5 ms·

Free speech always posed the risk of persecution. This isn't news. The risk is only mitigated if a culture is developed to accept different opinions and frown u

Free speech always posed the risk of persecution. This isn't news. The risk is only mitigated if a culture is developed to accept different opinions and frown upon those who feel the need to punish those who express different and opposing viewpoints, but that's a very unstable equilibrium. In this day and age where all public statements are stored ad eternum, it only takes a change in heart in how free speech is handled for an inoquous statement made in the past to serve as an excuse to punish you in the future.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
> In this day and age where all public statements are stored ad eternum, it only takes a change in heart in how free speech is handled for an inoquous statement made in the past to serve as an excuse to punish you in the future. We don't have to refer to the future, this is already happening now if you have conservative views.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  To all downvoters: you actually support my point. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16122171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16122171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11762835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11762835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15273629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15273629
  - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
    And another one, quite important from the perspective of the whole society, because it actually the shapes the general narrative in the media and the society as a whole ("Scientists discovered that..."): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8780256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8780256
- keiferski 8y ago
  You’re not wrong, but this has nothing to do with the parent’s comment. He was saying “in the future” metaphorically, not literally in the future of society.
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  "Conservative" views that are punished somehow always end up being racist, sexist, homophobic or some combination of those.
  - yourbandsucks 8y ago
    According to whom, though? There are a lot of people out there absolutely chomping at the bit to label things racist or sexist. Outright unambiguous racism is one thing, disagreement with the activists is another.
hliyan 8y ago
I'm inclined to agree with you about this not being new. But, I feel that in the past, a good portion of the persecution and censorship came from the powers that be. And when mobs did gather, it was usually against a widely despised person (be he right or wrong). But now, the Internet and the anonymity it affords allows for the formation of virtual mobs against ideas or people even when society is evenly split on the matter and authorities are not in the mood to persecute.
- speedplane 8y ago
  Professors have always needed extra protection for free speech, and at least in theory, tenure was that protection. However, over time, tenure turned into a career goal-post rather than a necessary security blanket, and it's basically lost all of it's enforcement credibility, e.g., tenured professors are fired/"resign" all the time after making comments that are viewed as racist/sexist/etc. So now that it's clear that tenure doesn't protect professor, it's not surprising that they turn to other methods, anonymity being an obvious one. Invoking anonymity is everyone's right, but it's still sad. Professors are supposed to embody the ideal of free and open thought, and by publishing their works anonymously, it's a sorry and self-enabling acceptance of their own irrelevance.
- yellowbuilding 8y ago
  We have authorities willing to persecute. The difference is just that such authorities are no longer owned by the public. Social media companies are the authorities. To elaborate a bit on why I say this: Since Social Media became uniquitous as a communication medium, I have found no more helpful way to process this in just political terms than to recognize the role of social media as a virtual urban plaza. For the last 7-8 years that I have used that metaphor, it has persisted in leading me to what I believe is the most respectable and ultimately healthy assessments of the terms it should operate under. Interestingly, the plaza had a more complicated relationship with anonymity and pseudonymity because, outside of one’s community, one could not be recognized or traced. Nonetheless, learning about the history of this is surely helpful here.
TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
Persecution and people disagreeing with your ideas are different. Why should we suppress the free speech of those that disagree? Protest is a legitimate means of speech.
- Udik 8y ago
  - Protest is a legitimate means of speech. Not really, not in an academic context at least. Counter-arguments are a legitimate response to an argument, while protest is, at best, a way of expressing political disagreement: but academic discussion should strive to be as free as possible of politics. Maybe political protests against academic personalities and theses should simply be not allowed.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
    What are ideas if not political? The concept of an academia free of politics is absurd.
    - Udik 8y ago
      Everything can be political, and ideas can always have political consequences and the people that advance them always have political persuasions. But the arena of academia is that of logic and reason, not of political convictions. So even if everything has a political connotation, the whole point of science and academia is to try to keep that out of the way, and use cold reasoning instead. A protest can show that you don't accept an idea, not that an idea is not worth being accepted.
      - notahacker 8y ago
        A protest can also be an expression of the view that an academic is clouding their judgement with their own politics, or simply behaving unreasonably in a manner which has nothing to do with scientific enquiry or their subject matter. Blanket bans on protest are just as inimical to free and open discourse as blanket bans on discussing certain subject matter.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago

> In this day and age where all public statements are stored ad eternum, it only takes a change in heart in how free speech is handled for an inoquous statement made in the past to serve as an excuse to punish you in the future. We don't have to refer to the future, this is already happening now if you have conservative views.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
To all downvoters: you actually support my point. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16122171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16122171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11762835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11762835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15273629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15273629
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  And another one, quite important from the perspective of the whole society, because it actually the shapes the general narrative in the media and the society as a whole ("Scientists discovered that..."): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8780256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8780256
keiferski 8y ago
You’re not wrong, but this has nothing to do with the parent’s comment. He was saying “in the future” metaphorically, not literally in the future of society.
FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
"Conservative" views that are punished somehow always end up being racist, sexist, homophobic or some combination of those.
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  According to whom, though? There are a lot of people out there absolutely chomping at the bit to label things racist or sexist. Outright unambiguous racism is one thing, disagreement with the activists is another.

hliyan 8y ago

I'm inclined to agree with you about this not being new. But, I feel that in the past, a good portion of the persecution and censorship came from the powers that be. And when mobs did gather, it was usually against a widely despised person (be he right or wrong). But now, the Internet and the anonymity it affords allows for the formation of virtual mobs against ideas or people even when society is evenly split on the matter and authorities are not in the mood to persecute.

speedplane 8y ago
Professors have always needed extra protection for free speech, and at least in theory, tenure was that protection. However, over time, tenure turned into a career goal-post rather than a necessary security blanket, and it's basically lost all of it's enforcement credibility, e.g., tenured professors are fired/"resign" all the time after making comments that are viewed as racist/sexist/etc. So now that it's clear that tenure doesn't protect professor, it's not surprising that they turn to other methods, anonymity being an obvious one. Invoking anonymity is everyone's right, but it's still sad. Professors are supposed to embody the ideal of free and open thought, and by publishing their works anonymously, it's a sorry and self-enabling acceptance of their own irrelevance.
yellowbuilding 8y ago
We have authorities willing to persecute. The difference is just that such authorities are no longer owned by the public. Social media companies are the authorities. To elaborate a bit on why I say this: Since Social Media became uniquitous as a communication medium, I have found no more helpful way to process this in just political terms than to recognize the role of social media as a virtual urban plaza. For the last 7-8 years that I have used that metaphor, it has persisted in leading me to what I believe is the most respectable and ultimately healthy assessments of the terms it should operate under. Interestingly, the plaza had a more complicated relationship with anonymity and pseudonymity because, outside of one’s community, one could not be recognized or traced. Nonetheless, learning about the history of this is surely helpful here.

TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago

Persecution and people disagreeing with your ideas are different. Why should we suppress the free speech of those that disagree? Protest is a legitimate means of speech.

Udik 8y ago
- Protest is a legitimate means of speech. Not really, not in an academic context at least. Counter-arguments are a legitimate response to an argument, while protest is, at best, a way of expressing political disagreement: but academic discussion should strive to be as free as possible of politics. Maybe political protests against academic personalities and theses should simply be not allowed.
- TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
  What are ideas if not political? The concept of an academia free of politics is absurd.
  - Udik 8y ago
    Everything can be political, and ideas can always have political consequences and the people that advance them always have political persuasions. But the arena of academia is that of logic and reason, not of political convictions. So even if everything has a political connotation, the whole point of science and academia is to try to keep that out of the way, and use cold reasoning instead. A protest can show that you don't accept an idea, not that an idea is not worth being accepted.
    - notahacker 8y ago
      A protest can also be an expression of the view that an academic is clouding their judgement with their own politics, or simply behaving unreasonably in a manner which has nothing to do with scientific enquiry or their subject matter. Blanket bans on protest are just as inimical to free and open discourse as blanket bans on discussing certain subject matter.