7 ms·

The best argument I’ve heard for being a free speech absolutist is that speech is the highest form of thought in Humans. We think via dialogue. We arrive at the

by rand_r 7y ago

The best argument I’ve heard for being a free speech absolutist is that speech is the highest form of thought in Humans. We think via dialogue. We arrive at the truth via dialogue. Criminalizing free speech limits our ability to think and arrive at the truth, and that can’t be good for anyone long term. I haven’t heard of a good rebuttal to the above reasoning.

ALittleLight 7y ago
To extend your metaphor, imagine that part of humanity's brain is engaged in thinking about the abduction and exploitation of children. Another part is lionizing mass murderers and advocating for copy cats. A different part of the brain is contemplating the state of the art for financial and cyber crimes etc. If you come to believe that the time humanity's brain spends occupied with these pursuits leads to negative real world consequences then I don't think the argument you've presented is very compelling. Put another way, if I were someone's therapist and my patient confided in me that, the more time he spends thinking about shooting up his school, the more he feels like actually doing it - I might advise him to spend less time thinking about shooting up the school. If I had the power, I might forbid him from thinking about it at all. Really, what, but the amusement of edgy people, does humanity gain from entertaining these dark conversations? Perhaps such conversations play a role in the detection or prevention of bad outcomes. For example, police detectives are sometimes taught to identify with the criminal to understand their behavior, and so maybe having access to dark thoughts would help in that regard. To me, the question of moderation hinges on whether you think permitting speech will be, on net, positive or negative. I don't have data or solid evidence - but I do have intuitions.
- RaceWon 7y ago
  > Really, what, but the amusement of edgy people, does humanity gain from entertaining these dark conversations I write short stories, some are EXTREMELY dark. None deal with murder but I have done a rape story... well the two were lovers and he thought she wanted to be raped, so he did it. But still very dark no?
  - RaceWon 7y ago
    > None deal with murder Wait I was wrong, of course I've done murder in shorts, but not for years and years.
- melbourne7 7y ago
  I hear you, the problem is the Catholic Church had intuitions about whether the earth revolves around the sun was positive or negative, too. Dangerous ideas come in all shapes and sizes; but on the whole are less dangerous than someone deciding which is which.
- rand_r 7y ago
  That’s a good point. Thoughts can be dangerous. My post only works if you have a bias against thought-crime. As an aside, if someone’s thoughts are ill-intentioned, you should be able to dispel them by forcing an honest examination of everything.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    > As an aside, if someone’s thoughts are ill-intentioned, you should be able to dispel them by forcing an honest examination of everything. Unfortunately the human brain doesn't work that way. It tends to resist new information -- even if logically presented and supported by hard evidence -- that contradicts its world view. And I'm not even talking about people who suffer from some sort of mental illness, or who are poorly educated, or anything of that nature. Everyone's brain works this way.
peteretep 7y ago
> I haven’t heard of a good rebuttal to the above reasoning All important philosophy and epistemology has occurred in countries with free speech restrictions.
- rand_r 7y ago
  Are you making a dig at the U.S.A? Haha :D I think I get your point though: It’s not an absolute game. You can do a lot of useful thinking even under some restrictions, so we’re forced to consider everything with more nuance.
chx 7y ago
Limiting who and how can experiment with anthrax doesn't seem like a limitation on science -- it looks sanity to me. Since ideas are just as viral and as deadly there is nothing inherently wrong with limiting the spread of some.
- internet_user 7y ago
  Give it a bit more time, and anyone with two brain cells will be able to experiment with anthrax in their garage. What then?
  - kelnos 7y ago
    So what? It'd still be illegal, and you do the same thing to disincentivize garage anthrax as you do with any other illegal act: the threat of prison.
    - internet_user 7y ago
      Reminder: mass shootings are illegal.
snowwrestler 7y ago
Free speech shouldn’t be criminalized. But, neither does anyone have a right to an audience. And that’s what this is really about. Cloudflare is not depriving 8chan of their freedom of speech; they are just declining to assist 8chan in finding an audience. I also disagree that speech is the highest form of thought in humans, but that is a sort of a side topic.
- Alex3917 7y ago
  > But, neither does anyone have a right to an audience. Free speech includes the right to be heard. That's why the government is allowed to kick you out of political rallies/meetings if you're just there to protest or whatever; you're not allowed to try to shout over someone else to prevent them from talking, rather if you disagree with them then you need to go find your own followers to try to convince. edit: To all the people downvoting me, do you not realize I'm literally just paraphrasing the relevant supreme court ruling?: https://www.thefire.org/say-it-again-for-the-people-in-the-back-freedom-to-speak-includes-the-freedom-to-hear/ https://www.thefire.org/say-it-again-for-the-people-in-the-b...
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    This has nothing to do with the right to be heard. In this case, it'd be about requiring CloudFlare to _assist_ 8chan in _being_ heard. And there's no such right, or ruling. 8chan's hosting isn't even being yanked, only their access to an edge caching CDN. I'm really struggling to see a "free speech" issue here. What if Google Analytics decides not to offer 8chan analytics? Does that also interfere with the right to speech?
    - Alex3917 7y ago
      > In this case, it'd be about requiring CloudFlare to _assist_ 8chan in _being_ heard. And there's no such right, or ruling. The comment I was replying to was about what the constitutional right to free speech entails, not about what CloudFlare is required to do.
reuben364 7y ago
I agree with the premise, not the argument We can arrive at truth through dialogue, but dialog can also lead to propagation and affirmation of misinformation. One does not necessarily converge on truth. Though, to entrust any government to control free speech to that end is an entire different point.
wjmao88 7y ago
We think via dialogue, We arrive at the truth via dialogue, and to arrive at the truth necessarily means pruning out the untrue. Thus, limiting a speech when it first comes out is never good. Any point of view should be discussed, debated, and its truthiness assessed. However, if something has been deemed untrue over and over, it would be pointless to keep bringing it up and trying to assert it as truth. At that point, it deserves to be censored out as to not interfere with the other ongoing legitimate pruning processes.
LordDragonfang 7y ago
>We arrive at the truth via dialogue. In the US, we are currently undergoing the Democratic primaries, and consequently are having many televised debates. Almost anyone in this country who has watched one would scoff at the idea that an unmoderated debate would arrive at anything approaching truth. As it is, I've heard many people criticize the moderators in previous debates for not being more heavy handed in what blatant mistruths they allow the candidates to say on stage. You can't arrive at the truth if one member of a dialogue is not interested in getting there.

by rand_r 7y ago

ALittleLight 7y ago

To extend your metaphor, imagine that part of humanity's brain is engaged in thinking about the abduction and exploitation of children. Another part is lionizing mass murderers and advocating for copy cats. A different part of the brain is contemplating the state of the art for financial and cyber crimes etc. If you come to believe that the time humanity's brain spends occupied with these pursuits leads to negative real world consequences then I don't think the argument you've presented is very compelling. Put another way, if I were someone's therapist and my patient confided in me that, the more time he spends thinking about shooting up his school, the more he feels like actually doing it - I might advise him to spend less time thinking about shooting up the school. If I had the power, I might forbid him from thinking about it at all. Really, what, but the amusement of edgy people, does humanity gain from entertaining these dark conversations? Perhaps such conversations play a role in the detection or prevention of bad outcomes. For example, police detectives are sometimes taught to identify with the criminal to understand their behavior, and so maybe having access to dark thoughts would help in that regard. To me, the question of moderation hinges on whether you think permitting speech will be, on net, positive or negative. I don't have data or solid evidence - but I do have intuitions.

RaceWon 7y ago
> Really, what, but the amusement of edgy people, does humanity gain from entertaining these dark conversations I write short stories, some are EXTREMELY dark. None deal with murder but I have done a rape story... well the two were lovers and he thought she wanted to be raped, so he did it. But still very dark no?
- RaceWon 7y ago
  > None deal with murder Wait I was wrong, of course I've done murder in shorts, but not for years and years.
melbourne7 7y ago
I hear you, the problem is the Catholic Church had intuitions about whether the earth revolves around the sun was positive or negative, too. Dangerous ideas come in all shapes and sizes; but on the whole are less dangerous than someone deciding which is which.
rand_r 7y ago
That’s a good point. Thoughts can be dangerous. My post only works if you have a bias against thought-crime. As an aside, if someone’s thoughts are ill-intentioned, you should be able to dispel them by forcing an honest examination of everything.
- kelnos 7y ago
  > As an aside, if someone’s thoughts are ill-intentioned, you should be able to dispel them by forcing an honest examination of everything. Unfortunately the human brain doesn't work that way. It tends to resist new information -- even if logically presented and supported by hard evidence -- that contradicts its world view. And I'm not even talking about people who suffer from some sort of mental illness, or who are poorly educated, or anything of that nature. Everyone's brain works this way.

peteretep 7y ago

> I haven’t heard of a good rebuttal to the above reasoning All important philosophy and epistemology has occurred in countries with free speech restrictions.

rand_r 7y ago
Are you making a dig at the U.S.A? Haha :D I think I get your point though: It’s not an absolute game. You can do a lot of useful thinking even under some restrictions, so we’re forced to consider everything with more nuance.

chx 7y ago

Limiting who and how can experiment with anthrax doesn't seem like a limitation on science -- it looks sanity to me. Since ideas are just as viral and as deadly there is nothing inherently wrong with limiting the spread of some.

internet_user 7y ago
Give it a bit more time, and anyone with two brain cells will be able to experiment with anthrax in their garage. What then?
- kelnos 7y ago
  So what? It'd still be illegal, and you do the same thing to disincentivize garage anthrax as you do with any other illegal act: the threat of prison.
  - internet_user 7y ago
    Reminder: mass shootings are illegal.

snowwrestler 7y ago

Free speech shouldn’t be criminalized. But, neither does anyone have a right to an audience. And that’s what this is really about. Cloudflare is not depriving 8chan of their freedom of speech; they are just declining to assist 8chan in finding an audience. I also disagree that speech is the highest form of thought in humans, but that is a sort of a side topic.

Alex3917 7y ago
> But, neither does anyone have a right to an audience. Free speech includes the right to be heard. That's why the government is allowed to kick you out of political rallies/meetings if you're just there to protest or whatever; you're not allowed to try to shout over someone else to prevent them from talking, rather if you disagree with them then you need to go find your own followers to try to convince. edit: To all the people downvoting me, do you not realize I'm literally just paraphrasing the relevant supreme court ruling?: https://www.thefire.org/say-it-again-for-the-people-in-the-back-freedom-to-speak-includes-the-freedom-to-hear/ https://www.thefire.org/say-it-again-for-the-people-in-the-b...
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  This has nothing to do with the right to be heard. In this case, it'd be about requiring CloudFlare to _assist_ 8chan in _being_ heard. And there's no such right, or ruling. 8chan's hosting isn't even being yanked, only their access to an edge caching CDN. I'm really struggling to see a "free speech" issue here. What if Google Analytics decides not to offer 8chan analytics? Does that also interfere with the right to speech?
  - Alex3917 7y ago
    > In this case, it'd be about requiring CloudFlare to _assist_ 8chan in _being_ heard. And there's no such right, or ruling. The comment I was replying to was about what the constitutional right to free speech entails, not about what CloudFlare is required to do.

reuben364 7y ago

I agree with the premise, not the argument We can arrive at truth through dialogue, but dialog can also lead to propagation and affirmation of misinformation. One does not necessarily converge on truth. Though, to entrust any government to control free speech to that end is an entire different point.

wjmao88 7y ago

We think via dialogue, We arrive at the truth via dialogue, and to arrive at the truth necessarily means pruning out the untrue. Thus, limiting a speech when it first comes out is never good. Any point of view should be discussed, debated, and its truthiness assessed. However, if something has been deemed untrue over and over, it would be pointless to keep bringing it up and trying to assert it as truth. At that point, it deserves to be censored out as to not interfere with the other ongoing legitimate pruning processes.

LordDragonfang 7y ago

>We arrive at the truth via dialogue. In the US, we are currently undergoing the Democratic primaries, and consequently are having many televised debates. Almost anyone in this country who has watched one would scoff at the idea that an unmoderated debate would arrive at anything approaching truth. As it is, I've heard many people criticize the moderators in previous debates for not being more heavy handed in what blatant mistruths they allow the candidates to say on stage. You can't arrive at the truth if one member of a dialogue is not interested in getting there.