4 ms·

You're either for free speech or you're not, and as much as I would like to have some absolute reference of good and bad, it's all culturally defined. I mean,

You're either for free speech or you're not, and as much as I would like to have some absolute reference of good and bad, it's all culturally defined. I mean, I think it's horrible, but I can envision lots of functional and useful societies that are horrible based on my principles (how would you like to to be part of a hize mind?), but that doesn't make them bad in an absolute sense. Scaled down, freedom of speech is to protect us from changing cultural and mob rule running roughshod over what we consider good and bad to the detriment of all. The law would basically just lag internet outrage by a few months or years. Edit: This is meant to be interpreted in context, where a platform has taken a stance that it doesn't censor, and a government blocking that platform. I'm also not making a stance that anything goes, as speech inciting direct action against the law (or meant to cause a situation which is immediately and obviously unsafe) is problematic, and under what I take free speech to embody, which is freedom of thought and to express those thoughts. As absolutist as the first words sound, it's not really meant to be interpreted that way, but more as a call to acknowledge that good and bad are relative to the farthest degree, which is about as far from absolutist as you can get. Edit 2: From closer reading, it wasn't actually a government request. The article notes that the government often issues these through the courts, but the ISPs acted on their own in this case.

happytoexplain 8y ago
>You're either for free speech or you're not Absolutism is poison.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- staticautomatic 8y ago
  Absolutism isn't an "ism" in the sense you think it is.
- spangry 8y ago
  The irony of this statement.
root_axis 8y ago
Morality is relative but it isn't subjective. Slaughtering innocents for political purposes is a universally evil act.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  This brings up the hypocrisy of those that want to shut down speech based on their personal views. More people died in 9/11, but those videos are all over the place, even on youtube. Those planes hitting those specific builder _were_ the message of the terrorists.
- kbenson 8y ago
  It feels good to say stuff like that, and it's the kind of reality I want to live in, but my whole point is: - Define innocent - Define political - Define evil In way that is independent of the culture in which it takes place. It might even be possible to do so, or come close, when limited to current cultures and Humans. That's a far cry from proved as universal though. It's been quite a while since I read it, but I believe this short story[1] covers some of the ground I'm trying to express. Note: If you key off humans/aliens, I think you're missing the point. 1: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-eating-aliens-1-8 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-e...
  - root_axis 8y ago
    > It feels good to say stuff like that, and it's the kind of reality I want to live in, but my whole point is: I think the opposite is true. It is gratifying to the logical mind to process this event through the lens of pedantic philosophical analysis, but in real life most things aren't so ambiguous and they definitely aren't ambiguous in this case. > Define innocent In this context I define innocent as "undeserving of abrupt and violent execution". > Define political In this context I define political as "of or with regard to government or government policy". > Define evil In this context I define evil as "a profoundly immoral act". Seems pretty straightforward. Unfortunately, I don't have time to read the story you linked (though it does seem interesting even though I am generally not a fan of yudkowsky's writings), but if you want to summarize it I don't mind addressing that summary.
ip26 8y ago
You can be for free speech while also unwilling to host certain speech on a platform you own & operate. I can support your right to protest, while also not permitting you to do it in my living room.
- bluthru 8y ago
  This is about government censorship, not forcing private web sites to host the video.
  - ip26 8y ago
    4chan is not the government. I think 4chan has gone too far on this one. They should ban neonazi propaganda. -- the grandparent
- krapp 8y ago
  >You can be for free speech while also unwilling to host certain speech on a platform you own & operate. In that case, you're for free speech in principle, but not in practice. Which is fair, given that free speech in practice means being willing to commit felonies.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    I think their point was that free speech is more nuanced than the "You're either for free speech or you're not" dichotomy, and that was just one example. Even the philosophers behind free speech said that speech should be curtailed when the expression itself causes harm, and they were certainly proponents for free speech.
  - dontbenebby 8y ago
    >Which is fair, given that free speech in practice means being willing to commit felonies. I'm not sure I follow. What "free speech" do you think is currently a felony in the US?
mixologic 8y ago
Yeah, free speech doesnt mean "anything goes". We as a society have made the determination that there are categories of speech that are harmful, and as such are illegal. You cant libel, you cant slander, you cant shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Speech that advocates for the supression or termination of other people based on their race is "Hate speech" and also illegal. There is neither value nor need for complete and total 'free speech'.
- manigandham 8y ago
  Free speech is about government interference, and the first 3 categories have unanimous agreement. It's the "hate speech" label that gets complicated based on who defines it. Many who claim things are hate speech today also use hate speech themselves (following your definition of suppression based on race) to shout down and ban others. It shows just how complex this situation is and why "hate speech" is precisely the type of speech that needs defense in the first place because it's mostly rooted in defiance and disagreement, not outright hate.
  - nothal 8y ago
    Hate speech is also free speech per legal definition. That’s why the KKK can march through towns and profess hatred of whichever group they choose.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    > Free speech is about government interference No. The 1st amendment of the US constitution is about government interference - the idea of free speech is broader than that.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      That's not what the post I was replying to is talking about. Free speech as an idea is pretty simple, it's the complexities of implementation that are up for debate.
- nothal 8y ago
SCdF 8y ago
> You're either for free speech or you're not, and > it's all culturally defined. contradict each other completely, right? Everyone is for free speech, it just everyone has a different idea of what that means (as you say)
- kbenson 8y ago
  Depending on how you interpret those terms (that is, if you choose a very specific definition of each), possibly. What I means is that free speech is meant to protect everyone from other people's differing opinions on what is and isn't acceptable in a cultural sense. If you're "for free speech as long as it's accepted within my culture" then you're not for free speech. I did clarify a bit in my original comment what I was going for though.
  - SCdF 8y ago
    Have you heard about the paradox of tolerance? I think it's important in this kind of discussion.

happytoexplain 8y ago

>You're either for free speech or you're not Absolutism is poison.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
staticautomatic 8y ago
Absolutism isn't an "ism" in the sense you think it is.
spangry 8y ago
The irony of this statement.

root_axis 8y ago

Morality is relative but it isn't subjective. Slaughtering innocents for political purposes is a universally evil act.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
This brings up the hypocrisy of those that want to shut down speech based on their personal views. More people died in 9/11, but those videos are all over the place, even on youtube. Those planes hitting those specific builder _were_ the message of the terrorists.
kbenson 8y ago
It feels good to say stuff like that, and it's the kind of reality I want to live in, but my whole point is: - Define innocent - Define political - Define evil In way that is independent of the culture in which it takes place. It might even be possible to do so, or come close, when limited to current cultures and Humans. That's a far cry from proved as universal though. It's been quite a while since I read it, but I believe this short story[1] covers some of the ground I'm trying to express. Note: If you key off humans/aliens, I think you're missing the point. 1: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-eating-aliens-1-8 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-e...
- root_axis 8y ago
  > It feels good to say stuff like that, and it's the kind of reality I want to live in, but my whole point is: I think the opposite is true. It is gratifying to the logical mind to process this event through the lens of pedantic philosophical analysis, but in real life most things aren't so ambiguous and they definitely aren't ambiguous in this case. > Define innocent In this context I define innocent as "undeserving of abrupt and violent execution". > Define political In this context I define political as "of or with regard to government or government policy". > Define evil In this context I define evil as "a profoundly immoral act". Seems pretty straightforward. Unfortunately, I don't have time to read the story you linked (though it does seem interesting even though I am generally not a fan of yudkowsky's writings), but if you want to summarize it I don't mind addressing that summary.

ip26 8y ago

You can be for free speech while also unwilling to host certain speech on a platform you own & operate. I can support your right to protest, while also not permitting you to do it in my living room.

bluthru 8y ago
This is about government censorship, not forcing private web sites to host the video.
- ip26 8y ago
  4chan is not the government. I think 4chan has gone too far on this one. They should ban neonazi propaganda. -- the grandparent
krapp 8y ago
>You can be for free speech while also unwilling to host certain speech on a platform you own & operate. In that case, you're for free speech in principle, but not in practice. Which is fair, given that free speech in practice means being willing to commit felonies.
- bduerst 8y ago
  I think their point was that free speech is more nuanced than the "You're either for free speech or you're not" dichotomy, and that was just one example. Even the philosophers behind free speech said that speech should be curtailed when the expression itself causes harm, and they were certainly proponents for free speech.
- dontbenebby 8y ago
  >Which is fair, given that free speech in practice means being willing to commit felonies. I'm not sure I follow. What "free speech" do you think is currently a felony in the US?

mixologic 8y ago

Yeah, free speech doesnt mean "anything goes". We as a society have made the determination that there are categories of speech that are harmful, and as such are illegal. You cant libel, you cant slander, you cant shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Speech that advocates for the supression or termination of other people based on their race is "Hate speech" and also illegal. There is neither value nor need for complete and total 'free speech'.

manigandham 8y ago
Free speech is about government interference, and the first 3 categories have unanimous agreement. It's the "hate speech" label that gets complicated based on who defines it. Many who claim things are hate speech today also use hate speech themselves (following your definition of suppression based on race) to shout down and ban others. It shows just how complex this situation is and why "hate speech" is precisely the type of speech that needs defense in the first place because it's mostly rooted in defiance and disagreement, not outright hate.
- nothal 8y ago
  Hate speech is also free speech per legal definition. That’s why the KKK can march through towns and profess hatred of whichever group they choose.
- deogeo 8y ago
  > Free speech is about government interference No. The 1st amendment of the US constitution is about government interference - the idea of free speech is broader than that.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    That's not what the post I was replying to is talking about. Free speech as an idea is pretty simple, it's the complexities of implementation that are up for debate.
nothal 8y ago

SCdF 8y ago

> You're either for free speech or you're not, and > it's all culturally defined. contradict each other completely, right? Everyone is for free speech, it just everyone has a different idea of what that means (as you say)

kbenson 8y ago
Depending on how you interpret those terms (that is, if you choose a very specific definition of each), possibly. What I means is that free speech is meant to protect everyone from other people's differing opinions on what is and isn't acceptable in a cultural sense. If you're "for free speech as long as it's accepted within my culture" then you're not for free speech. I did clarify a bit in my original comment what I was going for though.
- SCdF 8y ago
  Have you heard about the paradox of tolerance? I think it's important in this kind of discussion.