6 ms·

> Freedom of speech has always been qualified, and this argument does not change it. At best it succeeds in arguing for free speech restricted to certain platfo

by chroma 7y ago

> Freedom of speech has always been qualified, and this argument does not change it. At best it succeeds in arguing for free speech restricted to certain platforms, and the hate speech laws still allow for free speech to private audiences. I'm talking against Canadian hate speech laws, not YouTube's policies. It would be nice if private companies erred on the side of free expression, but having the government force them to do so is a cure that is worse than the disease. > The first argument doesn't make much sense. If I have terrible views but do not want to communicate them it is my right to be silent, but if this argument passes I am infringing on the rights of my potential listeners. If I choose to discuss my views to an exclusive membership, I am infringing on their rights as well. You misunderstand me. I am saying there are people who want to read or listen to something, and censorship prevents them from doing so. Nobody is saying that you have a right to force people to listen your message or read it. That wouldn't generalize. > Similarly, IP and copyright laws infringe on this right since they limit the audience of a work. Copyright laws are about implementations, not concepts. The argument for free speech is about spreading ideas, not web rips of the latest Netflix special. Copyright laws have fair use exemptions to make sure they aren't used to inhibit people from spreading ideas. That's why I can use a clip of Pat Robertson in a video criticizing his policies. > Second, just as most people we can agree that certain substances are harmful and should be made difficult to distribute, similarly most people can agree that some thoughts are harmful and should be made difficult to communicate. The question isn't a matter of whether to censor or not, but the degree and topics. Considering the cost of prohibition and the war on drugs, this argument seems shaky for you. The cure is worse than the disease! People don't agree on this at all. If anything, it's the "legalize everything" tribe that has been gaining traction. So too it is for free speech. In fact in the US, censorship is forbidden for pretty much everything except leaking classified materials. The concept is called prior restraint.[1] > Christians and Muslims do not think that the more icky parts of their texts should be read by children without appropriate direction. This is not true. I personally know at least a dozen children who have the bible read to them uncensored by their parents. (In one case the father is a pastor.) They all believe that homosexuality is a sin and that women should be subservient to their husbands. They got these ideas from the bible, not from some modern day charlatan. It's worse for the quran, which encourages people to become Hafiz (one who has memorized the quran).[2] Parents and schools encourage children to totally memorize the quran as it's easier to do when you're younger. Over 100,000 children a year memorize it. This includes the verses about valuing the word of a woman at half that of a man, verses ordering the smiting of the necks of disbelievers (if you wonder why so jihadists behead so often, it's because of that), and verses encouraging marital rape. If one really believes these books are dictated by the creator of the cosmos, then every word of them is sacred and should be spread as far and as wide as possible. That is what these people do. That is where people like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Ayman al-Zawahiri get their philosophies. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Quran) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Quran)

jhanschoo 7y ago
> I'm talking against Canadian hate speech laws Yes, I'm discussing the hate speech laws. You can still incite people to hatred in private conversations. Thinking about your reply leads me to agree that the hate speech laws indeed go too far, and I'll talk about that with regard to the third point. But I still stand by the claim that free speech should be restricted to certain platforms. > I am saying there are people who want to read or listen to something, and censorship prevents them from doing so. You misunderstand me. I'm saying that this notion that we have a right to read or listen is not unqualified. When you think of traditional government censorship, it seems obvious, but it does not stand the test when we consider other gatekeepers of information. We do not have a right to read or listen to news articles or scholarly papers if publishers so choose not to distribute them to us. > The argument for free speech is about spreading ideas, not web rips of the latest Netflix special. The hate speech laws do not prevent spreading ideas to a similar extent that copyright laws do not prevent spreading ideas. More narrowly, if your hate speech passes the tests for fair use it is likely that they will pass the test for not being hate speech, since it would be clear that those ideas are being framed in a "research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism or review and news reporting" context. > Considering the cost of prohibition and the war on drugs, this argument seems shaky for you. Not really. We all agree that toxic and hazardous materials must have very regulated distribution, in the sense that where they are sold there must be huge warnings that they contain hazards. There are materials that are would be controversial to ban (like drugs), and there are ideas that would be controversial to restrict distribution, but there are also ideas that would not be controversial to restrict distribution (like advocating children to bully each other---distinct from considering philosophically the morality of such a policy). > This is not true. I will concede this point. Moderate religionists think this way, but the more extreme religionists do not. Your examples don't really work since those are still private conversations and private distribution, and so don't run afoul of the law. But the point still stands that there is an interest in putting hate-inciting content in a public space. The main problem with hate-inciting content being in a public space is that it harasses a person who is not prepared for it, again, the "children's eyes" example stands that free speech should be restricted to certain platforms. To address that, I think it suffices that hate-inciting content must be put behind a confirmation that the content incites hatred and is not suitable for minors: it is still accessible to everyone, and the concern for harassment is gone. As examples, fiction containing bigoted characters speaking hate need not possess them, since they do not exhort the reader or claim any truth, but insofar as religious texts exhort the reader, and discuss mistruths that hurt any group, they should contain such warnings.

by chroma 7y ago

jhanschoo 7y ago

> I'm talking against Canadian hate speech laws Yes, I'm discussing the hate speech laws. You can still incite people to hatred in private conversations. Thinking about your reply leads me to agree that the hate speech laws indeed go too far, and I'll talk about that with regard to the third point. But I still stand by the claim that free speech should be restricted to certain platforms. > I am saying there are people who want to read or listen to something, and censorship prevents them from doing so. You misunderstand me. I'm saying that this notion that we have a right to read or listen is not unqualified. When you think of traditional government censorship, it seems obvious, but it does not stand the test when we consider other gatekeepers of information. We do not have a right to read or listen to news articles or scholarly papers if publishers so choose not to distribute them to us. > The argument for free speech is about spreading ideas, not web rips of the latest Netflix special. The hate speech laws do not prevent spreading ideas to a similar extent that copyright laws do not prevent spreading ideas. More narrowly, if your hate speech passes the tests for fair use it is likely that they will pass the test for not being hate speech, since it would be clear that those ideas are being framed in a "research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism or review and news reporting" context. > Considering the cost of prohibition and the war on drugs, this argument seems shaky for you. Not really. We all agree that toxic and hazardous materials must have very regulated distribution, in the sense that where they are sold there must be huge warnings that they contain hazards. There are materials that are would be controversial to ban (like drugs), and there are ideas that would be controversial to restrict distribution, but there are also ideas that would not be controversial to restrict distribution (like advocating children to bully each other---distinct from considering philosophically the morality of such a policy). > This is not true. I will concede this point. Moderate religionists think this way, but the more extreme religionists do not. Your examples don't really work since those are still private conversations and private distribution, and so don't run afoul of the law. But the point still stands that there is an interest in putting hate-inciting content in a public space. The main problem with hate-inciting content being in a public space is that it harasses a person who is not prepared for it, again, the "children's eyes" example stands that free speech should be restricted to certain platforms. To address that, I think it suffices that hate-inciting content must be put behind a confirmation that the content incites hatred and is not suitable for minors: it is still accessible to everyone, and the concern for harassment is gone. As examples, fiction containing bigoted characters speaking hate need not possess them, since they do not exhort the reader or claim any truth, but insofar as religious texts exhort the reader, and discuss mistruths that hurt any group, they should contain such warnings.