4 ms·

Absolutely not. It's a major, and valid concern against censorship and is shared by many academics. Here is an article from a professor at Harvard Law >She ins

Absolutely not. It's a major, and valid concern against censorship and is shared by many academics. Here is an article from a professor at Harvard Law >She insists, however, that the cure of censorship is worse than the disease of hate speech. “Even worse than speech’s potential power to harm individuals and society,” she maintains, “is government’s potential power to do likewise, by enforcing ‘hate speech’ laws. Predictably, this elastic power will be used to silence dissenting ideas, unpopular speakers, and disempowered groups.” >https://knightcolumbia.org/news/cure-censorship-better-disease-hate-speech https://knightcolumbia.org/news/cure-censorship-better-disea...

krapp 7y ago
Somehow it's always a concern that governments might abuse hate speech laws to "silence dissenting ideas, unpopular speakers, and disempowered groups," but it's never a concern that the purpose of hate speech is to do exactly that.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  The difference is that the people (and corporations) only have words, while the government has guns. I don't know what they're teaching kids in history classes these days, but it isn't history.
  - krapp 7y ago
    > The difference is that the people (and corporations) only have words, while the government has guns. Well, no. The people have guns too, at least in the US - the extremists certainly do as the recent trend of mass shootings can attest, and the words of extremists are intended to lead to violent action, not simply be debated on internet forums and turned into memes. And the government has speech. At best you could argue that the defense of absolute free speech is implicitly a defense of extremism and of extremist violence as a necessary lesser evil compared to censorship in any form. A similar argument is sometimes made regarding mass shootings when defending the Second Amendment - that popular gun violence is a price Americans should be willing (even grateful) to pay for the liberty guns theoretically provide. If so, that's an argument I don't necessarily agree with, in either case.
    - okmokmz 7y ago
      It's both incredible and frightening how many pro-authoritarians there are on this site
      - CamperBob2 7y ago
        They're just young, is all. That's what I tell myself, anyway.
      - okmokmz 7y ago
        Also interesting how many people want a "discussion" as long as it falls exactly in line with their opinion and if not they'll downvote all of your comments without actually replying or making any points. Ycombinator is becoming more of a redditesque echo chamber daily
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        I think, really, everyone on HN is pro-authoritarian, or they would go elsewhere and not submit to downvoting and the karma system in general.
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      If so, that's an argument I don't necessarily agree with, in either case. Yep, these ideas were as controversial in the day of Socrates as they were in the day of Voltaire and, for that matter, Barry Goldwater ("Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.") So: no, to answer gamegod's original question, the argument is not going to "die now." S/he is hardly the first or the last to try to wish it away, but that's not going to happen.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- okmokmz 7y ago
  It is a concern. You either haven't read the literature, or have completely failed to understand it. As the author stated, the effective method of combating hate speech is with more speech and discussion, rather than reflexively trying to ban it out of fear, anger, and ignorance. Wanting to ban it is a common reaction from those who don't truly understand the implications of censorship, but the ACLU, EFF, many respected academics, authors, journalists, and more do not support government censorship for that reason as well as many others. As with most issues, critical thinking is the missing factor that differentiates those who think "BAN IT, MAKE IT ILLEGAL, ARREST THEM" is always the answer vs actual solving the root of the problem
  - krapp 7y ago
    >You either haven't read the literature, or have completely failed to understand it. So I'm either ignorant or stupid, got it. >rather than reflexively trying to ban it out of fear, anger, and ignorance Anyone who wants to ban any form of speech is only reflexively acting out of fear, anger and ignorance. No other possible motive. Got it. >As with most issues, critical thinking is the missing factor that differentiates those who think "BAN IT, MAKE IT ILLEGAL, ARREST THEM" is always the answer vs actual solving the root of the problem Ignorant or stupid, fearful, angry, hysterically screaming like children, and incapable of critical thought. Got it. An ironclad defense of freedom of speech if ever there was one...
    - okmokmz 7y ago
      The truth hurts, censorship is almost entirely based on anger, fear, ignorance, and misunderstanding. Your comment is so full of fallacies it isn't even worth a reply. I've actually provided sources, and discussion points. You haven't posted any sources, evidence, or arguments beyond: hate speech bad, censorship good. Go ahead and post some pro-censorship sources from any respected author (Mao, Putin, and Mussolini don't count)
      - krapp 7y ago
        >Your comment is so full of fallacies it isn't even worth a reply. And yet here you are. >I've actually provided sources, and discussion points. You provided a book review. For the sake of civility I'm going to assume you've actually read the book. But since you mentioned it, here are some articles [0,1] claiming that deplatforming actually does work to prevent the spread of hate speech[0] and of course the inevitable HN thread[2]. I actually do sympathize with the free speech position, I just don't believe that unfettered free speech is particularly effective at combating extremism. The web is saturated with arguments against hate speech, fake news and bullshit, yet all of it flourishes, and they flourish most strongly on platforms that censor the least. I haven't actually seen a credible defense of the premise that the government being able to censor hate speech is worse than the effect of unchecked hate speech itself, that seems to be taken for granted by free speech advocates, it's one of those things you're not allowed to question. But you're clearly triggered so I won't bother to continue. [0]https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-ba... [1]https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/8/8/20759995/8chan-deplatforming-extremism-white-house-censorship https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/8/8/20759995/8chan-d... [2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18285832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18285832

krapp 7y ago

Somehow it's always a concern that governments might abuse hate speech laws to "silence dissenting ideas, unpopular speakers, and disempowered groups," but it's never a concern that the purpose of hate speech is to do exactly that.

CamperBob2 7y ago
The difference is that the people (and corporations) only have words, while the government has guns. I don't know what they're teaching kids in history classes these days, but it isn't history.
- krapp 7y ago
  > The difference is that the people (and corporations) only have words, while the government has guns. Well, no. The people have guns too, at least in the US - the extremists certainly do as the recent trend of mass shootings can attest, and the words of extremists are intended to lead to violent action, not simply be debated on internet forums and turned into memes. And the government has speech. At best you could argue that the defense of absolute free speech is implicitly a defense of extremism and of extremist violence as a necessary lesser evil compared to censorship in any form. A similar argument is sometimes made regarding mass shootings when defending the Second Amendment - that popular gun violence is a price Americans should be willing (even grateful) to pay for the liberty guns theoretically provide. If so, that's an argument I don't necessarily agree with, in either case.
  - okmokmz 7y ago
    It's both incredible and frightening how many pro-authoritarians there are on this site
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      They're just young, is all. That's what I tell myself, anyway.
    - okmokmz 7y ago
      Also interesting how many people want a "discussion" as long as it falls exactly in line with their opinion and if not they'll downvote all of your comments without actually replying or making any points. Ycombinator is becoming more of a redditesque echo chamber daily
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      I think, really, everyone on HN is pro-authoritarian, or they would go elsewhere and not submit to downvoting and the karma system in general.
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    If so, that's an argument I don't necessarily agree with, in either case. Yep, these ideas were as controversial in the day of Socrates as they were in the day of Voltaire and, for that matter, Barry Goldwater ("Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.") So: no, to answer gamegod's original question, the argument is not going to "die now." S/he is hardly the first or the last to try to wish it away, but that's not going to happen.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
okmokmz 7y ago
It is a concern. You either haven't read the literature, or have completely failed to understand it. As the author stated, the effective method of combating hate speech is with more speech and discussion, rather than reflexively trying to ban it out of fear, anger, and ignorance. Wanting to ban it is a common reaction from those who don't truly understand the implications of censorship, but the ACLU, EFF, many respected academics, authors, journalists, and more do not support government censorship for that reason as well as many others. As with most issues, critical thinking is the missing factor that differentiates those who think "BAN IT, MAKE IT ILLEGAL, ARREST THEM" is always the answer vs actual solving the root of the problem
- krapp 7y ago
  >You either haven't read the literature, or have completely failed to understand it. So I'm either ignorant or stupid, got it. >rather than reflexively trying to ban it out of fear, anger, and ignorance Anyone who wants to ban any form of speech is only reflexively acting out of fear, anger and ignorance. No other possible motive. Got it. >As with most issues, critical thinking is the missing factor that differentiates those who think "BAN IT, MAKE IT ILLEGAL, ARREST THEM" is always the answer vs actual solving the root of the problem Ignorant or stupid, fearful, angry, hysterically screaming like children, and incapable of critical thought. Got it. An ironclad defense of freedom of speech if ever there was one...
  - okmokmz 7y ago
    The truth hurts, censorship is almost entirely based on anger, fear, ignorance, and misunderstanding. Your comment is so full of fallacies it isn't even worth a reply. I've actually provided sources, and discussion points. You haven't posted any sources, evidence, or arguments beyond: hate speech bad, censorship good. Go ahead and post some pro-censorship sources from any respected author (Mao, Putin, and Mussolini don't count)
    - krapp 7y ago
      >Your comment is so full of fallacies it isn't even worth a reply. And yet here you are. >I've actually provided sources, and discussion points. You provided a book review. For the sake of civility I'm going to assume you've actually read the book. But since you mentioned it, here are some articles [0,1] claiming that deplatforming actually does work to prevent the spread of hate speech[0] and of course the inevitable HN thread[2]. I actually do sympathize with the free speech position, I just don't believe that unfettered free speech is particularly effective at combating extremism. The web is saturated with arguments against hate speech, fake news and bullshit, yet all of it flourishes, and they flourish most strongly on platforms that censor the least. I haven't actually seen a credible defense of the premise that the government being able to censor hate speech is worse than the effect of unchecked hate speech itself, that seems to be taken for granted by free speech advocates, it's one of those things you're not allowed to question. But you're clearly triggered so I won't bother to continue. [0]https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-ba... [1]https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/8/8/20759995/8chan-deplatforming-extremism-white-house-censorship https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/8/8/20759995/8chan-d... [2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18285832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18285832