3 ms·

>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 i

>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...
- criley2 9y ago
  The NRA has done some very terrible things in America including getting the government to ban ALL RESEARCH into gun violence and getting the government to ban ALL DATABASING of gun running, gun smuggling, and gun crime. So, any business which wants to support the NRA, who is anti-intellectually defending the gun violence epidemic through the destruction of research and the hamstringing of tools, in my book, doesn't deserve my dollars. I want the gun violence epidemic to end, and it's pretty easy to see that the the NRA is the number one lobby and number one reason why common sense gun control that is strongly supported by 70 and 80% of the country cannot become law. My free speech is that the NRA is a terrorist organization, and that any business who works with them and their members aids and abed's the gun violence epidemic, and absolutely deserves not even a cent of my attention or support. It's MY LIBERTY to not associate with the NRA or ANY business who supports them, gives them aid, gives them discounts, or treats them in anyway better than anyone else. You would infringe on my liberty to remove my free association and my free choice? "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." I apologize but you appear to be playing some "No True Free Speech" game where the only person who "knows" what free speech is you alone. I can never live up to your personal, no true scotsman of Free Speech, but I can speak about the American constitution, the American culture, the American concept of speech, and how we practice it (which I have done quite accurately).

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...

criley2 9y ago
The NRA has done some very terrible things in America including getting the government to ban ALL RESEARCH into gun violence and getting the government to ban ALL DATABASING of gun running, gun smuggling, and gun crime. So, any business which wants to support the NRA, who is anti-intellectually defending the gun violence epidemic through the destruction of research and the hamstringing of tools, in my book, doesn't deserve my dollars. I want the gun violence epidemic to end, and it's pretty easy to see that the the NRA is the number one lobby and number one reason why common sense gun control that is strongly supported by 70 and 80% of the country cannot become law. My free speech is that the NRA is a terrorist organization, and that any business who works with them and their members aids and abed's the gun violence epidemic, and absolutely deserves not even a cent of my attention or support. It's MY LIBERTY to not associate with the NRA or ANY business who supports them, gives them aid, gives them discounts, or treats them in anyway better than anyone else. You would infringe on my liberty to remove my free association and my free choice? "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." I apologize but you appear to be playing some "No True Free Speech" game where the only person who "knows" what free speech is you alone. I can never live up to your personal, no true scotsman of Free Speech, but I can speak about the American constitution, the American culture, the American concept of speech, and how we practice it (which I have done quite accurately).