4 ms·

Absolutely wrong. The two do not exist in any sort of conflict whatsoever.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> The two do not exist in any sort of conflict whatsoever The "right to be forgotten” debate [1] neatly encapsulates this conflict. Journalists' rights to pry versus citizens' rights to avoid being pried on is another example [2]. This is a balancing act. Excessive privacy restricts what third parties can talk about. Unrestricted speech means anyone can say everything they know (or know to be false) about others' private lives. There are multiple equilibria. But acknowledging the trade-off is a pre-requisite to writing good law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten [2] https://www.economist.com/node/18621060 https://www.economist.com/node/18621060
- mLuby 8y ago
  Free speech is not the same as violating someone's privacy (whether as a journalist or a doxxer).
  - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
    You're begging the question in both your definition of free speech and assuming a certain bundle of privacy rights. There's plenty to debate on what speech freedoms people should have and what privacy rights people should have, but it's silly to claim that there's no conflict between them conceptually; if you're stating that there's no conflict, you're assuming a certain set of each, which is just you defining the problem a certain way so that you can say it is solved. If other people don't agree with your definition of the problem, then your solution doesn't hold for them.
    - mLuby 8y ago
      Fair enough. I'm drawing a distinction between free speech (specifically parrhesia, which is orthogonal to privacy) and freedom to learn anything about anyone (which is antithetical to privacy). In journalism they are combined, usually to good effect; in doxxing the combination is bad.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Freedom of Speech is not literally being able to say anything. Few people would agree that doxxing or harassment would fall under Freedom of Speech, for instance.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    So is reporting on the president's financial dealings harassment or journalism? The fact that people are debating this suggests some sort of conflict.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      The President is a public person, who's finances are relevant to the running of the country. Your finances, however, are relevant to no one but yourself and your family.

> The two do not exist in any sort of conflict whatsoever The "right to be forgotten” debate [1] neatly encapsulates this conflict. Journalists' rights to pry versus citizens' rights to avoid being pried on is another example [2]. This is a balancing act. Excessive privacy restricts what third parties can talk about. Unrestricted speech means anyone can say everything they know (or know to be false) about others' private lives. There are multiple equilibria. But acknowledging the trade-off is a pre-requisite to writing good law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten [2] https://www.economist.com/node/18621060 https://www.economist.com/node/18621060

mLuby 8y ago
Free speech is not the same as violating someone's privacy (whether as a journalist or a doxxer).
- Matticus_Rex 8y ago
  You're begging the question in both your definition of free speech and assuming a certain bundle of privacy rights. There's plenty to debate on what speech freedoms people should have and what privacy rights people should have, but it's silly to claim that there's no conflict between them conceptually; if you're stating that there's no conflict, you're assuming a certain set of each, which is just you defining the problem a certain way so that you can say it is solved. If other people don't agree with your definition of the problem, then your solution doesn't hold for them.
  - mLuby 8y ago
    Fair enough. I'm drawing a distinction between free speech (specifically parrhesia, which is orthogonal to privacy) and freedom to learn anything about anyone (which is antithetical to privacy). In journalism they are combined, usually to good effect; in doxxing the combination is bad.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Freedom of Speech is not literally being able to say anything. Few people would agree that doxxing or harassment would fall under Freedom of Speech, for instance.
- chillacy 8y ago
  So is reporting on the president's financial dealings harassment or journalism? The fact that people are debating this suggests some sort of conflict.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    The President is a public person, who's finances are relevant to the running of the country. Your finances, however, are relevant to no one but yourself and your family.