3 ms·

My freedom of association trumps your freedom of speech. If people don't want to associate with a person who says awful things, it's not a violation of their f

by fooey 7y ago

My freedom of association trumps your freedom of speech. If people don't want to associate with a person who says awful things, it's not a violation of their freedom of speech to disassociate with them.

rjf72 7y ago
If somebody doesn't want to associate with somebody I think that's of course 100% fine, even if in response to nothing more than what somebody said. But if somebody chooses not to associate with somebody because of an online mob [1] - that's not so okay. Granted some line does have to be drawn here. I think it's great that social media was able to 'touch' an 'untouchable' like Weinstein that would have been impossible without the protection of a mob. But now that we've unleashed the beast, it's starting to gnaw at anything it can find. And Stallman's far from an innocent, but he's being depersoned here for some relatively tepid comments. [1] - This event was started by somebody sending a copy of a discussion on a private mailing list to a third party. This third party then took social media and shared it. It fell flat, except for a handful of 'Twitter activists'. They then started spamming it off to their followers and media outlet they could find. Some of the clickiest baitiest institutions took it up along with some completely unrelated Twitter personalities. It all spun what were relatively innocuous comments into limited context outrage bait and that then caught the outrage train spot on.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
But my freedom of speech should trump your freedom to spin up angry Internet mobs that proceed to turn my words into lies that they use to rip my life apart. Time will come there will be regulations aiming to fix that, because slander laws apparently aren't enough. And then people will come out and talk about freedom of speech, but the only answer will be, "you had it, and you misused it, and almost ripped the society apart".
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > But my freedom of speech should trump your freedom to spin up angry Internet mobs that proceed to turn my words into lies that they use to rip my life apart. Your freedom of speech doesn't trump anyone else's freedom of speech. If someone is knowingly or recklessly spreading harmful lies, you have recourse for that, but freedom of speech includes freedom of angry speech, and outside of harmful knowing and reckless lies, it included the freedom to be wrong in your speech.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Maybe you read different words from the rest of us, but RMS pretty much dug his own grave on this one.
noobermin 7y ago
There has to be a give and take, otherwise this logic can justify many things we've decided is wrong. Things for example like firing someone trying to unionize or for being black or a woman. There is a difference between freedom of association for an individual and freedom of association between a company/organization and its employees or members and that is part of why.
- drewgross 7y ago
  We have a give and take, it's called a "protected class". It lists reasons you can't fire people and includes reasons like being black or being a woman. We can update the laws to protect people in other classes as well, but I don't see anyone clamoring to make "defenders of pedophiles" or "creeps who alienate their coworkers" a protected class.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Yeah, because that would solve problems. Honestly, the same people out for blood would be church types in the 18th century. And by the mail in question I sincerely question the competence of the MIT in general, because Stallman was actually correct.

by fooey 7y ago

rjf72 7y ago

If somebody doesn't want to associate with somebody I think that's of course 100% fine, even if in response to nothing more than what somebody said. But if somebody chooses not to associate with somebody because of an online mob [1] - that's not so okay. Granted some line does have to be drawn here. I think it's great that social media was able to 'touch' an 'untouchable' like Weinstein that would have been impossible without the protection of a mob. But now that we've unleashed the beast, it's starting to gnaw at anything it can find. And Stallman's far from an innocent, but he's being depersoned here for some relatively tepid comments. [1] - This event was started by somebody sending a copy of a discussion on a private mailing list to a third party. This third party then took social media and shared it. It fell flat, except for a handful of 'Twitter activists'. They then started spamming it off to their followers and media outlet they could find. Some of the clickiest baitiest institutions took it up along with some completely unrelated Twitter personalities. It all spun what were relatively innocuous comments into limited context outrage bait and that then caught the outrage train spot on.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

But my freedom of speech should trump your freedom to spin up angry Internet mobs that proceed to turn my words into lies that they use to rip my life apart. Time will come there will be regulations aiming to fix that, because slander laws apparently aren't enough. And then people will come out and talk about freedom of speech, but the only answer will be, "you had it, and you misused it, and almost ripped the society apart".

dragonwriter 7y ago
> But my freedom of speech should trump your freedom to spin up angry Internet mobs that proceed to turn my words into lies that they use to rip my life apart. Your freedom of speech doesn't trump anyone else's freedom of speech. If someone is knowingly or recklessly spreading harmful lies, you have recourse for that, but freedom of speech includes freedom of angry speech, and outside of harmful knowing and reckless lies, it included the freedom to be wrong in your speech.
shadowgovt 7y ago
Maybe you read different words from the rest of us, but RMS pretty much dug his own grave on this one.

noobermin 7y ago

There has to be a give and take, otherwise this logic can justify many things we've decided is wrong. Things for example like firing someone trying to unionize or for being black or a woman. There is a difference between freedom of association for an individual and freedom of association between a company/organization and its employees or members and that is part of why.

drewgross 7y ago
We have a give and take, it's called a "protected class". It lists reasons you can't fire people and includes reasons like being black or being a woman. We can update the laws to protect people in other classes as well, but I don't see anyone clamoring to make "defenders of pedophiles" or "creeps who alienate their coworkers" a protected class.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Yeah, because that would solve problems. Honestly, the same people out for blood would be church types in the 18th century. And by the mail in question I sincerely question the competence of the MIT in general, because Stallman was actually correct.