4 ms·

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 expres

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.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    I think you're confusing the first amendment, which is about protecting free speech from government power, from free speech in general [1][2]. Free speech, in Enlightenment philosophy, is a natural right. It exists apart from whether the first amendment even exists. And natural rights can certainly be violated by governments, corporations, or private organizations. > ...your "bullying" line is again an attack on free speech. I think here you acknowledge that free speech is broader than just the first amendment. If it were only about that, I literally couldn't attack free speech by posting some text in a comment on the internet. > Bullying bad actors is free speech, too. So the question is "what speech isn't free?" I'd argue speech that moves beyond advocating a better idea. Examples include fraud and threats of violence. Applying social pressure to corporations that give NRA discounts is clearly neither of these. Arguably, a platform for speech (YouTube, HN) can and should use its freedom of association (removing content) to restrict freedom of speech (maybe to prevent doxxing). > I have no problem with identifying anti-social speech and using social force to reprimand and demand conformity. I can tell. There's an argument for that, but it's not free speech. You can argue that it's good nonetheless, I suppose. [1] See the wiki article about "Freedom of Speech". It's certainly broader than just being about laws and regulations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech [2] https://www.quora.com/Does-freedom-of-speech-only-apply-to-U-S-government https://www.quora.com/Does-freedom-of-speech-only-apply-to-U...
bottled_poe 9y ago
I down voted because your argument assumes the market is not monopolised. I think you could have made a valid case but you don’t seem to acknowledge the complete economic situation in this case.
- criley2 9y ago
  Are you seriously, in the age of the Internet, the age of self-publication, the age of the most blogs, vlogs, podcasts, shows of any era in history... that there exists a monopoly on speech platforms? That's the most utterly ridiculous thing I've heard today.

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.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I think you're confusing the first amendment, which is about protecting free speech from government power, from free speech in general [1][2]. Free speech, in Enlightenment philosophy, is a natural right. It exists apart from whether the first amendment even exists. And natural rights can certainly be violated by governments, corporations, or private organizations. > ...your "bullying" line is again an attack on free speech. I think here you acknowledge that free speech is broader than just the first amendment. If it were only about that, I literally couldn't attack free speech by posting some text in a comment on the internet. > Bullying bad actors is free speech, too. So the question is "what speech isn't free?" I'd argue speech that moves beyond advocating a better idea. Examples include fraud and threats of violence. Applying social pressure to corporations that give NRA discounts is clearly neither of these. Arguably, a platform for speech (YouTube, HN) can and should use its freedom of association (removing content) to restrict freedom of speech (maybe to prevent doxxing). > I have no problem with identifying anti-social speech and using social force to reprimand and demand conformity. I can tell. There's an argument for that, but it's not free speech. You can argue that it's good nonetheless, I suppose. [1] See the wiki article about "Freedom of Speech". It's certainly broader than just being about laws and regulations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech [2] https://www.quora.com/Does-freedom-of-speech-only-apply-to-U-S-government https://www.quora.com/Does-freedom-of-speech-only-apply-to-U...

bottled_poe 9y ago

I down voted because your argument assumes the market is not monopolised. I think you could have made a valid case but you don’t seem to acknowledge the complete economic situation in this case.

criley2 9y ago
Are you seriously, in the age of the Internet, the age of self-publication, the age of the most blogs, vlogs, podcasts, shows of any era in history... that there exists a monopoly on speech platforms? That's the most utterly ridiculous thing I've heard today.