8 ms·

> From a meta standpoint, it's interesting to me that the most vociferous deniers of free speech throughout history have made some version of the case "But they

> From a meta standpoint, it's interesting to me that the most vociferous deniers of free speech throughout history have made some version of the case "But they're wrong!" (You can add stupid, evil, whatnot. The point is that whatever they're saying, it should not be said because it is not correct) All of them did, huh? Interesting. > Whereas folks supporting free speech have made the argument: maybe I'm wrong. I don't know everything, and I've been wrong before. Did they though? Or are you constructing a strawman argument portraying the "anti free-speech" side as dumb and the "pro free-speech" side as reasonable?

dataduck 6y ago
Perhaps some people against free speech don't even claim that the people they want to silence are wrong. Is that better? > are you constructing a strawman argument portraying the "anti free-speech" side as dumb and the "pro free-speech" side as reasonable? Certainly all the anti free speech arguments I've encountered are either dumb or evil. But maybe that's on me; let's say there is a non-dumb, non-evil argument against free speech. Why don't you share it with us all?
- honkycat 6y ago
  You are moving the goal post but if you are really so ill-informed about this issue, I will go ahead and give you an example: If a well funded group of people are publishing information about a minority group in order to incite and justify genocide, like what we have seen happen on Facebook in Myanmar, I think the rights of the people being massacred should trump the rights of the genocidal's free speech. Is that argument dumb or evil?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - user982 6y ago
    "But what if the genociders are right?"
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      Saying "but what if the gays are not that bad" 70 years ago would get you labelled a lot of things and censored. Same thing happens now in certain countries.
      - user982 6y ago
        So your response is "But what if the genociders are right?", but unironically.
        dependenttypes 6y ago
        No, not really. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23421043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23421043
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    > Is that argument dumb or evil? As a pro-free-speech advocate, I think that argument is important and smart and good. Free speech does have disadvantages, and those disadvantages can have serious consequences. The attempt to hand-wave those disadvantages away with "but enough people will just be perfectly rational and care about truth, and then all those good people who love truth will prevent genocide!" is... extraordinarily naive. Whether to support free speech is a question of weighing advantages and disadvantages. I happen to think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. But if you seriously can't see any of the disadvantages, and can't empathize with a person who reasons that those disadvantages outweigh the advantages, then you're probably not thinking clearly enough.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  >Certainly all the anti free speech arguments I've encountered are either dumb or evil. But maybe that's on me Yes, it is on you. If you find yourself in such an absolutist situation, you can bet money that you are in the wrong. It doesn't help that you have grouped all these "evil" and "dumb" opinions under the umbrella of "anti free-speech". That's an absurd exaggeration. Of course an opinion that is "anti free-speech" without any qualification would be dumb or evil.
- klyrs 6y ago
  > Perhaps some people against free speech don't even claim that the people they want to silence are wrong. Is that better? That's an interesting spin on "people have limited tolerance of free speech, when that speech is flagrantly intolerant." The argument is that tangible and quantifiable harm can arise from certain utterances. Such speech is not "wrong" per se, but a violation of the principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    People have limited tolerance of free speech even when free speech is more tolerant than their own opinions.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      > What is up with people just ignoring the content of the message that they are replying to and either repeating what they said before or reply to something that was never said? This seems to be more and more common in HN these days.
      - dependenttypes 6y ago
        Yes? What does this have to do with my post? Do you enjoy going through people's posts and making random quotes that do not fit the current topic?
        klyrs 6y ago
        You ducked my point entirely.
        dependenttypes 6y ago
        Sure, I was interested in addressing the "people have limited tolerance of free speech, when that speech is flagrantly intolerant." specifically rather than your main argument. I do not think that I repeated any argument nor replied to something that was never said nor do I think that this debunks your main argument.

dataduck 6y ago

Perhaps some people against free speech don't even claim that the people they want to silence are wrong. Is that better? > are you constructing a strawman argument portraying the "anti free-speech" side as dumb and the "pro free-speech" side as reasonable? Certainly all the anti free speech arguments I've encountered are either dumb or evil. But maybe that's on me; let's say there is a non-dumb, non-evil argument against free speech. Why don't you share it with us all?

honkycat 6y ago
You are moving the goal post but if you are really so ill-informed about this issue, I will go ahead and give you an example: If a well funded group of people are publishing information about a minority group in order to incite and justify genocide, like what we have seen happen on Facebook in Myanmar, I think the rights of the people being massacred should trump the rights of the genocidal's free speech. Is that argument dumb or evil?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- user982 6y ago
  "But what if the genociders are right?"
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    Saying "but what if the gays are not that bad" 70 years ago would get you labelled a lot of things and censored. Same thing happens now in certain countries.
    - user982 6y ago
      So your response is "But what if the genociders are right?", but unironically.
      - dependenttypes 6y ago
        No, not really. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23421043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23421043
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > Is that argument dumb or evil? As a pro-free-speech advocate, I think that argument is important and smart and good. Free speech does have disadvantages, and those disadvantages can have serious consequences. The attempt to hand-wave those disadvantages away with "but enough people will just be perfectly rational and care about truth, and then all those good people who love truth will prevent genocide!" is... extraordinarily naive. Whether to support free speech is a question of weighing advantages and disadvantages. I happen to think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. But if you seriously can't see any of the disadvantages, and can't empathize with a person who reasons that those disadvantages outweigh the advantages, then you're probably not thinking clearly enough.
happytoexplain 6y ago
>Certainly all the anti free speech arguments I've encountered are either dumb or evil. But maybe that's on me Yes, it is on you. If you find yourself in such an absolutist situation, you can bet money that you are in the wrong. It doesn't help that you have grouped all these "evil" and "dumb" opinions under the umbrella of "anti free-speech". That's an absurd exaggeration. Of course an opinion that is "anti free-speech" without any qualification would be dumb or evil.
klyrs 6y ago
> Perhaps some people against free speech don't even claim that the people they want to silence are wrong. Is that better? That's an interesting spin on "people have limited tolerance of free speech, when that speech is flagrantly intolerant." The argument is that tangible and quantifiable harm can arise from certain utterances. Such speech is not "wrong" per se, but a violation of the principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  People have limited tolerance of free speech even when free speech is more tolerant than their own opinions.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    > What is up with people just ignoring the content of the message that they are replying to and either repeating what they said before or reply to something that was never said? This seems to be more and more common in HN these days.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      Yes? What does this have to do with my post? Do you enjoy going through people's posts and making random quotes that do not fit the current topic?
      - klyrs 6y ago
        You ducked my point entirely.
        dependenttypes 6y ago
        Sure, I was interested in addressing the "people have limited tolerance of free speech, when that speech is flagrantly intolerant." specifically rather than your main argument. I do not think that I repeated any argument nor replied to something that was never said nor do I think that this debunks your main argument.