3 ms·

This is what I was getting at with my question above. I think the distinction between censorship and social consequences blurs really quickly when you look clos

by ksdale 6y ago

This is what I was getting at with my question above. I think the distinction between censorship and social consequences blurs really quickly when you look closely, and a society that shrugs and says "social consequences" every time someone's life is destroyed due to their speech is not a society with free speech. And I think it's perfectly fair to have a moral system that places other values above free speech, but I think it's wrong to say what you have is free speech, if you think that people who say the wrong things get what they deserve.

krapp 6y ago
>but I think it's wrong to say what you have is free speech, if you think that people who say the wrong things get what they deserve. Then having laws prohibiting slander, libel, fraud, harassment and incitement to violence also means we don't have free speech, since that is the state saying "people who say the wrong things get what they deserve." I think all but the most hard-core an anarchist free speech advocates would agree with those limits to speech. Even Benjamin Franklin had limits to what he was willing to publish, as recounted in a comment here[0]. Freedom of speech does not mean all platforms must be forced to host your speech, nor that all people must be forced to consider it. The line between social consequence and censorship only tends to be drawn between agreement and disagreement with the speech being rejected - it's social consequence when you agree with it, and censorship when you don't. If that means we don't have free speech, then I guess we don't have free speech and, more to the point, have never had free speech. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065586
- ksdale 6y ago
  As I said, I think it's perfectly fair to place other values above free speech, but I think the examples you give can more fairly be summed up as "the right to free speech doesn't extend to these types of speech" rather than "you're free to libel as long as you're willing to live with the consequences." The second framing is technically true, but only technically... For what it's worth, I agree with you about not forcing platforms to host speech and with your point about the line being drawn arbitrarily. I think that free speech can be both a legal right and a value that is shared by the members of a society. Edit: The Ben Franklin quote shows that he wouldn't publish anything he thought unworthy, but he would still print it for people, so he didn't refuse to do business with the people whose writing he found abhorrent.

by ksdale 6y ago

krapp 6y ago

>but I think it's wrong to say what you have is free speech, if you think that people who say the wrong things get what they deserve. Then having laws prohibiting slander, libel, fraud, harassment and incitement to violence also means we don't have free speech, since that is the state saying "people who say the wrong things get what they deserve." I think all but the most hard-core an anarchist free speech advocates would agree with those limits to speech. Even Benjamin Franklin had limits to what he was willing to publish, as recounted in a comment here[0]. Freedom of speech does not mean all platforms must be forced to host your speech, nor that all people must be forced to consider it. The line between social consequence and censorship only tends to be drawn between agreement and disagreement with the speech being rejected - it's social consequence when you agree with it, and censorship when you don't. If that means we don't have free speech, then I guess we don't have free speech and, more to the point, have never had free speech. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065586

ksdale 6y ago
As I said, I think it's perfectly fair to place other values above free speech, but I think the examples you give can more fairly be summed up as "the right to free speech doesn't extend to these types of speech" rather than "you're free to libel as long as you're willing to live with the consequences." The second framing is technically true, but only technically... For what it's worth, I agree with you about not forcing platforms to host speech and with your point about the line being drawn arbitrarily. I think that free speech can be both a legal right and a value that is shared by the members of a society. Edit: The Ben Franklin quote shows that he wouldn't publish anything he thought unworthy, but he would still print it for people, so he didn't refuse to do business with the people whose writing he found abhorrent.