3 ms·

I see this often (including an accompanying XKCD cartoon[1]) and don't agree with it. It may be a good summary of the first amendment in the US constitution but

by firasd 7y ago

I see this often (including an accompanying XKCD cartoon[1]) and don't agree with it. It may be a good summary of the first amendment in the US constitution but "judicial imprisonment" doesn't define the boundaries of free speech issues. Otherwise there wouldn't be things like whistleblower laws protecting some speakers. Does China putting pressure on the NBA to stop players from saying pro-Hong-Kong-protests things not fall under the gambit of censorship/free speech issues as far as you're concerned? (Heck, even in terms of the US constitution, public institutions banning some symbols or items have been overruled based on first amendment grounds. So just banning a student from wearing a certain type of t-shirt is also a free speech issue.) 1) https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

dredmorbius 7y ago
Last I checked, China are literally a government. That said, I find weaknesses across the board with conventional arguments and talking points concerning speech. It really is complicated. And there is considerable previous thought, precedent, and philosophy that's been forgotten or ignored.
- firasd 7y ago
  China is not threatening to arrest and try basketball players in the US. Their main threat is loss of financial income to the NBA.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Among the conventional talking points that's flawed. NBA's interest in China is at least $500 million and may clear $1 billion. That's consequence-inducing. https://www.si.com/nba/2019/10/07/daryl-morey-rockets-china-hong-kong-basketball https://www.si.com/nba/2019/10/07/daryl-morey-rockets-china-...
    - firasd 7y ago
      Seems like you and the article agree with me here (the consequences are financial, not imprisonment for the average NBA player.) And if financial consequences count as a free speech issue to you, then you agree with me that free speech isn't just about judicial arrest.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        Yes, I agree with you that what is effectively financial blackmail or coercion matters. It's among the most accessible and effective tools historically. Point remains that as a government China has considerable means and impunity at its disposal. The fact that numerous non-state actors also do is a key extension of free-speech concerns I find poorly addressed. The NBA as a media platform (among its chief roles) is an example. FAANG similarly. There are numerous others.
  - emmelaich 7y ago
    They tried to get Morey sacked. There's lot's of soft political pressure they can apply, well short of arresting anyone but not to be taken lightly.

by firasd 7y ago

dredmorbius 7y ago

Last I checked, China are literally a government. That said, I find weaknesses across the board with conventional arguments and talking points concerning speech. It really is complicated. And there is considerable previous thought, precedent, and philosophy that's been forgotten or ignored.

firasd 7y ago
China is not threatening to arrest and try basketball players in the US. Their main threat is loss of financial income to the NBA.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Among the conventional talking points that's flawed. NBA's interest in China is at least $500 million and may clear $1 billion. That's consequence-inducing. https://www.si.com/nba/2019/10/07/daryl-morey-rockets-china-hong-kong-basketball https://www.si.com/nba/2019/10/07/daryl-morey-rockets-china-...
  - firasd 7y ago
    Seems like you and the article agree with me here (the consequences are financial, not imprisonment for the average NBA player.) And if financial consequences count as a free speech issue to you, then you agree with me that free speech isn't just about judicial arrest.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Yes, I agree with you that what is effectively financial blackmail or coercion matters. It's among the most accessible and effective tools historically. Point remains that as a government China has considerable means and impunity at its disposal. The fact that numerous non-state actors also do is a key extension of free-speech concerns I find poorly addressed. The NBA as a media platform (among its chief roles) is an example. FAANG similarly. There are numerous others.
- emmelaich 7y ago
  They tried to get Morey sacked. There's lot's of soft political pressure they can apply, well short of arresting anyone but not to be taken lightly.