4 ms·

> I am not talking about removing people with different views, I am talking about removing people who promote hate speech. Who gets to decide what counts as ha

> I am not talking about removing people with different views, I am talking about removing people who promote hate speech. Who gets to decide what counts as hate speech? You? Why do you get to make that call and not somebody else? The distinction you're attempting to draw does not exist: you're talking about censoring people based on whether they agree with your perspective. Free speech for the purposes of saying only inoffensive things is not free speech.

Iv 7y ago
Hate speech has some fairly clear legal definitions in many places. It is speech that singles out negatively a group based on [make a list of criterion]. Typical list: gender, nationality, ethnicity, sex orientation, skin color, preferred text editor. Honestly, I have yet to find a minority that I find problematic to include to classify hate speech at a tech conference. I am super vocal about my hostility toward every religion, I just shut it up at tech conferences. And when I do talk about the religions I find stupid, I am not calling their supporters names. That's really that simple. > you're talking about censoring people based on whether they agree with your perspective. On inclusion of other people? Hell yeah. Except I am giving objective criterion to judge it. > Free speech for the purposes of saying only inoffensive things is not free speech. I agree with that sentiment. However, I see nothing of value in purely offensive speech. Once again, I am still waiting of a single example of hate speech that would be valuable to a discussion and that can't be replace by non-offensive one.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  Any time you give people a button labeled "make my opponent shut up", they're going to mash it all day regardless of the ostensible purpose of the button. Preventing someone attending a professional conference because he agrees with half the country on a controversial issue is simply unacceptable in a democracy regardless of what words you use to justify this behavior. Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say.
  - Iv 7y ago
    > Any time you give people a button labeled "make my opponent shut up", they're going to mash it all day regardless of the ostensible purpose of the button Bis repetita, that's why you don't have a button: you have a process. > Preventing someone attending a professional conference because he agrees with half the country on a controversial issue is simply unacceptable in a democracy regardless of what words you use to justify this behavior. Please don't refer to US as "the" country, some of us come from another country, maybe even a democracy with gasp different rules. And well, I agree it is certainly problematic, but the problem lies in the fact that half of your country defends hate speech. Which can be defined objectively, and has been by laws in my country (France). I used to be a fan of the first amendment, to believe in the slippery slope fallacy that it would lead to more violent censorship, that it would lead to the removal of controversial but worth content. I have yet to find a single example of that. > Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say. Dude, I know I am pretty cool, but why do you think you have to ask me? Where did I propose you send me an email before speaking? Or that I set rules myself? I am merely saying that hate speech is something that can be clearly defined, that it has been in a way actually enforced by tribunals in France, that it does not lead to censorship of worthwhile content and it is applied a posteriori, not a priori. Believe it or not, we manage to have a healthy democracy while still forbidding people from wearing nazi apparel (which is still illegal in France)
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      And this process is a kangaroo court, to all appearances, until they show the evidence by which they made their judgment.
    - concordDance 7y ago
      > And well, I agree it is certainly problematic, but the problem lies in the fact that half of your country defends hate speech What definition of hate speech are you using and what event does it apply to? On a related note, here's some statements that may or may not be hate speech: 1. Africans are stupid and criminal, we shouldn't let them into the country. 2. Transsexuals are crazy people. They need medicine, not coddling. 3. Muslims have evil beliefs and blow people up and I don't want them in my country. 4. Homos are unnatural, spreading disease and sickness. We need to keep our children away from them so they don't catch the gay. I've written all four to imply a large amount of ignorance and strong emotional motivations, but they are nonetheless a crude attempt to express a public policy and a reason for it. Should they be banned? Should they also be banned if written in the form of an eloquent 80 page paper with precise terminology, strong citations from numerous studies and polls and a grounding in commonly accepted principles in political science and ethics (assume such a thing were possible)?
- lliamander 7y ago
  > Once again, I am still waiting of a single example of hate speech that would be valuable to a discussion and that can't be replace by non-offensive one. So, you want people to make some statements that, depending upon their country of origin, might result in criminal or social penalties (including losing their job) because if the those statements were ever tied back to them it might be seen as endorsing "hate speech"? You realize how freaking insane that is, right? You claim to be inviting argument, and yet you endorse a system which would penalize people for accepting that invitation. Listen, if you really need an example or two of meaningful ideas that might qualify, I'll provide. But it ultimately doesn't matter whether you consider them a valuable contribution to the discussion, what matters is whether other people have the right express what matters to them. If they don't, then the root of these problems can never be addressed.
  - Natanael_L 7y ago
    So you would let yourself be treated by a doctor that is open with wanting people like you to die? You want police that have stated they hate people like you? You'd trust a cleaner that despise you? I will let you state your opinion, but you don't get to demand immunity from consequences. Some opinions are genuinely indefensible.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      > I will let you state your opinion, but you don't get to demand immunity from consequences. Oh, you'll let me? How magnanimous. How about: * Nobody asked you. * Who do you think you are that I would need your permission? * I wasn't asking permission. I was asking for a indication of interest in genuine conversation. Something you clearly lack. * What opinions I hold regarding controversial issues are my own. What I was offering was examples of (potentially) prohibited things some people believe that are more nuanced than the cartoon bigotry.
      - Natanael_L 7y ago
        * whatever. Didn't say I consider myself as some benevolent dictator. It just means it doesn't seem bad enough on its own to require proactive intervention. * see above * your misinterpretation of my comment almost seems deliberate, so "no u" * while they surely are your own, you don't get to demand that other people must ignore their own concerns if they belive your opinions make you untrustworthy or dangerous to them. I am allowed to base my own opinions about you on what opinions you say that you have. And I am allowed to refuse to associate with you. If you openly tell people that you want people like me dead, I will never let you do any job for me where my life might be at risk (like medical jobs or similar). You don't get to demand undeserved trust.
Natanael_L 7y ago
Why is this question even being asked? The answer is everybody, in their own respective spaces. It's not me but not others. It's me AND all others. If I run a bar, I get to kick out customers who voice despicable opinions. Exact same thing applies if I run a shop, a web forum, or a conference for that matter. All of us gets to kick out people who behave badly from our own private spaces, nothing obligates me to tolerate abuse. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It does not mean the right to an audience. It means you get to say your opinion without the government interfering - and then other people get to decide how to react to it. Freedom of speech without the right to react and respond to what others say would a horrible idea. Partially because it entirely invalidates the reason for why speech is supposed to be free. If you can't change things based on what you learned from what you heard, why even bother letting people speak? If this means somebody else bans me from their space for being offensive, then so be it.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  > If this means somebody else bans me from their space for being offensive, then so be it. I suspect that if I banned the followers of a religion I found "offensive" from an establishment I owned, you'd be writing a very different post. The problem with the free association argument from censorship proponents is that they've never consistent about it. They're happy to talk up the rights of institutions to exclude right up until the moment that they themselves are excluded. A functioning society is one in which you don't put your livelihood at risk by agreeing with 50% of the population on a matter of public importance. Violating this principle is tyranny, and I don't care what elaborate justifications anyone comes up with to explain it away. You don't get to try to win political fights by personally ruining regular people on the other side.
  - Natanael_L 7y ago
    Not really. It would be quite illegal in most places, sure, but I simply wouldn't want to go there in the first place if you banned people like me. Of course that becomes a problem is a large part of society does the same. Which is why such laws against the exists. But I wouldn't be the one pursuing this. Especially for online spaces. There's just too many options for it to be reasonable to be pissed about getting banned from just one or a few places. It's always possible to create your own online space, if necessary. And right to speech isn't a right to an audience. You get to speak your mind, but people will only listen if they want to. But keep in mind that there's a bet good reason for why most antidiscrimination laws deliberately limit the contexts in which they're applicable and what groups they protect. Very few jurisdictions protect opinions on their own. I don't care if an antivaxxers works at a bakery. I'd be pissed if I hear one worked as a nurse at a hospital I go to, and that they refuse to carry out vaccinations. Some opinions are dangerous when held in certain contexts, and requires a reaction. This is simply about safety and protecting society. You can hold an opinion that terrible opinion elsewhere, where you don't hurt people. At some point, you have to understand that the person putting their livelihood at risk is the person themselves, and that firing them is just as justified as firing a drunkard from a machine shop.

Iv 7y ago

Hate speech has some fairly clear legal definitions in many places. It is speech that singles out negatively a group based on [make a list of criterion]. Typical list: gender, nationality, ethnicity, sex orientation, skin color, preferred text editor. Honestly, I have yet to find a minority that I find problematic to include to classify hate speech at a tech conference. I am super vocal about my hostility toward every religion, I just shut it up at tech conferences. And when I do talk about the religions I find stupid, I am not calling their supporters names. That's really that simple. > you're talking about censoring people based on whether they agree with your perspective. On inclusion of other people? Hell yeah. Except I am giving objective criterion to judge it. > Free speech for the purposes of saying only inoffensive things is not free speech. I agree with that sentiment. However, I see nothing of value in purely offensive speech. Once again, I am still waiting of a single example of hate speech that would be valuable to a discussion and that can't be replace by non-offensive one.

quotemstr 7y ago
Any time you give people a button labeled "make my opponent shut up", they're going to mash it all day regardless of the ostensible purpose of the button. Preventing someone attending a professional conference because he agrees with half the country on a controversial issue is simply unacceptable in a democracy regardless of what words you use to justify this behavior. Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say.
- Iv 7y ago
  > Any time you give people a button labeled "make my opponent shut up", they're going to mash it all day regardless of the ostensible purpose of the button Bis repetita, that's why you don't have a button: you have a process. > Preventing someone attending a professional conference because he agrees with half the country on a controversial issue is simply unacceptable in a democracy regardless of what words you use to justify this behavior. Please don't refer to US as "the" country, some of us come from another country, maybe even a democracy with gasp different rules. And well, I agree it is certainly problematic, but the problem lies in the fact that half of your country defends hate speech. Which can be defined objectively, and has been by laws in my country (France). I used to be a fan of the first amendment, to believe in the slippery slope fallacy that it would lead to more violent censorship, that it would lead to the removal of controversial but worth content. I have yet to find a single example of that. > Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say. Dude, I know I am pretty cool, but why do you think you have to ask me? Where did I propose you send me an email before speaking? Or that I set rules myself? I am merely saying that hate speech is something that can be clearly defined, that it has been in a way actually enforced by tribunals in France, that it does not lead to censorship of worthwhile content and it is applied a posteriori, not a priori. Believe it or not, we manage to have a healthy democracy while still forbidding people from wearing nazi apparel (which is still illegal in France)
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    And this process is a kangaroo court, to all appearances, until they show the evidence by which they made their judgment.
  - concordDance 7y ago
    > And well, I agree it is certainly problematic, but the problem lies in the fact that half of your country defends hate speech What definition of hate speech are you using and what event does it apply to? On a related note, here's some statements that may or may not be hate speech: 1. Africans are stupid and criminal, we shouldn't let them into the country. 2. Transsexuals are crazy people. They need medicine, not coddling. 3. Muslims have evil beliefs and blow people up and I don't want them in my country. 4. Homos are unnatural, spreading disease and sickness. We need to keep our children away from them so they don't catch the gay. I've written all four to imply a large amount of ignorance and strong emotional motivations, but they are nonetheless a crude attempt to express a public policy and a reason for it. Should they be banned? Should they also be banned if written in the form of an eloquent 80 page paper with precise terminology, strong citations from numerous studies and polls and a grounding in commonly accepted principles in political science and ethics (assume such a thing were possible)?
lliamander 7y ago
> Once again, I am still waiting of a single example of hate speech that would be valuable to a discussion and that can't be replace by non-offensive one. So, you want people to make some statements that, depending upon their country of origin, might result in criminal or social penalties (including losing their job) because if the those statements were ever tied back to them it might be seen as endorsing "hate speech"? You realize how freaking insane that is, right? You claim to be inviting argument, and yet you endorse a system which would penalize people for accepting that invitation. Listen, if you really need an example or two of meaningful ideas that might qualify, I'll provide. But it ultimately doesn't matter whether you consider them a valuable contribution to the discussion, what matters is whether other people have the right express what matters to them. If they don't, then the root of these problems can never be addressed.
- Natanael_L 7y ago
  So you would let yourself be treated by a doctor that is open with wanting people like you to die? You want police that have stated they hate people like you? You'd trust a cleaner that despise you? I will let you state your opinion, but you don't get to demand immunity from consequences. Some opinions are genuinely indefensible.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    > I will let you state your opinion, but you don't get to demand immunity from consequences. Oh, you'll let me? How magnanimous. How about: * Nobody asked you. * Who do you think you are that I would need your permission? * I wasn't asking permission. I was asking for a indication of interest in genuine conversation. Something you clearly lack. * What opinions I hold regarding controversial issues are my own. What I was offering was examples of (potentially) prohibited things some people believe that are more nuanced than the cartoon bigotry.
    - Natanael_L 7y ago
      * whatever. Didn't say I consider myself as some benevolent dictator. It just means it doesn't seem bad enough on its own to require proactive intervention. * see above * your misinterpretation of my comment almost seems deliberate, so "no u" * while they surely are your own, you don't get to demand that other people must ignore their own concerns if they belive your opinions make you untrustworthy or dangerous to them. I am allowed to base my own opinions about you on what opinions you say that you have. And I am allowed to refuse to associate with you. If you openly tell people that you want people like me dead, I will never let you do any job for me where my life might be at risk (like medical jobs or similar). You don't get to demand undeserved trust.

Natanael_L 7y ago

Why is this question even being asked? The answer is everybody, in their own respective spaces. It's not me but not others. It's me AND all others. If I run a bar, I get to kick out customers who voice despicable opinions. Exact same thing applies if I run a shop, a web forum, or a conference for that matter. All of us gets to kick out people who behave badly from our own private spaces, nothing obligates me to tolerate abuse. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It does not mean the right to an audience. It means you get to say your opinion without the government interfering - and then other people get to decide how to react to it. Freedom of speech without the right to react and respond to what others say would a horrible idea. Partially because it entirely invalidates the reason for why speech is supposed to be free. If you can't change things based on what you learned from what you heard, why even bother letting people speak? If this means somebody else bans me from their space for being offensive, then so be it.

quotemstr 7y ago
> If this means somebody else bans me from their space for being offensive, then so be it. I suspect that if I banned the followers of a religion I found "offensive" from an establishment I owned, you'd be writing a very different post. The problem with the free association argument from censorship proponents is that they've never consistent about it. They're happy to talk up the rights of institutions to exclude right up until the moment that they themselves are excluded. A functioning society is one in which you don't put your livelihood at risk by agreeing with 50% of the population on a matter of public importance. Violating this principle is tyranny, and I don't care what elaborate justifications anyone comes up with to explain it away. You don't get to try to win political fights by personally ruining regular people on the other side.
- Natanael_L 7y ago
  Not really. It would be quite illegal in most places, sure, but I simply wouldn't want to go there in the first place if you banned people like me. Of course that becomes a problem is a large part of society does the same. Which is why such laws against the exists. But I wouldn't be the one pursuing this. Especially for online spaces. There's just too many options for it to be reasonable to be pissed about getting banned from just one or a few places. It's always possible to create your own online space, if necessary. And right to speech isn't a right to an audience. You get to speak your mind, but people will only listen if they want to. But keep in mind that there's a bet good reason for why most antidiscrimination laws deliberately limit the contexts in which they're applicable and what groups they protect. Very few jurisdictions protect opinions on their own. I don't care if an antivaxxers works at a bakery. I'd be pissed if I hear one worked as a nurse at a hospital I go to, and that they refuse to carry out vaccinations. Some opinions are dangerous when held in certain contexts, and requires a reaction. This is simply about safety and protecting society. You can hold an opinion that terrible opinion elsewhere, where you don't hurt people. At some point, you have to understand that the person putting their livelihood at risk is the person themselves, and that firing them is just as justified as firing a drunkard from a machine shop.