5 ms·

"If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free

by chj 8y ago

"If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” ― Noam Chomsky

matt4077 8y ago
"If you believe a society's future is endangered by a few companies not willing to be accomplices to anti-semitism, misogyny, racism, and fake-Rolex spam, you have understood neither freedom, nor Chomsky" – me
- reitanqild 8y ago
  This falls flat when 1) those few companies are "the internet" for major parts of the population (actually it almost falls flat already here) 2) to make it worse those companies has a long history of censoring not only what we all despise but also things they didn't like (business wise), things their staff didn't see the value in (art, histn eoric photos from wars) etc etc. There, -now you haven't been downvoted without an explanation. (I really don't like anonymous downvotes and think all should do better most of the time.)
Jaruzel 8y ago
Also: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
posting2fast 8y ago
He's talking about views. Hate speech is chanting "Kill all Jews". A view I would despise would be a well thought out argument why all Jews should be killed, expressed in a way that allows response.
- 684387384381987 8y ago
  A strict interpretation of freedom of speech includes so-called hate speech. A non-strict interpretation of freedom of speech ceases to be freedom of speech.
- deno 8y ago
  So you ask “Why?”, then you can show that person is an idiot when they have to defend that position. If they never have to defend their views then you admit their idea has merit by default.
  - mouldysammich 8y ago
    People who chat things like 'kill all jews' are not there to try to argue and dont care about looking dumb in the eyes of larger society, because they already do. people doing things like that are not there to argue
    - deno 8y ago
      There’s been a lot of talk about “nazis” in the media recently. Like A TON. And I didn’t see anyone in the media actually trying to talk with them. And yeah sure there are people that are maybe wrong and will not talk with you at all. But in my experience they are a minority. Generally people actually believe what they say they believe and they’re eager to sit down and discuss it. If you actually talk with people, more often than not their position is more nuanced than “kill all the Jews.” Isn’t that a good thing? But every time you make even the discussion taboo you just validate their believes. Because if it’s something beyond even mere discussion then it must be something true ‘they’ don’t want you to know about. Or so it seems. I know the Earth is not flat. Why would I avoid discussing it when truth is on my side?
      - posting2fast 8y ago
        > more often than not their position is more nuanced than “kill all the Jews.” Isn’t that a good thing? Which by definition makes it a view they allow a reply to. refer to my original, now flagged comment. If they actually respond to your arguments and questions, that's not what I'm talking about, and it's more than you had the grace to offer.
        deno 8y ago
        What I tried to say is that this recent trend of “no platforming” people and even earlier the idea that debating anyone somehow validates their opinion is forcing people with controversial opinions into this “screaming” position. More to your point: people with minority views cannot “allow” for any discussion to happen. The fact that we’re not discussing their issues and rather try to make them go away is the fault of the majority. WE make the rules and it seems everyone is more interested in labeling people than hearing what they have to say.
- js8 8y ago
  But then, why should hate speech be a separate category? Why not treat it as a threat under criminal code, and prosecute it as such? (That's what I think should be done.) What do you gain by censoring "hate speech"?
  - krapp 8y ago
    >Why not treat it as a threat under criminal code, and prosecute it as such? (That's what I think should be done.) But that would also be censorship...
    - js8 8y ago
      No. The judge would decide whether it is a threat or not, and the punishment would correspond to that. If it's not a threat, then what is the problem? (See my other comment in this discussion.)
      - krapp 8y ago
        It's still censorship if the state does it, arguably it's more censorship if the state does it. It's even censorship when it serves the public good.
- dang 8y ago
  Low-rent ideological noise has no place on HN. It's a combo of boring and inflammatory, leading to internet tedium. That makes it off topic for this site. If you need to post like this, please do it somewhere else. Since you persist in using HN primarily for ideological battle, which violates the site guidelines, I've banned this account. Would you please not create accounts to break HN's rules with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by chj 8y ago

"If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” ― Noam Chomsky

matt4077 8y ago

"If you believe a society's future is endangered by a few companies not willing to be accomplices to anti-semitism, misogyny, racism, and fake-Rolex spam, you have understood neither freedom, nor Chomsky" – me

reitanqild 8y ago
This falls flat when 1) those few companies are "the internet" for major parts of the population (actually it almost falls flat already here) 2) to make it worse those companies has a long history of censoring not only what we all despise but also things they didn't like (business wise), things their staff didn't see the value in (art, histn eoric photos from wars) etc etc. There, -now you haven't been downvoted without an explanation. (I really don't like anonymous downvotes and think all should do better most of the time.)

Jaruzel 8y ago

Also: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

posting2fast 8y ago

He's talking about views. Hate speech is chanting "Kill all Jews". A view I would despise would be a well thought out argument why all Jews should be killed, expressed in a way that allows response.

684387384381987 8y ago
A strict interpretation of freedom of speech includes so-called hate speech. A non-strict interpretation of freedom of speech ceases to be freedom of speech.
deno 8y ago
So you ask “Why?”, then you can show that person is an idiot when they have to defend that position. If they never have to defend their views then you admit their idea has merit by default.
- mouldysammich 8y ago
  People who chat things like 'kill all jews' are not there to try to argue and dont care about looking dumb in the eyes of larger society, because they already do. people doing things like that are not there to argue
  - deno 8y ago
    There’s been a lot of talk about “nazis” in the media recently. Like A TON. And I didn’t see anyone in the media actually trying to talk with them. And yeah sure there are people that are maybe wrong and will not talk with you at all. But in my experience they are a minority. Generally people actually believe what they say they believe and they’re eager to sit down and discuss it. If you actually talk with people, more often than not their position is more nuanced than “kill all the Jews.” Isn’t that a good thing? But every time you make even the discussion taboo you just validate their believes. Because if it’s something beyond even mere discussion then it must be something true ‘they’ don’t want you to know about. Or so it seems. I know the Earth is not flat. Why would I avoid discussing it when truth is on my side?
    - posting2fast 8y ago
      > more often than not their position is more nuanced than “kill all the Jews.” Isn’t that a good thing? Which by definition makes it a view they allow a reply to. refer to my original, now flagged comment. If they actually respond to your arguments and questions, that's not what I'm talking about, and it's more than you had the grace to offer.
      - deno 8y ago
        What I tried to say is that this recent trend of “no platforming” people and even earlier the idea that debating anyone somehow validates their opinion is forcing people with controversial opinions into this “screaming” position. More to your point: people with minority views cannot “allow” for any discussion to happen. The fact that we’re not discussing their issues and rather try to make them go away is the fault of the majority. WE make the rules and it seems everyone is more interested in labeling people than hearing what they have to say.
js8 8y ago
But then, why should hate speech be a separate category? Why not treat it as a threat under criminal code, and prosecute it as such? (That's what I think should be done.) What do you gain by censoring "hate speech"?
- krapp 8y ago
  >Why not treat it as a threat under criminal code, and prosecute it as such? (That's what I think should be done.) But that would also be censorship...
  - js8 8y ago
    No. The judge would decide whether it is a threat or not, and the punishment would correspond to that. If it's not a threat, then what is the problem? (See my other comment in this discussion.)
    - krapp 8y ago
      It's still censorship if the state does it, arguably it's more censorship if the state does it. It's even censorship when it serves the public good.
dang 8y ago
Low-rent ideological noise has no place on HN. It's a combo of boring and inflammatory, leading to internet tedium. That makes it off topic for this site. If you need to post like this, please do it somewhere else. Since you persist in using HN primarily for ideological battle, which violates the site guidelines, I've banned this account. Would you please not create accounts to break HN's rules with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html