7 ms·

> in all the hotly debated discussions I had, I found anything of value in the person being censored I think history is a better guide because we can more clea

by rmtech 7y ago

> in all the hotly debated discussions I had, I found anything of value in the person being censored I think history is a better guide because we can more clearly see what was valuable. Things that were censored in the past: * Heliocentricism * Evolution, esp of humans from other apes * Capitalism/market economics (in socialist states) * Currently mainstream views about biology (e.g. Lysenkoism) Free speech is a "hits" business: most of the value comes from a few incredibly valuable ideas that someone powerful is trying to censor. The damage done to Russia and China under communism easily exceeds all the extra "smoothness" that they got out of censoring those who disagreed with them.

Iv 7y ago
Yes, which of these views would have been shut down by a policy forbidding hate speech? I am now mostly worried about state censorship, which do remove things like the items you list. Censoring hate speech and people who promote exclusion of minorities? I have not a single example of it being detrimental to a healthy debate.
- rmtech 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure that all of those views were censored because they were immoral according to the dominant ideology of the day, and in every case it would have been argued that this time the censorship was good because the dominant ideology was good, whereas previous instances of censorship were bad. How would someone in the USSR know that censorship of opponents of Lysenkoism was bad? As far as they were concerned, the people being censored were evil counter-revolutionaries of whom nothing good could come.
  - hunter2_ 7y ago
    Wouldn't "only censor/condemn hate that's tied to a protected class" be a decent test? Where protected class is defined as the stuff people cannot change about themselves. This test seems quite timeless and orthogonal to the problematic "immoral."
    - NhanH 7y ago
      White male is decidedly a protected class with that definition. Disclaimer: I am Asian and like to point out irony, don't lynch me.
      - Iv 7y ago
        Yes and? Hate speech against white male would be brought down as well.
        Fellshard 7y ago
        Let's dive into that: here are tweets made by the accusers leading to Linux Foundation's judgment. https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/dtnamp/linux_foundation_revokes_attendees_registration/f6xvd46/ https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/dtnamp/linux_foundat...
        Iv 7y ago
        Well, have clear rules, clear penalties and due process, saying crap about any skin color is hate speech. You have no shortage of that in the US right now. That's not my country and not much of my business but if half of your country is fine using its free speech defending KKK apologists and the other half only meets that with apathy, don't be surprised if some Black Panthers come back to life and use their own free speech fighting back. And maybe I am less shocked by this affair because in many European cities, wearing a MAGA hat would be seen pretty close as wearing nazi insignia. Under it, lies either someone very racist or someone very confused. And either way probably someone that is not going to have a constructive participation. So yeah, probably lack of clear rules, lack of due process, I hope that's the takeaway they'll get from it. Arbitrary enforcement of vague rules is authoritarianism, but you can have clear rules and due process to limit hate speech. It has been done successfully in several places.
        Fellshard 7y ago
        I agree with having clear standards. I think the proportions in the US are not quite as dire as you portray.
  - Iv 7y ago
    > and in every case it would have been argued that this time the censorship was good because the dominant ideology was good, whereas previous instances of censorship were bad. The idea of general progress is a fairly recent one. At the times of Galileo trials, many people would have proclaimed with pride that they were following the pure and unalterable criterion of the glorious classics of antiquities. Notwithstanding that, our modern understanding of the evils of censorship is not just based on a shift in morality, it is based on a reasoning on the nature of debate, science, uncovering of truth and the importance of controversy. There are places where, if you have a good argument, one can argue about the differences between genders, ethnicities, religions (<- God knows I waste so much time on that subject) or sexual orientation. One is allowed to propose an argumented view at odd with the majority. Once that is preserved, I do not see what discussion of value is suppressed by suppressing hate speech.
    - darkforest1336 7y ago
      Using Galileo as an example isn't very useful since even though it turns out that he was right, at the time he didn't actually have real proof so the church was right to tell him not to publish his opinion since he didn't have adequate evidence for his position. The problem the church had with him wasn't that they thought that the sun had to orbit the Earth, but that he wouldn't stop trying to make people use his method without actual proof.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- flingo 7y ago
  But who decides which opinions are possible to exclude without being detrimental? Turtles, all the way down!
tripzilch 7y ago
None of these examples are hate speech. There is a formal legal definition of hate speech in the countries where these laws apply and it would be nice if people arguing against those laws would accept that, instead of continuously conflating things that are not hate speech.

by rmtech 7y ago

Iv 7y ago

Yes, which of these views would have been shut down by a policy forbidding hate speech? I am now mostly worried about state censorship, which do remove things like the items you list. Censoring hate speech and people who promote exclusion of minorities? I have not a single example of it being detrimental to a healthy debate.

rmtech 7y ago
I'm pretty sure that all of those views were censored because they were immoral according to the dominant ideology of the day, and in every case it would have been argued that this time the censorship was good because the dominant ideology was good, whereas previous instances of censorship were bad. How would someone in the USSR know that censorship of opponents of Lysenkoism was bad? As far as they were concerned, the people being censored were evil counter-revolutionaries of whom nothing good could come.
- hunter2_ 7y ago
  Wouldn't "only censor/condemn hate that's tied to a protected class" be a decent test? Where protected class is defined as the stuff people cannot change about themselves. This test seems quite timeless and orthogonal to the problematic "immoral."
  - NhanH 7y ago
    White male is decidedly a protected class with that definition. Disclaimer: I am Asian and like to point out irony, don't lynch me.
    - Iv 7y ago
      Yes and? Hate speech against white male would be brought down as well.
      - Fellshard 7y ago
        Let's dive into that: here are tweets made by the accusers leading to Linux Foundation's judgment. https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/dtnamp/linux_foundation_revokes_attendees_registration/f6xvd46/ https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/dtnamp/linux_foundat...
        Iv 7y ago
        Well, have clear rules, clear penalties and due process, saying crap about any skin color is hate speech. You have no shortage of that in the US right now. That's not my country and not much of my business but if half of your country is fine using its free speech defending KKK apologists and the other half only meets that with apathy, don't be surprised if some Black Panthers come back to life and use their own free speech fighting back. And maybe I am less shocked by this affair because in many European cities, wearing a MAGA hat would be seen pretty close as wearing nazi insignia. Under it, lies either someone very racist or someone very confused. And either way probably someone that is not going to have a constructive participation. So yeah, probably lack of clear rules, lack of due process, I hope that's the takeaway they'll get from it. Arbitrary enforcement of vague rules is authoritarianism, but you can have clear rules and due process to limit hate speech. It has been done successfully in several places.
        Fellshard 7y ago
        I agree with having clear standards. I think the proportions in the US are not quite as dire as you portray.
- Iv 7y ago
  > and in every case it would have been argued that this time the censorship was good because the dominant ideology was good, whereas previous instances of censorship were bad. The idea of general progress is a fairly recent one. At the times of Galileo trials, many people would have proclaimed with pride that they were following the pure and unalterable criterion of the glorious classics of antiquities. Notwithstanding that, our modern understanding of the evils of censorship is not just based on a shift in morality, it is based on a reasoning on the nature of debate, science, uncovering of truth and the importance of controversy. There are places where, if you have a good argument, one can argue about the differences between genders, ethnicities, religions (<- God knows I waste so much time on that subject) or sexual orientation. One is allowed to propose an argumented view at odd with the majority. Once that is preserved, I do not see what discussion of value is suppressed by suppressing hate speech.
  - darkforest1336 7y ago
    Using Galileo as an example isn't very useful since even though it turns out that he was right, at the time he didn't actually have real proof so the church was right to tell him not to publish his opinion since he didn't have adequate evidence for his position. The problem the church had with him wasn't that they thought that the sun had to orbit the Earth, but that he wouldn't stop trying to make people use his method without actual proof.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
flingo 7y ago
But who decides which opinions are possible to exclude without being detrimental? Turtles, all the way down!

tripzilch 7y ago

None of these examples are hate speech. There is a formal legal definition of hate speech in the countries where these laws apply and it would be nice if people arguing against those laws would accept that, instead of continuously conflating things that are not hate speech.