6 ms·

> If you want to object to censorship, great. But if you do, you need to do it as a general principle Why? I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "Blizzard,

by clucas 7y ago

> If you want to object to censorship, great. But if you do, you need to do it as a general principle Why? I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "Blizzard, you should ban people who make racist statements from your tournaments, but you should allow people whose who voice support for pro-democracy protestors to compete. And if you decide not to do that, I won't watch your tourneys or buy your games." Are you saying that I am a hypocrite for liking the contents of some speech but not others, and acting on that preference? Note that no one is saying the government should use its monopoly on force to ban speech - we are talking about private action.

leshow 7y ago
> Are you saying that I am a hypocrite for liking the contents of some speech but not others Not OP, but I believe they are talking about objecting to censorship ostensibly because of freedom of speech, and then not objecting to other censorship. If you don't believe in freedom of speech then there is no issue, if you do, you can object to the content of someone's speech, but not their right to express it. That is, if you care about not being a hypocrite.
- katzenjam 7y ago
  You've created a false dichotomy between an absolute right to free speech and absolute disregard for free speech. There's a third possibility, which is to believe that freedom of speech is an important right, but not an absolute right that trumps all others. One version of this belief says that freedom of speech is useful to society because it allows dissenting views to be resolved through debate rather than violent conflict. It would be reasonable to argue that speech that incites or promotes violent conflict doesn't qualify for protection on these grounds. Another version of this belief says that freedom of speech is just, because society should only intrude on an individual's freedom (e.g. by preventing them from speaking) when the exercise of that freedom threatens another individual's freedom. Again, speech that incites or promotes intruding on other people's freedom, to an extent greater than the intrusion caused by preventing the speech, could reasonably be excluded from protection on these grounds. It's obvious how either of these beliefs about free speech would be compatible with censoring speech that promotes violence or the overthrow of democracy, while at the same time being compatible with objecting to the censorship of other speech. But here's where it gets interesting for me. From the point of view of the Chinese Communist Party, the demonstrators in Hong Kong are threatening the stability of a society that within living memory has seen periods of instability that killed millions. From their point of view, the demonstrators are acting violently and putting millions of lives at risk. I wouldn't personally argue that speaking out in favour of the demonstrators is promoting violence. But the line is less clear than I'd like.
  - leshow 7y ago
    There is no false dichotomy, just the definitions of words meaning things. Look up the definition of freedom of speech: "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint."
    - katzenjam 7y ago
      https://www.dictionary.com/browse/freedom-of-speech https://www.dictionary.com/browse/freedom-of-speech "the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc."
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  You can believe that censorship in general is appropriate at times, and that there are inappropriate ways to use it. Censoring racists and serial harassers isn't the same as censoring pro-democracy activists.
  - leshow 7y ago
    If you believe in some kind of censorship, that's great, we probably agree on a lot. You just can't take that position and believe in freedom of speech. If you believe in freedom of speech you object to the content of speech you find objectionable, not the right to say it.
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      This is an extremely naive view of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not unlimited. Your freedom of speech does not supercede my right to not have to constantly put up with your toxic bullshit on my platform. Your freedom of speech also does not create in me an obligation to give you a megaphone. My freedom of speech, however, gives me the prerogative and the moral duty to take back my megaphone if I find you to be using it to hurt people.
      - leshow 7y ago
        > This is an extremely naive view of freedom of speech. It's just a definition, I'm not presenting any opinions. The first definition you can find on Google says: "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint." If you are "for" any kind of censorship, even of hateful views, then you can't be also for freedom of speech, by definition. > ..your toxic bullshit on my platform. I hope you don't feel I've been 'toxic', I thought we were having a friendly discussion. > Your freedom of speech also does not create in me an obligation to give you a megaphone. I didn't say that it did. I didn't say a lot of the things you're commenting on. I just said that if you care about being consistent and not hypocritical, you can't claim to be for certain kinds of censorship and also freedom of speech.
        7y ago

by clucas 7y ago

leshow 7y ago

> Are you saying that I am a hypocrite for liking the contents of some speech but not others Not OP, but I believe they are talking about objecting to censorship ostensibly because of freedom of speech, and then not objecting to other censorship. If you don't believe in freedom of speech then there is no issue, if you do, you can object to the content of someone's speech, but not their right to express it. That is, if you care about not being a hypocrite.

katzenjam 7y ago
You've created a false dichotomy between an absolute right to free speech and absolute disregard for free speech. There's a third possibility, which is to believe that freedom of speech is an important right, but not an absolute right that trumps all others. One version of this belief says that freedom of speech is useful to society because it allows dissenting views to be resolved through debate rather than violent conflict. It would be reasonable to argue that speech that incites or promotes violent conflict doesn't qualify for protection on these grounds. Another version of this belief says that freedom of speech is just, because society should only intrude on an individual's freedom (e.g. by preventing them from speaking) when the exercise of that freedom threatens another individual's freedom. Again, speech that incites or promotes intruding on other people's freedom, to an extent greater than the intrusion caused by preventing the speech, could reasonably be excluded from protection on these grounds. It's obvious how either of these beliefs about free speech would be compatible with censoring speech that promotes violence or the overthrow of democracy, while at the same time being compatible with objecting to the censorship of other speech. But here's where it gets interesting for me. From the point of view of the Chinese Communist Party, the demonstrators in Hong Kong are threatening the stability of a society that within living memory has seen periods of instability that killed millions. From their point of view, the demonstrators are acting violently and putting millions of lives at risk. I wouldn't personally argue that speaking out in favour of the demonstrators is promoting violence. But the line is less clear than I'd like.
- leshow 7y ago
  There is no false dichotomy, just the definitions of words meaning things. Look up the definition of freedom of speech: "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint."
  - katzenjam 7y ago
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/freedom-of-speech https://www.dictionary.com/browse/freedom-of-speech "the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc."
hannasanarion 7y ago
You can believe that censorship in general is appropriate at times, and that there are inappropriate ways to use it. Censoring racists and serial harassers isn't the same as censoring pro-democracy activists.
- leshow 7y ago
  If you believe in some kind of censorship, that's great, we probably agree on a lot. You just can't take that position and believe in freedom of speech. If you believe in freedom of speech you object to the content of speech you find objectionable, not the right to say it.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    This is an extremely naive view of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not unlimited. Your freedom of speech does not supercede my right to not have to constantly put up with your toxic bullshit on my platform. Your freedom of speech also does not create in me an obligation to give you a megaphone. My freedom of speech, however, gives me the prerogative and the moral duty to take back my megaphone if I find you to be using it to hurt people.
    - leshow 7y ago
      > This is an extremely naive view of freedom of speech. It's just a definition, I'm not presenting any opinions. The first definition you can find on Google says: "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint." If you are "for" any kind of censorship, even of hateful views, then you can't be also for freedom of speech, by definition. > ..your toxic bullshit on my platform. I hope you don't feel I've been 'toxic', I thought we were having a friendly discussion. > Your freedom of speech also does not create in me an obligation to give you a megaphone. I didn't say that it did. I didn't say a lot of the things you're commenting on. I just said that if you care about being consistent and not hypocritical, you can't claim to be for certain kinds of censorship and also freedom of speech.
      - 7y ago