4 ms·

> For better or worse, America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right. > That's a core tenant of free speech I'd

by jpdb 6y ago

> For better or worse, America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right. > That's a core tenant of free speech I'd disagree heavily with this assessment based on these two points. The founding fathers drew much of their inspiration from Hobbes who wrote that liberty involved ceding some "sovereign power" (liberty) to a state so that we could be free to do things without worrying about survival of the fittest. I believe it was Jefferson that was vehemently against government officials making false claims / lying...which is a limitation of free speech, but results in a net surplus of free speech. The idea that all speech should be free is a fairly ignorant one. > and voice it with youtube being my megaphone. And this is ABSOLUTELY against any sort of semblance of the ideas America was founded on. YouTube is a private platform. They can (and SHOULD) police their speech, because it is a private platform. YouTube is ultimately socially responsible for the outcomes of what people say on it's platform. If someone is denying or minimizing a VERY REAL and VERY SERIOUS global pandemic, YouTube had a social obligation to curtail their free speech.

irjustin 6y ago
> If someone is denying or minimizing a VERY REAL and VERY SERIOUS global pandemic Look, most people on HNews agree with you, myself included. That stupid speech and stupid acts are costing very real lives. But the whole point of this thread is that protected speech does cost lives as well. That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed. > YouTube had a social obligation to curtail their free speech. Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. Don't remove it as if it never existed. That's dangerous, no? If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment? Tomorrow, if Youtube said, "We'll remove all content that does not agree with the POTUS." That's only a few letters away from the WHO, right? POTUS is authority. But that's insane. That's absurd. That's what this debate is about. Censoring goes both ways.
- jpdb 6y ago
  > Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. I would consider this a form of censorship as well, and I would absolutely support it. > That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed. I suppose I could agree in this particular circumstance that YouTube having some sort of banner over this content would suffice, I think it's the same thing as just removing it. > If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment? (I think you mixed your words up here, but I am interpreting this as you asking I'm ok with censorship if furthers my beliefs, if I'm wrong please correct me) I'm ok with any censorship/curtailing of free speech that: results in a net-surplus of free speech, endangers others ("fire" in a crowded theater), or incites violence. > Censoring goes both ways. Censorship that is used to silence legitimate opinions that do not cause harm to others is a terrible thing and shouldn't exist. This has nothing to do with "both ways" or any "way"
  - Natsu 6y ago
    Here's a noted first amendment expert explaining why "fire in a crowded theater" is a very bad example to cite: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
    - jpdb 6y ago
      Interesting article! I'll try to pay more mind in the future. That said, > First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Maybe not in the author's circles, but in this particular scenario, that point was in dispute.
      - Natsu 6y ago
        > Maybe not in the author's circles, but in this particular scenario, that point was in dispute. Sure, but that's not a useful thing to know. I recall when Ken compared saying that to something akin to the following conversation, which I'm reconstructing from memory: Help! I've been bitten by a snake and I want to know if it's poisonous! Unless you're eating the snake, it only matters if the snake is venomous. Okay, so can you tell me if the snake is venomous then? Not all snakes are venomous. So the important point is not to dispute over whether any speech can be banned, but whether the speech in question fits one of the categories of unprotected speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- seppin 6y ago
  > Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. Don't remove it as if it never existed. That's dangerous, no? You misunderstand how wrong information, identified as such, is received. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/11/facebook-fake-news-fact-checks-242567 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/11/facebook-fake-news... Pointing out something is false either has no effect, or makes people double down on wrong ideas / beliefs. Continuing to host said ideas will cause them to spread. The responsible thing was removal, but perhaps with more transparency around how and why.

by jpdb 6y ago

irjustin 6y ago

> If someone is denying or minimizing a VERY REAL and VERY SERIOUS global pandemic Look, most people on HNews agree with you, myself included. That stupid speech and stupid acts are costing very real lives. But the whole point of this thread is that protected speech does cost lives as well. That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed. > YouTube had a social obligation to curtail their free speech. Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. Don't remove it as if it never existed. That's dangerous, no? If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment? Tomorrow, if Youtube said, "We'll remove all content that does not agree with the POTUS." That's only a few letters away from the WHO, right? POTUS is authority. But that's insane. That's absurd. That's what this debate is about. Censoring goes both ways.

jpdb 6y ago
> Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. I would consider this a form of censorship as well, and I would absolutely support it. > That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed. I suppose I could agree in this particular circumstance that YouTube having some sort of banner over this content would suffice, I think it's the same thing as just removing it. > If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment? (I think you mixed your words up here, but I am interpreting this as you asking I'm ok with censorship if furthers my beliefs, if I'm wrong please correct me) I'm ok with any censorship/curtailing of free speech that: results in a net-surplus of free speech, endangers others ("fire" in a crowded theater), or incites violence. > Censoring goes both ways. Censorship that is used to silence legitimate opinions that do not cause harm to others is a terrible thing and shouldn't exist. This has nothing to do with "both ways" or any "way"
- Natsu 6y ago
  Here's a noted first amendment expert explaining why "fire in a crowded theater" is a very bad example to cite: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
  - jpdb 6y ago
    Interesting article! I'll try to pay more mind in the future. That said, > First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Maybe not in the author's circles, but in this particular scenario, that point was in dispute.
    - Natsu 6y ago
      > Maybe not in the author's circles, but in this particular scenario, that point was in dispute. Sure, but that's not a useful thing to know. I recall when Ken compared saying that to something akin to the following conversation, which I'm reconstructing from memory: Help! I've been bitten by a snake and I want to know if it's poisonous! Unless you're eating the snake, it only matters if the snake is venomous. Okay, so can you tell me if the snake is venomous then? Not all snakes are venomous. So the important point is not to dispute over whether any speech can be banned, but whether the speech in question fits one of the categories of unprotected speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
seppin 6y ago
> Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. Don't remove it as if it never existed. That's dangerous, no? You misunderstand how wrong information, identified as such, is received. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/11/facebook-fake-news-fact-checks-242567 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/11/facebook-fake-news... Pointing out something is false either has no effect, or makes people double down on wrong ideas / beliefs. Continuing to host said ideas will cause them to spread. The responsible thing was removal, but perhaps with more transparency around how and why.