6 ms·

Woah, took me some time to digest this -- "contextualize liberties" must be the most Orwellian phrase in existence, only thing that might come close is another

Woah, took me some time to digest this -- "contextualize liberties" must be the most Orwellian phrase in existence, only thing that might come close is another phrase you used, "civil rights absolutism."

411111111111111 6y ago
So in your opinion I should have the right to enslave you? Some liberties have to be put into context to see that they're plain amoral. It's easy for slavery, but harder for other topics. The same applies to the other expression you have an issue with. Some freedoms are detrimental to society and accepting them causes actual harm to people. Things are never easy with topics like this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
modwest 6y ago
The famous “yelling fire in a crowded theory” test for free speech is an example of contextualizing liberties. There is nothing truly Orwellian about it. “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins” is another example. Society is a context where we exercise our liberties.
- nisuni 6y ago
  The yelling fire example is an extreme edge case, and it’s usually used by people who would like to limit freedom of speech much more than that. I’ve never heard it being used genuinely not even once. I find it irritating: you don’t want freedom of speech? State than openly and tell me why.
  - ksml 6y ago
    Yeah, I don't want unlimited freedom of speech. Some types of speech are harmful with little benefit, from my perspective. I don't see the justification for making it permissible to yell "fire" in a movie theater.
    - nisuni 6y ago
      As I have already told you the yelling fire thing is essentially a rhetorical device, that has been used to promote suppression of free speech to a much larger extent. I don’t think I even care, but please be honest about it and tell people why and what you would ban. I am sure that, like every one using the arguments you are using, you would suppress free speech much more than that! Be open and direct, we still have free speech my friend! No need to hide between rhetorical devices.
      - valvar 6y ago
        It always comes down to censoring those you disagree with. Everyone loves free speech when it expresses views they agree with. If it's about silly edge cases, no-one really cares - the only reason to care is if it has political implications, regardless of if you are for or against suppression.
    - jstanley 6y ago
      > Some types of speech are harmful with little benefit, from my perspective. But for the people saying the things you don't want to hear, that same speech is beneficial, with little harm. It's easy to want to ban things you don't want to do. That's the entire point of it being protected in the first place.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    The yelling fire one was (partially) overturned in court in 1969. Such speech can now only be limited if it would incite imminent lawless action (such as a riot), and so that example does not count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
  - mixologic 6y ago
    Absolute freedom of speech is equally as detrimental to society as totalitarian government censorship. Propaganda, misinformation, and outright lies can convincingly be passed off as truth. The vast majority of the populace neither has the time, nor the inclination to properly vet, research, and confirm the information that is presented to them. Humans rarely acknowledge their own confirmation biases, which makes it trivial to manipulate the so called "marketplace of ideas". We're now beginning to see the myriad detrimental effects of an absolutist free speech society. Political troll bots manipulate opinions and sow discord. A huge slice of the United States relies on a reality warping "news" network that claims the right to fabricate falsehoods under the banner of free speech. Algorithms that feed users content send people down rabbit holes of extremist information fomenting groups of fervent believers in utter nonsense like "The Earth is flat", because the algorithms naively equate "engagement time" with value/truth. Freedom of speech is a spectrum, and neither extreme of that spectrum is beneficial to a healthy society.
    - tchaffee 6y ago
      > Propaganda, misinformation, and outright lies Who would decide what is fake news? The federal government? Perhaps a free speech Czar appointed by the president of the US? The current president of the US certainly does talk about fake news a lot. But no thanks.
      - DeathArrow 6y ago
        He might refer to "right minded people" with the "right" ideology, whatever that might mean. For the "greater good", of course.
      - zipwitch 6y ago
        The facile answer is, "have an educated public who can make those decisions themselves". But it seems clear to me that the "educated public" approach has failed. The spread of memetic hazards has risen to the level where a significant segment of the public have been robbed of their ability to think critically, and the post-Enlightenment consensus that objective reality exists is under attack. Beyond fighting a Fabian struggle in favor of critical thinking and quality information flows (which are lacking all across our society, even if that lack is particularly obvious with a certain political group) I'm by no means certain what a good, useful, and just response ought to be. I am confident that the danger is real and needs to be acknowledged. We need to find paths forward if we're to have any hope of keeping our civilization. And that means talking (and doing something) about the "propaganda, misinformation, and outright lies". Sticking our heads in the sand and screaming "Free Speech!" while the tidal wave informational sewage rolls over us isn't going to be sufficient.
  - tchaffee 6y ago
    > It's usually used by people who would like to limit freedom of speech much more than that. Source with stats? Here's my anecdotal counter evidence: I only ever hear it used by people who don't want to limit speech except when it will cause immediate physical harm.
- losvedir 6y ago
  "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a great example because it comes from a horrible Supreme Court ruling defending the arrest of someone handing out anti-war pamphlets. I can't think of a better example of something that should be protected speech, or a better example of how "reasonable" limits will get abused. Fortunately, that ruling has been mostly overturned by now.
  - modwest 6y ago
    A great example of..? This comment seems more like you taking an opportunity to flex on someone in a comment instead of refuting my underlying point. That’s great the ruling this saying was used in was overturned (I’m taking your word for it) but citing that fact completely misses the point...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
andrepd 6y ago
It really is not. Right to physical assembly is something that should be restricted in the middle of a global pandemic, since that right cannot trump the right of life of hundreds of thousands of people. Same for the right to travel. Rights such as free speech or right to private property may be broken in more extreme cases such as war. Pretending that nuanced reality doesn't exist is the definition of "rights absolutism".
- fapjacks 6y ago
  No. Because tin-pot shitholes -- and the people trying to make them -- have, can, and will always find some new "threat" with which to justify taking away civil liberties. Things similar to what you have said here about "nuanced reality" with respect to civil liberties have always been for me a pretty good smell test for underlying authoritarian beliefs. In ANY context, it's possible to point to something as justification for taking away civil liberties in the name of safety and security. Yesterday it was internet death threats and human trafficking, today the pandemic, tomorrow who knows, but I promise there will be one.
  - andrepd 6y ago
    I'm not familiar with the concept of "tin-pot shithole". >have, can, and will always find some new "threat" with which to justify taking away civil liberties. So slippery slope, is what you're arguing? "First they make a completely reasonable and temporary restriction of right of physical assembly, next we'll be off to the gulags." Isn't really an interesting argument, is it?
    - fapjacks 6y ago
      Nice use of quotation marks there, considering that is not what I said.
      - mr_woozy 6y ago
        which part didn't you say exactly?
notechback 6y ago
In most countries all democratic parties are allowed, but parties that plan to abolish the democratic system are not. Is this a curb on civil liberties or just a reasonable stance?

411111111111111 6y ago

So in your opinion I should have the right to enslave you? Some liberties have to be put into context to see that they're plain amoral. It's easy for slavery, but harder for other topics. The same applies to the other expression you have an issue with. Some freedoms are detrimental to society and accepting them causes actual harm to people. Things are never easy with topics like this.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

modwest 6y ago

The famous “yelling fire in a crowded theory” test for free speech is an example of contextualizing liberties. There is nothing truly Orwellian about it. “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins” is another example. Society is a context where we exercise our liberties.

nisuni 6y ago
The yelling fire example is an extreme edge case, and it’s usually used by people who would like to limit freedom of speech much more than that. I’ve never heard it being used genuinely not even once. I find it irritating: you don’t want freedom of speech? State than openly and tell me why.
- ksml 6y ago
  Yeah, I don't want unlimited freedom of speech. Some types of speech are harmful with little benefit, from my perspective. I don't see the justification for making it permissible to yell "fire" in a movie theater.
  - nisuni 6y ago
    As I have already told you the yelling fire thing is essentially a rhetorical device, that has been used to promote suppression of free speech to a much larger extent. I don’t think I even care, but please be honest about it and tell people why and what you would ban. I am sure that, like every one using the arguments you are using, you would suppress free speech much more than that! Be open and direct, we still have free speech my friend! No need to hide between rhetorical devices.
    - valvar 6y ago
      It always comes down to censoring those you disagree with. Everyone loves free speech when it expresses views they agree with. If it's about silly edge cases, no-one really cares - the only reason to care is if it has political implications, regardless of if you are for or against suppression.
  - jstanley 6y ago
    > Some types of speech are harmful with little benefit, from my perspective. But for the people saying the things you don't want to hear, that same speech is beneficial, with little harm. It's easy to want to ban things you don't want to do. That's the entire point of it being protected in the first place.
- Izkata 6y ago
  The yelling fire one was (partially) overturned in court in 1969. Such speech can now only be limited if it would incite imminent lawless action (such as a riot), and so that example does not count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- mixologic 6y ago
  Absolute freedom of speech is equally as detrimental to society as totalitarian government censorship. Propaganda, misinformation, and outright lies can convincingly be passed off as truth. The vast majority of the populace neither has the time, nor the inclination to properly vet, research, and confirm the information that is presented to them. Humans rarely acknowledge their own confirmation biases, which makes it trivial to manipulate the so called "marketplace of ideas". We're now beginning to see the myriad detrimental effects of an absolutist free speech society. Political troll bots manipulate opinions and sow discord. A huge slice of the United States relies on a reality warping "news" network that claims the right to fabricate falsehoods under the banner of free speech. Algorithms that feed users content send people down rabbit holes of extremist information fomenting groups of fervent believers in utter nonsense like "The Earth is flat", because the algorithms naively equate "engagement time" with value/truth. Freedom of speech is a spectrum, and neither extreme of that spectrum is beneficial to a healthy society.
  - tchaffee 6y ago
    > Propaganda, misinformation, and outright lies Who would decide what is fake news? The federal government? Perhaps a free speech Czar appointed by the president of the US? The current president of the US certainly does talk about fake news a lot. But no thanks.
    - DeathArrow 6y ago
      He might refer to "right minded people" with the "right" ideology, whatever that might mean. For the "greater good", of course.
    - zipwitch 6y ago
      The facile answer is, "have an educated public who can make those decisions themselves". But it seems clear to me that the "educated public" approach has failed. The spread of memetic hazards has risen to the level where a significant segment of the public have been robbed of their ability to think critically, and the post-Enlightenment consensus that objective reality exists is under attack. Beyond fighting a Fabian struggle in favor of critical thinking and quality information flows (which are lacking all across our society, even if that lack is particularly obvious with a certain political group) I'm by no means certain what a good, useful, and just response ought to be. I am confident that the danger is real and needs to be acknowledged. We need to find paths forward if we're to have any hope of keeping our civilization. And that means talking (and doing something) about the "propaganda, misinformation, and outright lies". Sticking our heads in the sand and screaming "Free Speech!" while the tidal wave informational sewage rolls over us isn't going to be sufficient.
- tchaffee 6y ago
  > It's usually used by people who would like to limit freedom of speech much more than that. Source with stats? Here's my anecdotal counter evidence: I only ever hear it used by people who don't want to limit speech except when it will cause immediate physical harm.
losvedir 6y ago
"Yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a great example because it comes from a horrible Supreme Court ruling defending the arrest of someone handing out anti-war pamphlets. I can't think of a better example of something that should be protected speech, or a better example of how "reasonable" limits will get abused. Fortunately, that ruling has been mostly overturned by now.
- modwest 6y ago
  A great example of..? This comment seems more like you taking an opportunity to flex on someone in a comment instead of refuting my underlying point. That’s great the ruling this saying was used in was overturned (I’m taking your word for it) but citing that fact completely misses the point...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

andrepd 6y ago

It really is not. Right to physical assembly is something that should be restricted in the middle of a global pandemic, since that right cannot trump the right of life of hundreds of thousands of people. Same for the right to travel. Rights such as free speech or right to private property may be broken in more extreme cases such as war. Pretending that nuanced reality doesn't exist is the definition of "rights absolutism".

fapjacks 6y ago
No. Because tin-pot shitholes -- and the people trying to make them -- have, can, and will always find some new "threat" with which to justify taking away civil liberties. Things similar to what you have said here about "nuanced reality" with respect to civil liberties have always been for me a pretty good smell test for underlying authoritarian beliefs. In ANY context, it's possible to point to something as justification for taking away civil liberties in the name of safety and security. Yesterday it was internet death threats and human trafficking, today the pandemic, tomorrow who knows, but I promise there will be one.
- andrepd 6y ago
  I'm not familiar with the concept of "tin-pot shithole". >have, can, and will always find some new "threat" with which to justify taking away civil liberties. So slippery slope, is what you're arguing? "First they make a completely reasonable and temporary restriction of right of physical assembly, next we'll be off to the gulags." Isn't really an interesting argument, is it?
  - fapjacks 6y ago
    Nice use of quotation marks there, considering that is not what I said.
    - mr_woozy 6y ago
      which part didn't you say exactly?

notechback 6y ago

In most countries all democratic parties are allowed, but parties that plan to abolish the democratic system are not. Is this a curb on civil liberties or just a reasonable stance?