6 ms·

>For whatever reason Anyone that’s been paying attention knows the reason. If you can’t attack free speech, make that speech too expensive. All of the recent c

>For whatever reason Anyone that’s been paying attention knows the reason. If you can’t attack free speech, make that speech too expensive. All of the recent controversial issues have one side scrambling to publicly list advertisers - see the March Against Guns tweets about who has deals with NRA or advertises on Fox News. It’s a horrible tactic that’s very much mob censorship.

rhcom2 9y ago
They don't have the right to talk about who is supporting groups they disagree with?
- twoodfin 9y ago
  Of course they have the right to, but they also should value the open exchange of ideas in society, regardless of what's written in the Federal constitution. That open exchange is hard to have when folks on one side attempt to destroy the livelihood of the folks on the other side rather than argue their ideas directly.
- bilbo0s 9y ago
  It's a little humorous, as it really does indicate that the people who are complaining that their free speech is being attacked, are themselves, attacking free speech. I'm not sure any of the people arguing points and counterpoints in our society's current free speech debate really value free speech? I think it'd be a bit more accurate to say that these people value THEIR speech and freedom, not really the speech and freedom of others.
  - banned1 9y ago
    Bingo! Think Antifa or the students protesting someone at school and not letting them speak.
    - bilbo0s 9y ago
      Your comment does illustrate my point. YOU value the free speech of whoever is speaking, but not that of the counter protesters. Who themselves value THEIR free speech, but not that of whoever is speaking. It's an intractable problem really.
      - banned1 9y ago
        But the counter protesters are free to organize their own speaker engagement. They ARE allowed to speak about their position. My point was that there is lack of civility in discourse. What's the point of interrupting another speaker? Let every speaker speak their mind, in an orderly manner, without interruption. The problem is that some groups have defined "intolerance of intolerance" to be somewhat good, so then discourse stops.
        bilbo0s 9y ago
        Freedom of Speech, does not imply ORDERLY speech. If a bunch of Americans want to yell at each other, they're free to do so. That's what the First Amendment is all about. And that's what I think you guys all don't understand. The government doesn't have to give you pristine conditions under which you can speak, they just have to let you speak. Unfortunately... they have to let everyone else speak too. At the same time if those people choose. That's what freedom is all about. That's why America is great.
criley2 9y ago
Ironically, your comment appears to be in defense of free speech, but is actually attacking free speech in a quite fascistic manner by labeling an actual expression of true American liberty as "horrible mob censorship". First off: In America, 1A free speech means the government cannot oppress you, NOT that private citizens cannot disagree with you and make their displeasure with your speech known. Second off: Voting with your wallet (a "boycott") is Economic Free Speech. It's Free Markets in their most basic and pure form. The freedom of an actor to associate how they please. Anyone who suggests that we should not be free to spend our money how we please is acting beyond the pale in a free society. Quite frankly, it's incredibly ironic that those in our society who used to pretend to be "pro Free Markets" and "pro Free Speech" and "pro Freedom of Association" are now howling and crying about people freely choosing to associate with cetain businesses based on their freely chosen private criteria. And of course: relevant XKCD https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png TL;DR: Free speech includes the freedom to not spend money with businesses whose speech you disagree with.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > ...your comment appears to be in defense of free speech, but is actually attacking free speech... Let's back up. Opposition to free speech looks like using power to shut up ideas. Free speech, in contrast, prefers that ideas are best addressed with better ideas. So GP criticizing tweets is fine. And I think it's a fair thought to consider whether these boycotts are just a combination of free expression and free association or whether they are more like expressions of social power and therefore bullying. In defense of the latter view, the rejection of NRA funds has been too immediate to come from economic behavior. So we are left wondering what caused the sudden change of heart. GP might argue that it's fear of blacklisting and punishment at the hands of the relatively socially powerful. Though one could argue that each change of heart was genuine and based on a new appeal to morality and ethics.
  - criley2 9y ago
    >Let's back up. Opposition to free speech looks like using power to shut up ideas. Free speech, in contrast, prefers that ideas are best addressed with better ideas. No, that's absolutely false. Opposition to free speech looks like using the government to censor people. FULL STOP. Shaming people who say bad things isn't opposition to free speech, it is itself free speech to respond to their free speech. You insistence that we should "be silent" in the face of those who say bad things is an assault on free speech IMO, and your "bullying" line is again an attack on free speech. "Don't respond to my speech, bully! You attack my rights when you use yours!" Please read the American constitution. In America, Free Speech is a special concept and you have ignored that. >So GP criticizing tweets is fine. And I think it's a fair thought to consider whether these boycotts are just a combination of free expression and free association or whether they are more like expressions of social power and therefore bullying. Protip: Bullying bad actors is free speech, too. I have no problem with identifying anti-social speech and using social force to reprimand and demand conformity. This is how you deal with racism and other anti-social behaviors. Shaming. Or if you prefer, bullying. But you won't catch us with the Paradox of Tolerance. Intolerance of intolerance is vital the health of tolerance.
danso 9y ago
Why is it a "horrible" tactic? Citizens have a right to free speech, not to make massive profit off of it as a corporation.
- SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
  Using a low information mob to attack the people who advertise at the same places the people you hate are posting material - is a shitty tactic. It has no resemblance of discourse. It’s just intimidation. Edit: thought experiment... you really think you’d have the same opinion if some alt-right group was using this tactic to shut out people you agree with?
  - danso 9y ago
    So instead of making a “thought experiment”, why don’t you actually cite a case similar to what’s happening to Laura Ingraham? In the case of the NRA’s sponsors being boycotted, you must be fucking kidding or forgot what happened to Delta, or that the NRA is still doing fine. It seems you are just as low-information as the mobs you deride.
    - SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
      Wait... you’re saying this isn’t a problem because only one side is manipulating public outrage and not both sides? And that “bad tactics” are OK if they don’t deliver a killing blow? Dude, be honest. You are only OK with targeting advertisers because it lines up with your beliefs instead of allowing all speech and just making better arguments against those who you disagree. Oh, surely this could never turn around on you!
      - danso 9y ago
        No, I'm saying what the boycotts you cited weren't a problem. The NRA's right to free speech was not meaningfully harmed because it had many, many other members willing to stand up and continue paying dues (and ironically, it was Delta who was punished by legislators for backing out of its partnership with the NRA). Laura Ingraham is being boycotted because she decided to tweet a childish insult against one of the Parkland shooting victims. You realize that dozens of prominent media personalities have pushed back against the Parkland survivors, right? Why haven't they been boycotted too if boycotting was as simple and easy as you suggest? I'm arguing against your position because it seems to lack knowledge of how complicated real world discourse is. The First Amendment bars the government from banning speech; this gives citizens the responsibility to police themselves and corporations. But you're arguing for that to be taken away so that there is basically citizens have no legal recourse against speech they dislike? So how are any boycotts justifiable? If you were more aware of how things actually worked, you would easily be able to cite boycotts that have gone against left-leaning people. I'll help you: Remember Kathy Griffin? [0] [0] http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-cnn-drops-kathy-griffin-over-trump-beheading-image-20170531-htmlstory.html http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation... Numerous left-leaning celebrities, as well as personalities on CNN, have ripped into Trump. If what you fear was actually the reality, you would have no problem citing successful boycotts against left-leaning celebrities.
thomasfortes 9y ago
Should people be forced to provide for a platform that they find hateful and offensive? You can make a point about government not being allowed to deny groups the freedom of speech, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with private people voting with their wallets to show where they stand in relation to speech that they feel that is threatening to them.
- NeonVice 9y ago
  There is a difference between private people voting with their wallets and encouraging a mob to pressure a company to withdraw advertising from a company that they oppose politically.
  - thomasfortes 9y ago
    As far as I know, the woman attacked him and his colleagues personally multiple times, she is a threat to them, they are raising awareness about what is happening and calling for action, they are declaring in a public way that they will not do businness with anyone that supports them. It's not "encouraging a mob" if someone say "Hey, these companies are advertising with bigots and racists, let's do a boycott to show them that we will not tolerate this". What you are saying is that they should "shut up and dribble"? Stay quiet with their heads low while they are being constantly attacked? Calling for a boycott when you don't agree with someone is pretty far from "encouraging a mob" as you put.
colechristensen 9y ago
The Internet was supposed to be about the free exchange of information. People treat Facebook, Google, etc. etc. etc. as if they themselves are "The Internet" when they are publishers. "You" are not publishing content on YouTube, YouTube is publishing your content. Just because they do almost nothing to curate what they publish, doesn't mean the little they do is some civil rights violation. We're learning with the Russia+Facebook thing that there is a fundamental problem with third party corporations publishing and promoting anybody's content automatically. Nobody claims the New York Times violates free speech when they won't put some radical wonk's opinion on the front page. If you want to publish your content with your own hardware on the Internet, you can. The tools aren't very good to do it, but you can. When the problem becomes network providers censoring your views, then come back to me. When your definition of "censorship" becomes advertisers refusing to pay you for your whacky extremist views, your view of freedom has become distorted from the liberty to expression to the freedom from criticism. YouTube, Facebook, etc. do not owe you publication rights. They are not public spaces. The threat to freedom isn't non-public spaces exercising their rights, it's the nearly complete lack of actual public space online for anyone that isn't wealthy or a hacker.
- DanAndersen 9y ago
  >The threat to freedom isn't non-public spaces exercising their rights, it's the nearly complete lack of actual public space online for anyone that isn't wealthy or a hacker. The issue is that, unless we have some sort of political movement toward a US-Government funded equivalent of YouTube, there will never be a public space online for the average person. More and more of daily social interaction is moving onto a platform on which everything is inherently private, where there is no public square anymore. I'm concerned about a future where technically you can scream on a physical public streetcorner but have it mean nothing at all in terms of impact on public discourse. "What good is speech if you are unable to make a phone call?" to twist the Matrix quote. >If you want to publish your content with your own hardware on the Internet, you can. The tools aren't very good to do it, but you can. When the problem becomes network providers censoring your views, then come back to me. The problem is that there's nothing fundamentally different about the arguments when it comes to the network providers. They're also private companies, why should they be forced at gunpoint to deliver content they disagree with? And yet we acknowledge that having the phone company shut you down for political speech on their phone lines would be an overstep even though the phone company is private. At a certain point, the sheer dominance and size of some of these social media networks means we should be treating them differently. The fact that, as you say, "People treat Facebook, Google, etc. etc. etc. as if they themselves are The Internet" means that there is a distinction of kind that the citizenry are perceiving. I don't think the solution is just to say they're wrong, but rather to find a way to formalize this implicit categorization into something workable. It seems like the options are to regulate, nationalize, or build government-funded public alternatives to mega-social-media systems. Other options are to add some better system of decentralization that nonetheless allows users to access the common public pool of an audience and not just ghetto-ize themselves into irrelevance and destitution.
fzeroracer 9y ago
One of the most basic rights people have in America is the right to protest. You're attempting to rebrand protesting as mob censorship.
- SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
  No. This is no protest. Protesting is great. Civil discourse is better. Using your twitter gang to side channel attack the people you hate because you can’t make your point in a direct way - is nothing but intimidation. You have no problem with this? Cool. Tell me how it’s “the American way” when it turns around on you. A proxy war between assholes and advertisers is good for no one.
  - 18pfsmt 9y ago
    In fact, boycotts are seen as a form of protest (going back to the Irish guy with the surname Boycott). Many of the companies that have dropped their NRA-affiliations have been targeted by NRA members/sympathizers. Your responses where you assume the political affiliations of the commenters are actually against HN guidelines in that you are not assuming good faith.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    > You have no problem with this? Cool. Tell me how it’s “the American way” when it turns around on you. Indeed. Robespierre, Trotsky, Ernst Röhm, and many others could tell you how this winds up. The fire-breathing revolutionary extremists are always taken by surprise when the new regime no longer requires their services.

rhcom2 9y ago

They don't have the right to talk about who is supporting groups they disagree with?

twoodfin 9y ago
Of course they have the right to, but they also should value the open exchange of ideas in society, regardless of what's written in the Federal constitution. That open exchange is hard to have when folks on one side attempt to destroy the livelihood of the folks on the other side rather than argue their ideas directly.
bilbo0s 9y ago
It's a little humorous, as it really does indicate that the people who are complaining that their free speech is being attacked, are themselves, attacking free speech. I'm not sure any of the people arguing points and counterpoints in our society's current free speech debate really value free speech? I think it'd be a bit more accurate to say that these people value THEIR speech and freedom, not really the speech and freedom of others.
- banned1 9y ago
  Bingo! Think Antifa or the students protesting someone at school and not letting them speak.
  - bilbo0s 9y ago
    Your comment does illustrate my point. YOU value the free speech of whoever is speaking, but not that of the counter protesters. Who themselves value THEIR free speech, but not that of whoever is speaking. It's an intractable problem really.
    - banned1 9y ago
      But the counter protesters are free to organize their own speaker engagement. They ARE allowed to speak about their position. My point was that there is lack of civility in discourse. What's the point of interrupting another speaker? Let every speaker speak their mind, in an orderly manner, without interruption. The problem is that some groups have defined "intolerance of intolerance" to be somewhat good, so then discourse stops.
      - bilbo0s 9y ago
        Freedom of Speech, does not imply ORDERLY speech. If a bunch of Americans want to yell at each other, they're free to do so. That's what the First Amendment is all about. And that's what I think you guys all don't understand. The government doesn't have to give you pristine conditions under which you can speak, they just have to let you speak. Unfortunately... they have to let everyone else speak too. At the same time if those people choose. That's what freedom is all about. That's why America is great.

criley2 9y ago

Ironically, your comment appears to be in defense of free speech, but is actually attacking free speech in a quite fascistic manner by labeling an actual expression of true American liberty as "horrible mob censorship". First off: In America, 1A free speech means the government cannot oppress you, NOT that private citizens cannot disagree with you and make their displeasure with your speech known. Second off: Voting with your wallet (a "boycott") is Economic Free Speech. It's Free Markets in their most basic and pure form. The freedom of an actor to associate how they please. Anyone who suggests that we should not be free to spend our money how we please is acting beyond the pale in a free society. Quite frankly, it's incredibly ironic that those in our society who used to pretend to be "pro Free Markets" and "pro Free Speech" and "pro Freedom of Association" are now howling and crying about people freely choosing to associate with cetain businesses based on their freely chosen private criteria. And of course: relevant XKCD https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png TL;DR: Free speech includes the freedom to not spend money with businesses whose speech you disagree with.

humanrebar 9y ago
> ...your comment appears to be in defense of free speech, but is actually attacking free speech... Let's back up. Opposition to free speech looks like using power to shut up ideas. Free speech, in contrast, prefers that ideas are best addressed with better ideas. So GP criticizing tweets is fine. And I think it's a fair thought to consider whether these boycotts are just a combination of free expression and free association or whether they are more like expressions of social power and therefore bullying. In defense of the latter view, the rejection of NRA funds has been too immediate to come from economic behavior. So we are left wondering what caused the sudden change of heart. GP might argue that it's fear of blacklisting and punishment at the hands of the relatively socially powerful. Though one could argue that each change of heart was genuine and based on a new appeal to morality and ethics.
- criley2 9y ago
  >Let's back up. Opposition to free speech looks like using power to shut up ideas. Free speech, in contrast, prefers that ideas are best addressed with better ideas. No, that's absolutely false. Opposition to free speech looks like using the government to censor people. FULL STOP. Shaming people who say bad things isn't opposition to free speech, it is itself free speech to respond to their free speech. You insistence that we should "be silent" in the face of those who say bad things is an assault on free speech IMO, and your "bullying" line is again an attack on free speech. "Don't respond to my speech, bully! You attack my rights when you use yours!" Please read the American constitution. In America, Free Speech is a special concept and you have ignored that. >So GP criticizing tweets is fine. And I think it's a fair thought to consider whether these boycotts are just a combination of free expression and free association or whether they are more like expressions of social power and therefore bullying. Protip: Bullying bad actors is free speech, too. I have no problem with identifying anti-social speech and using social force to reprimand and demand conformity. This is how you deal with racism and other anti-social behaviors. Shaming. Or if you prefer, bullying. But you won't catch us with the Paradox of Tolerance. Intolerance of intolerance is vital the health of tolerance.

danso 9y ago

Why is it a "horrible" tactic? Citizens have a right to free speech, not to make massive profit off of it as a corporation.

SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
Using a low information mob to attack the people who advertise at the same places the people you hate are posting material - is a shitty tactic. It has no resemblance of discourse. It’s just intimidation. Edit: thought experiment... you really think you’d have the same opinion if some alt-right group was using this tactic to shut out people you agree with?
- danso 9y ago
  So instead of making a “thought experiment”, why don’t you actually cite a case similar to what’s happening to Laura Ingraham? In the case of the NRA’s sponsors being boycotted, you must be fucking kidding or forgot what happened to Delta, or that the NRA is still doing fine. It seems you are just as low-information as the mobs you deride.
  - SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
    Wait... you’re saying this isn’t a problem because only one side is manipulating public outrage and not both sides? And that “bad tactics” are OK if they don’t deliver a killing blow? Dude, be honest. You are only OK with targeting advertisers because it lines up with your beliefs instead of allowing all speech and just making better arguments against those who you disagree. Oh, surely this could never turn around on you!
    - danso 9y ago
      No, I'm saying what the boycotts you cited weren't a problem. The NRA's right to free speech was not meaningfully harmed because it had many, many other members willing to stand up and continue paying dues (and ironically, it was Delta who was punished by legislators for backing out of its partnership with the NRA). Laura Ingraham is being boycotted because she decided to tweet a childish insult against one of the Parkland shooting victims. You realize that dozens of prominent media personalities have pushed back against the Parkland survivors, right? Why haven't they been boycotted too if boycotting was as simple and easy as you suggest? I'm arguing against your position because it seems to lack knowledge of how complicated real world discourse is. The First Amendment bars the government from banning speech; this gives citizens the responsibility to police themselves and corporations. But you're arguing for that to be taken away so that there is basically citizens have no legal recourse against speech they dislike? So how are any boycotts justifiable? If you were more aware of how things actually worked, you would easily be able to cite boycotts that have gone against left-leaning people. I'll help you: Remember Kathy Griffin? [0] [0] http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-cnn-drops-kathy-griffin-over-trump-beheading-image-20170531-htmlstory.html http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation... Numerous left-leaning celebrities, as well as personalities on CNN, have ripped into Trump. If what you fear was actually the reality, you would have no problem citing successful boycotts against left-leaning celebrities.

thomasfortes 9y ago

Should people be forced to provide for a platform that they find hateful and offensive? You can make a point about government not being allowed to deny groups the freedom of speech, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with private people voting with their wallets to show where they stand in relation to speech that they feel that is threatening to them.

NeonVice 9y ago
There is a difference between private people voting with their wallets and encouraging a mob to pressure a company to withdraw advertising from a company that they oppose politically.
- thomasfortes 9y ago
  As far as I know, the woman attacked him and his colleagues personally multiple times, she is a threat to them, they are raising awareness about what is happening and calling for action, they are declaring in a public way that they will not do businness with anyone that supports them. It's not "encouraging a mob" if someone say "Hey, these companies are advertising with bigots and racists, let's do a boycott to show them that we will not tolerate this". What you are saying is that they should "shut up and dribble"? Stay quiet with their heads low while they are being constantly attacked? Calling for a boycott when you don't agree with someone is pretty far from "encouraging a mob" as you put.

colechristensen 9y ago

The Internet was supposed to be about the free exchange of information. People treat Facebook, Google, etc. etc. etc. as if they themselves are "The Internet" when they are publishers. "You" are not publishing content on YouTube, YouTube is publishing your content. Just because they do almost nothing to curate what they publish, doesn't mean the little they do is some civil rights violation. We're learning with the Russia+Facebook thing that there is a fundamental problem with third party corporations publishing and promoting anybody's content automatically. Nobody claims the New York Times violates free speech when they won't put some radical wonk's opinion on the front page. If you want to publish your content with your own hardware on the Internet, you can. The tools aren't very good to do it, but you can. When the problem becomes network providers censoring your views, then come back to me. When your definition of "censorship" becomes advertisers refusing to pay you for your whacky extremist views, your view of freedom has become distorted from the liberty to expression to the freedom from criticism. YouTube, Facebook, etc. do not owe you publication rights. They are not public spaces. The threat to freedom isn't non-public spaces exercising their rights, it's the nearly complete lack of actual public space online for anyone that isn't wealthy or a hacker.

DanAndersen 9y ago
>The threat to freedom isn't non-public spaces exercising their rights, it's the nearly complete lack of actual public space online for anyone that isn't wealthy or a hacker. The issue is that, unless we have some sort of political movement toward a US-Government funded equivalent of YouTube, there will never be a public space online for the average person. More and more of daily social interaction is moving onto a platform on which everything is inherently private, where there is no public square anymore. I'm concerned about a future where technically you can scream on a physical public streetcorner but have it mean nothing at all in terms of impact on public discourse. "What good is speech if you are unable to make a phone call?" to twist the Matrix quote. >If you want to publish your content with your own hardware on the Internet, you can. The tools aren't very good to do it, but you can. When the problem becomes network providers censoring your views, then come back to me. The problem is that there's nothing fundamentally different about the arguments when it comes to the network providers. They're also private companies, why should they be forced at gunpoint to deliver content they disagree with? And yet we acknowledge that having the phone company shut you down for political speech on their phone lines would be an overstep even though the phone company is private. At a certain point, the sheer dominance and size of some of these social media networks means we should be treating them differently. The fact that, as you say, "People treat Facebook, Google, etc. etc. etc. as if they themselves are The Internet" means that there is a distinction of kind that the citizenry are perceiving. I don't think the solution is just to say they're wrong, but rather to find a way to formalize this implicit categorization into something workable. It seems like the options are to regulate, nationalize, or build government-funded public alternatives to mega-social-media systems. Other options are to add some better system of decentralization that nonetheless allows users to access the common public pool of an audience and not just ghetto-ize themselves into irrelevance and destitution.

fzeroracer 9y ago

One of the most basic rights people have in America is the right to protest. You're attempting to rebrand protesting as mob censorship.

SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
No. This is no protest. Protesting is great. Civil discourse is better. Using your twitter gang to side channel attack the people you hate because you can’t make your point in a direct way - is nothing but intimidation. You have no problem with this? Cool. Tell me how it’s “the American way” when it turns around on you. A proxy war between assholes and advertisers is good for no one.
- 18pfsmt 9y ago
  In fact, boycotts are seen as a form of protest (going back to the Irish guy with the surname Boycott). Many of the companies that have dropped their NRA-affiliations have been targeted by NRA members/sympathizers. Your responses where you assume the political affiliations of the commenters are actually against HN guidelines in that you are not assuming good faith.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  > You have no problem with this? Cool. Tell me how it’s “the American way” when it turns around on you. Indeed. Robespierre, Trotsky, Ernst Röhm, and many others could tell you how this winds up. The fire-breathing revolutionary extremists are always taken by surprise when the new regime no longer requires their services.