitable, if people chose to hate and insult, society might be going that way no matter what restrictions are put in place. You can't control what others believe & say, society-wide. This is especially true if you're using a stick instead of a carrot. It's simply out of your hands. Just focus on your actions, and your own sphere of influence. You will be subjected to people who find you just as disagreeable as they are to you. That's life, and it's a two-way street. You don't get to destroy them, just as you wouldn't want them destroying you; you get to coexist with them in this big ol' melting pot of diversity. But I'm still left questioning why "hate" and "insult", when it's just bloviating words in an impersonal setting such as broad internet discussions, need to be punished. Surely your own words are formally "hating" and "insulting" what you disagree with, in calling someone's earnest words "worse speech" than others, labeling people as "demagogues", openly advocating to suppress & punish other people's words & expressions via new laws. Even the notion of labeling "hate" is basically prejudiced hate & insult if the only thing it's based on is a shallow disagreement. It doesn't matter how rational it's dressed up. The KKK has engineered very specific rationalizations and tempered sounding non-prosecutable speech over the years, for instance. That doesn't make it any less "hate", does it? So shouting/insulting/etc is orthogonal to all of this, and shouldn't be a basis for your punishment proposals either.