33 ms·

Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

394 points by undefined1 6y ago

guscost 6y ago
“I trust you guys. I love you guys. We'll keep this space open. This is the last stronghold for civil discourse. After this shit it's just rat-a-tat tattity tat-tat ta tat tat TAT.” - Dave Chappelle
- mellosouls 6y ago
  “I seen Candace Owens try to convince white America, ‘don’t worry about it he’s a criminal anyway', I don’t give a fuck what this nigga did… I don’t care if he personally kicked Candace Owens in her stink pussy. I don’t know if it stinks, but I imagine it does." - Dave Chappelle, civil discourse champion, also
  - guscost 6y ago
    “There’s something so true about this genre when done correctly that I will fight anybody that gets in a true practitioner of this art form’s way, because I know you’re wrong. This is the truth and you are obstructing it. I’m not talking about the content, I’m talking about the art form.”
    - mellosouls 6y ago
      I love Chappelle - but he's not an angel, and didn't serve the free speech cause well with his personal attack (she took it sportingly) on somebody genuinely brave in speaking off-message.
      - guscost 6y ago
        I’m with you that the personal attack was rude, and he likely lost support for his side on that issue by including it. But I don’t agree that the effect extends to lost support for free speech in general. It is commonly understood that rude speech is the most important kind of speech to defend, since it is the “front line” where the forces opposing free speech are most active. Dave is surely aware of this too. He says rude things all the time, probably intentionally, because when documented they become fortifications which are actually harder to break through. I’m pretty sure he has outright declared an intention to get things wrong sometimes, but I can’t find the quote.
        mellosouls 6y ago
        Sure (and good points), but in the context here - quoting Chappelle on civil discourse and free speech I think it's important to question the consistency when such uncivil jibes are aimed from a position of power at a hate figure.
        guscost 6y ago
        In context, the phrase “civil discourse” has an alternative meaning that you arrive at by substituting the first dictionary definition of the word “civil”: > 1. relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters. It’s a brilliant argument that works on two levels: violence is the only alternative to free speech, and raw and ugly honesty can lead to greater understanding.
      - augustt 6y ago
        I would not call it bravery. She started her career as an anti-conservative blogger and then realized there was money to be made in being conservatives' token minority friend.
        mellosouls 6y ago
        The nicest names she gets called are things like "conservatives' token minority friend". Whatever else she is, she's damned brave.
        augustt 6y ago
        No, Candace "if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine" Owens is not brave because she gets called out for being a sack of shit.
        syshum 6y ago
        That is somewhat revisionist I would say, She was cancelled by the left like many have been over the years, because while she was "anti-conservative" (though not really) she was far more moderate than the Extreme Authoritarian left accepts
        nl 6y ago
        You don't find it slightly ironic that you are defending her when she was "cancelled" for setting up a website with the express purpose of doxxing people who didn't want to be identified?[1] I think it was you who claimed this on the Scott Alexander story: > One of the biggest problems in modern society is the lack of respect for privacy and anonymous speech. anonymous speech has been a cornerstone of the advancement of civilization many times through out history including playing a critical role in the formation of the United States as well as the US Constitution It seems to me that she was criticised by the left (and many on the right!) for attempting to start a pretty distasteful service. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens#Privacy_violation,_Gamergate,_and_political_transformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens#Privacy_violatio...
rbecker 6y ago
Just in case someone finds the examples in the article all acceptable censorship, here's a few more off the top of my head: Evergreen professor forced to resign for opposing day of white absence: https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-weinstein-explained-the-evergreen-scandal-f3dfe07b1d70 https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-weinstei... UCLA professor placed under investigation for reading MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-lecturer-for-reading-mlks-letter-from-birmingham-jail/ https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-lect... Data scientist fired for retweeting study showing non-violent protests are more effective: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-...
- harryh 6y ago
  The last one about the data scientist tweet got even crazier: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/white-fragility-racism-racism-progressive-progressphiles-david-shor.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/white-fragility-raci...
  - rajup 6y ago
    Wow. That was an eye-opening read.
  - graton 6y ago
    That link was posted here on HN and then got flagged. You can find it if you paste the URL into HN's search.
  - coffeeling 6y ago
    O_o
- ChristianBundy 6y ago
  > Data scientist fired for retweeting study showing non-violent protests are more effective This is a blatant misrepresentation. The tweet talked about "race riots" and Democrat election results. Many people would argue that the point of direct action is not to sway electoral votes toward the Democratic party.
the_resistence 6y ago
Regrettably, that is what's lost in all of this. Protesters against other opinions and belief systems strongly defend free speech so long as you are saying what they approve of.
- edoo 6y ago
  Typical Marxism.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  The world, in general, is abandoning the past two centuries in which freedom has risen, to become illiberal, and enforce intellectual orthodoxies. It is more obvious and markedly so in in places like Turkey, but even here in the US we see those who would blacklist all political enemies and dissenters. These efforts will ultimately fail here, but not before grave harm is inflicted; history will judge us as harshly as we judge the McCarthy era. There were Communists in the government in the McCarthy era. There were quite a few Communists, much as there is still racism at large in the USA today. And yet you will note that successfully rooting out spies is not why McCarthy is remembered, but rather, for his self-aggrandizing campaign of paranoid repression.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    I don't think equating racist power structures in police and government to red scare communists is a good analogy. The fear of communists was mostly made up in rhetoric. The protestors on race relations are pretty clear on why they're upset.
    - TMWNN 6y ago
      The US and the West faced for 45 years a totalitarian system that had conquered a dozen neighboring countries and had a powerful military. How far was "too far" in combating that? As mentioned, there were Communist spies in the US government, far more than was generally understood at the time; we know that now thanks to the Venona files. That doesn't change the fact that Joe McCarthy was almost always correct only by accident. (You shoot in a random direction often enough, you'll hit someone eventually.) Worse, his excessive rhetoric likely for years discouraged legitimate rooting out of said spies.
patrick5151 6y ago
Got this in an from gab.ai ceo, === Let’s review the past week of internet censorship: The Federalist and Zerohedge were censored by Google TMZ removed their comment section to censor “hate speech” Gavin Mcinnes was banned from YouTube VDARE is losing their domain registrar Gab was blacklisted by Visa E Michael Jones had his books censored by Amazon Katie Hopkins was banned by Twitter @CarpeDonktum was banned by Twitter Trump’s tweet was censored by Twitter === Surprised to see E. Michael Jones get banned on Amazon, lol downvotes you censorious jerks
- tasubotadas 6y ago
  It's pretty impressive that HN crowd got upset just by stating some facts.
bryan_w 6y ago
The same free speech that is protecting racists today is the same one that prevented Gay people from being censored in the 90s for their "deviant" behavior.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Is your statement intended to be ironic? Gay people were heavily censored in the early 90s outside of cities like San Francisco and West Hollywood. It wasn't until Will and Grace premiered in 1998 that the needle began moving toward acceptance.
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    I mean, there was literally an official government policy called "Don't ask, don't tell".
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      Which was entirely reasonable. ...because the point of the military isn't to discuss your gender alignment. The unfairness of it became obvious when every other enlisted man would talk about their latest sex partner and the gay person had to just stand awkwardly silent. ...but the policy itself was rooted in a reasonable desire for soldiers to focus on soldiering.
      - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
        I'd love to see the list of all the other mundane things you weren't allowed to talk about because they distracted from soldiering. It only seems reasonable if you only consider it in an idealized vacuum.
  - tomnipotent 6y ago
    According to Wikipedia [1], comedy TV shows with LGBT characters by decade (which is probably a good proxy). Ellen's "coming out" episode was in 1997. 70s: 12 80s: 11 90s: 28 00s: 45 Willing to wager the trend is similar to movies. We had (just the ones I can recall off-hand, but had to lookup years): Paris is Burning ('90) My Own Private Idaho ('91) Fried Green Tomatoes ('91) Philadelphia ('93) To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar ('95) Jeffrey ('95) Birdcage ('96) Bound ('96) In & Out ('97) Boys Don't Cry ('99) Of course, most of these role were filled by cis people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_comedy_television_series_with_LGBT_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_comedy_television_seri...
klmadfejno 6y ago
As great as free speech is, I don't think western political systems will survive it if it's not accompanied by transparency and accountability. Humans are hard wired to perceive their environments as local. They are not local anymore. The bar of plausible deniability has sunk two inches into the mud we stand on for any dumbass political justification. I don't want restrictions on free speech, but I also feel absolutely screwed by the way society functions right now.
- krapp 6y ago
  Sorry, but both "transparency" and "accountability" are considered censorship now.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    I think that you are confused. If anything it is the lack of transparency that is closer to censorship.
  - krapp 6y ago
    I'm being censored for my facetious, low quality comment!
- Proven 6y ago
  You can't get screwed if there's no government to screw you. You want the government to do 100 different things. One of them will be to screw you over. Big government is not a predominantly western political system. Small government is.
cumcastsucks 6y ago
the left just wants an echo chamber and to act like children, they could care less about actual rights.
bosswipe 6y ago
There's a disconnect that keeps running through a lot of the arguments from the conservative side which I don't understand. The examples given in this piece are a) the right of street protesters to be heard without being attacked by government officers vs b) the right of people to not get fired for what they say by private organizations like the New York Times. This disconnect keeps coming up, and it's extra weird because conservatives have traditionally been the bigger proponents of corporate freedom to fire whoever they want. But now many conservatives seem to want some kind of new labor protection laws. Maybe what is going on is not really about free speech but more about quickly changing cultural norms. It used to be OK to make blatant racist and sexist jokes in an office setting but at some point that changed and now you can easily get fired over it. That's not a change in free speech restrictions, it's a change in what is considered culturally acceptable behavior between private actors. But changing cultural norms aren't something that should be somehow regulated by the government.
- nmfisher 6y ago
  True, but by the same token, there is a clear distinction between these two opinions: 1) I believe the government should outlaw firing people based on what they say in the office 2) I believe that companies should not fire people based on what they say in the office. Believing in small government doesn't mean you have no opinion on cultural norms. It just means you don't think the government should enforce them. But you're also right that many modern "conservatives" don't grasp the distinction.
  - syshum 6y ago
    it is not just conservatives that do not grasp that The 2 statements are the difference between a liberty minded person and the authority minded person Liberty mined (or libertarian) can easily separate their personal beliefs on what is "proper" but still allow that other people may view differently and as long as they are not harming them (or anyone else) should be allowed to live their life in the manner they deem "proper" Authority minded people (or Authoritarian) can not do this, they believe their worldview is the "right" or "correct" world view and that must be imposed upon everyone, by force if necessary. These 2 mindsets exist in both "Left" and "Right" political orthodoxy
cwhiz 6y ago
Shouting people down in public and on the internet doesn’t change opinions. People just talk more quietly or take more care with whom they share their thoughts and opinions. Cancel culture, outrage culture, and the general “social justice” movement is not much more than a wide scale attempt to silence dissenting thought. Build your own bubble, and shout down anyone who thinks or speaks differently. Yell and call it “offensive.” The genius of it is you get to decide what’s offensive, and move the goalposts as you see it. Brilliant! Once you’ve successfully filled your world with only viewpoints that you don’t find problematic, you can be shocked when a man like Donald Trump wins the Presidency. People in the United States need to thicken up. Learn to hear a thought different from your own. Stop retreating into a stupid safe bubble where your thoughts and ideas don’t have to be challenged. Grow up.
- missosoup 6y ago
  This is an excellent summary of what's going on. Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. Instead it makes them more hostile and causes them to double down. I'm pretty confused how America keeps going down this path even after an actual 50% of the entire population revolted against the 'good' ideologies and voted in Trump with religious fervour. Pretending that people with different views don't exist, or that their views don't matter, doesn't make those views go away. Marginalising and attacking people for views they hold just hardens their resolve.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    > Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a > 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively. Look at the anti-vaxers, "chem trails", or 5G conspiracy theorists: the majority of these paranoiacs didn't independently arrive at these theories.
    - missosoup 6y ago
      > However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively How'd that work out with the Trump election and the massive resurgence of outright racism and sexism? How far does one's subjective view of the world around them have to diverge from reality before they stop and think, huh, maybe this doesn't work at all. Silencing dissenting views has never worked in history. Not once. It just increases internal societal pressure until it reaches a critical point and boils over, usually in a physically violent upturn.
mrfusion 6y ago
Wait but why has some good articles on the value of free speech. https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/american-brain.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/american-brain.html If you have time, the whole series that article is part of is a great read.
mrfusion 6y ago
Jon Stuart Mill “On Liberty” full text: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liberty.pdf https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liber... Has anyone read it? I found it eye opening for these kind of discussions.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gentleman11 6y ago
  There are some pretty decent librevox recordings available also
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gentleman11 6y ago
There are a lot of downvoted posts in this thread that make reasonable arguments and that are promoting discussion. I disagree with a lot of them, but it’s awkward for this to be a story where people are heavily downvoting people they disagree with
- cheschire 6y ago
  It's a question I've been struggling with lately. Downvotes reinforce groupthink, that much is subjectively clear. I've considered solutions, and I believe forcing people to reply before they are allowed to downvote would help. However, in opposition to my own idea, I consider that simply requiring a more effort wouldn't necessarily change the groupthink problem, but would just stifle low effort downvotes. Let's consider then the whole idea of votes in the first place. Are downvotes considered "speech" in an abstract sense? Should they be protected in the same way disagreeable opinions are? Is the level of effort necessary to express the speech relevant to the level of protection it deserves? Would restricting downvotes in any way be considered a speech restriction? So these are all interesting aspects to the problem that cause me a lot of internal debate.
  - yodelshady 6y ago
    >but would just stifle low effort downvotes With the exception of spam, that's a feature. If something offends you, you should consider why. Upvotes are useful in reducing spam, as without them, I'd have to repeat a sentiment to show agreement. In my experience (anecdata warning!) that nicely leads to both the best post for an argument, and the best rebuttal, sharing visibility. Neither combat the problem of "fake news", because frauds don't have to be well done if the local community agrees with the sentiment.
  - mettamage 6y ago
    To reply to a part of your comment: I've come to realize that most downvotes can be mitigated by simply adding in disclaimers, explicit assumptions, general kindness and general positivity [1]. In that sense HN really made me a more civil person to discuss with, while I am still able to write controversial opinions when I happen to have them. So on balance, in my experience, the downvoting has been a good development for me. [1] There was a year where I was arguably mildly depressed about my job situation. I graduated had all the bells and whistles, and worked amazingly hard for it (I almost burned out twice). Yet, I couldn't get a prestigious job. And for me, that was the whole point. Why work hard if it doesn't get you anywhere? I gave up on a lot of things. The tone in my comments during that year was more negative than usual despite my opinions being similar. I experimented with being more positive than I actually felt, while still expressing the same opinions, and noticed I'd be downvoted less and upvoted more.
cat_plus_plus 6y ago
For the past five years or so, I prefer discussing current events with conservatives - not because I think they are closer to truth, but because they are willing to be a good sport in a conversation. This has nothing to do with political parties, which are both dumpster fires. Maybe Republicans started earlier with Tea Party and got worse, but Democrats are heading in the same direction after Occupy Wall Street. And I realize that conservatives are not super tolerant of rowdy burn cars/block highway protests. But in actual intellectual conversations, they are the champs. Sad because I though tech liberals were supposed to be brainy and open minded.
- nikanj 6y ago
  You might get cancelled for discussing things with the wrong people, despite what you say. Especially if you get on a podcast to discuss things with a conservative figure.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    One might get cancelled for liking or sharing the wrong Tweet or FB post. Even if the content of the liked or shared comment is non-controversial, if the wrong person said it, you can get cancelled. I remember when my left leaning daughter made one of her very first tweets, it was a policy question related to immigration. (It was related to questioning why the US has birthright citizenship -- a topic being covered in one of her HS courses.) In seconds the hate tweets and retweets started from progressives...I jumped out of bed (it was kind of late at night) and ran into her room to suggest/implore that she delete the tweet and her entire account and never share anything like that again. Saved her life that night. Though, I am thankful that she did learn her lesson without much cost.
- cjslep 6y ago
  I think you've simply found the "able-to-have-these-convos conservatives" to have these discussions with and haven't found the "able-to-have-these-convos liberals". Note that I hate using these categories. Anyway, in my personal experience almost all the people I can think of that I have deep political discussions with who may fall into the latter camp almost never discuss politics online, for various reasons.
AHappyCamper 6y ago
I understand that there are a lot of people who are hurting right now, and I empathize with their pain, but how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other or convey important information to the public if we believe there might be serious reprisals against us if we "say the wrong thing". For example, I personally helped work against slavery on the Black Market in the Middle East, and I wanted to raise awareness of this issue. But now I have to be worried that I'll insult people by using the term Black Market, and will also insult people by giving off the impression that the the Middle East is a 3rd world primitive place where they buy and sell slaves. There is no "right" way to convey the issue above without offending someone. So what should I do? Just shut my mouth and don't say anything? Then the slave trade will continue to operate freely... All speech besides threats of violence needs to be free, or we can't progress as a society.
- imgabe 6y ago
  Part of the issue is that some people consider any speech they disagree with as a threat of violence or "endangering my safety".
  - AHappyCamper 6y ago
    Again, I empathize with the feelings of people who may feel emotionally threatened by a derogatory comment, but some speech deals with people whose lives are in imminent mortal danger (e.g. those about to be sold on Black Market) and if we can't quickly discuss their cases and potential responses to rescue them, then they will be doomed to a life of untold misery. In such situations, there is no time to filter every comment and every email for potential sources of offense - we need to convey info as fast as possible.
    - Guthur 6y ago
      This has become a problem because the internet social networking has opened up the potential of mob justice tar and feathering that is causing people real harm in terms of their livelihood and I'd imagine mental well being.
    - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Causality1 6y ago
To quote Noam Chomsky, "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for people we despise, we do not believe in it at all." That's not to say you're entitled to not be fired for any reason that makes you a liability to a company, but I'm seeing far too many people applauding political violence. "Punch Nazis" is now the standard internet response to any right-wing demonstration and those who repeat that slogan always fail to see the incredible irony of it.
- coffeeling 6y ago
  Punch Nazis is bankrupt in any case: Punching an ideologue makes you feel good, but it won't change their mind. So it serves your own need for righteousness but little else. "But it worked in WWII", someone will say. No. They didn't punch Nazis in WWII. They killed them. They took to them with rifle and bayonet, bombed their towns and factories, and forcibly dismantled their party and government. You don't need to convince the person if you're unilaterally revoking their right to live. You just shoot, bomb, and stab them. Punch a Nazi is bankrupt because it doesn't solve the problem it purports to. You reduce Nazi headcount by convincing them and by giving people sane alternatives so they don't end up throwing their lot in with clowns celebrating Hitler's birthday or by straight up killing them, and Punch does none of those.
gadders 6y ago
Unpopular speech is the only speech worth defending.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  You've been downvoted, but it's a fair point. You don't need freedom of speech to express ideas already accepted by the mainstream and by the state. That's permitted even in the most oppressive regimes. Freedom of speech is, by definition, concerned with unpopular speech.
Myce 6y ago
To me the limit in freedom of speech is when one calls for violence. As I truly believe in free speech, every exception you make to free speech, is arbitrary. If we have to everyone's exceptions into account, it's over with real free speech. I personally can't be easily hurt by people I don't know well, but also understand that other people are easier hurt. This can be due to their current situation or things from the past that can more easily hurt their feelings. I also want to stress that there's obviously something as politeness, empathy and social behavior. These should be encouraged at all times. But we all know some people simply can't behave and sometimes you even yourself can make an insulting remark But due to free of speech, I do believe that people who are rude, insult others and make insensitive jokes, should be allowed to do so. Without any limit. How terrible it is what they say They practice their freedom of speech. And we shouldn't punish them, other than telling them how we feel about what they say and making clear it can hurt the feelings of others. On the other side we should invest in becoming more resilent to insults etc. Obviously I see a task for parents and maybe even schools. Thet should invest time in teaching children how to deal with rude, insensitive, insulting people and make them more resilient e.g. by boosting their self confidence. For me that would be the best solution to keep an open society where people can speak freely. Making exceptions will kill it. After all what can be insulting to person 1 can mean totally nothing to person 2.
lazylizard 6y ago
We know that the wages of secrecy are corruption. We know that in secrecy error, undetected, will flourish and subvert. – Robert Oppenheimer “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” – Salman Rushdie
didibus 6y ago
In the Canadian Charter of Rights (which is like the Canadian equivalent to the US Constitution), there is a concept of reasonable limits. This allows a right to be limited to the extent that it is justified in a free and democratic society. In practice, this has been used in Canada to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech and obscenity. There's all kinds of limits on the limits themselves, and well defined tests and criterias for what can qualify as an appropriate limitation which since IANAL goes a little over my head. I'm bringing it up simply because the concept of having an absolutely applicable in all circumstances free speech right is not a concept used everywhere. So I feel the idea that those who defend free speech should defend it also when it's offensive isn't universal, and in Canada, the charter of rights doesn't make it so. It's an interesting contrast I believe. Here's a good read on other free democracies that also have certain limitations around freedom of speech: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitation...
- phonypc 6y ago
  >the concept of having an absolutely applicable in all circumstances free speech right is not a concept used everywhere. It is as a moral concept. I'd argue (as a Canadian) the Canadian legal concept of "free speech" doesn't really resemble the moral concept at all. Which is shameful. Unobjectionable conduct doesn't need protection.
jonnypotty 6y ago
Western society is moving past the ideals of tolerance and free speech. Philosophical ideas like this are now pretty easily dismissed as artifacts of a rasist, sexist system. Losing your job for saying the wrong thing, makes some people us feel like we are "making progress" but it's the capitalist PR machine protecting its interests. We express ourselves through curated systems directly controlled by huge corporations and the change we see is basically only in these same systems.
aimor 6y ago
There's a great episode of Snap Judgement with Daryl Davis where he talks about his interactions with KKK members. I haven't seen Accidental Courtesy, but I'm curious to see how BLM members respond to Davis in the documentary. They have wildly different intents. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/snapjudgment/episodes/real-black-klansman-snap-classic https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/snapjudgment/episodes/r...
jessaustin 6y ago
Sure, and journalists should defend journalism. Meanwhile most news media employees celebrate the persecution of Assange...
ngngngng 6y ago
I argued with a family member about this just the other day. She was trying to get a faculty member at a local university fired for saying something offensive on Twitter. I asked her what happens after we get him fired? Can he earn back the worthiness to again feed his family? Will he need to denounce his views or just stop spewing them publicly? Will he just need to collect unemployment for the rest of his life now that we've deemed him a heretic unworthy of work? The answers of her and her friends bounced between "I don't care what happens to racists like him" and calling me a racist for "defending" him. One participant said that he'll just have to work a job making far less like "the rest of us." As if there's a cap on how much money racists are allowed to make. I read everything he said that offended people, and I didn't see anything racist, as far as I can tell, he just hates protesters and "PC" culture. I just can't shake the first 3 words of The Constitution from my thoughts lately. Very nice of the LA Times to include a picture of it at the top of the page. We are not two separate entities in this country, the government and the NOT government. We are all The People. And we should all uphold the rights guaranteed in The Constitution to all of our fellow citizens. Shoutout to Paul Grahams ever applicable "What You Can't Say" http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- nonsince 6y ago
  People with racist or otherwise regressive views know that these views will (rightly) get them criticised by the majority, and so they won't couch them in those terms precisely, but it's often very clear when you take context into account. I can't speak for this exact case, because we don't know what his exact words were, but it's telling that even your defence of him describes him criticising protesters at a time when protesters are being shot and having chemical weapons used on them by the police, a state militia who can kill pretty much anyone without threat of consequence. If your stance in this case is to support that militia, their murders and their use of chemical weapons, then I think that it's not remotely unfair to say that you not only do not support the black lives matter movement, but that you support the continuation of black people in the states being murdered without recompense. When you have such a significant power over someone's higher education and therefore their life earnings, I don't think it's unfair to scrutinise these people's views further than had they little structural power.
pornel 6y ago
Like with the Paradox of Tolerance, the absolutist free speech position paradoxically leads to loss of free speech. Speech that is "truth to power" has to be defended. But defending the opposite kind—lies spread by the powerful—is helping them silence dissent. There are people/orgs/governments that are experts in twisting the idea of free speech to their advantage. They know very well what to say to change clear opposing voices into a "controversy", represent indisputable facts as "opinions", and play free speech card when called out on it. They can keep doing it until people who genuinely want to evaluate all sides can't keep up with all the distractions. And there are lots of cases when people are just being assholes. They enjoy that they can troll as much as they want and "freeze peach! slippery slope!" magically elevates any stupid shit they say into an important political message to be defended at all costs.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Right now, the "powerful people" are shaping the narrative far more by what they censor, than what they say. Preventing particular sides from sharing their views shapes the debate far more than adding noise to another side.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > But defending the opposite kind—lies spread by the powerful—is helping them silence dissent. But that just moves the problem to the question of "who is powerful?", doesn't it? Everybody feels that their side isn't in power because their goals and ideals haven't been completely achieved, so obviously they are the powerless who are speaking truth to power, and therefore the other side are the powerful who are spreading lies to silence dissent. That doesn't help. I think there's a good chance for anybody that they are wrong in their perception of who is in power, their perception of what "the powerful" want, their political convictions and theories of life, so any kind of distinction of what speech to suppress and what to allow is pretty much a coin flip with regards to this "allow & support speaking truth to power".
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Who is more powerful: The President of the United States, or me? While it's indeed possible that there are ambiguous cases, that doesn't invalidate the idea in general. Unless you legitimately believe that it is always impossible to determine when there is a power imbalance in a relationship. But we make that decision just fine in many other situations, so I don't know why speech would be different.
trabant00 6y ago
Why are we beating around the bush even on anonymous platform like this one? What do "conversations", language policing, social media activism, etc actually do to improve the situation? Where are the actual actions and involvements like volunteering for actual work in a poor community? Why is the suggested action so often giving money? Buy this book about how to be a good white person, donate to local BLM chapter, support this twitter activist on Patreon, hire a racial issues consultant for a company seminar? If anybody really cares about black lives they should be deeply concerned with gang violence, human trafficking, drugging minors, etc. Where are the conversations about that? For me it is clear that a lot of individuals are taking advantage of a real problem for their own goals and purposes, even wiling to do more harm than good. And now we are debating whether it's worth to sacrifice certain freedoms not to offend them.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  > If anybody really cares about black lives they should be deeply concerned with gang violence, human trafficking, drugging minors, etc. Where are the conversations about that? There's no question that BLM is being hijacked by groups with entirely different agendas - most of whom couldn't care less about black lives. ...but this argument is a logically flawed whataboutism. It's entirely reasonable to protest a lesser problem. It doesn't mean you don't care or work to fix the larger problems.
- nec4b 6y ago
  BLM has as much in common with black lives as ANTIFA has with anti fascism as Democratic People's Republic of Korea has with democracy. Just empty slogans.
JoshTko 6y ago
For free speech to work you must have an educated populace. I think America today is a great example of what happens if you have the former without investment in the latter.
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
Free-Speech is a concept that governs government interference, not people losing their jobs or having university acceptance rescinded.
- marsrover 6y ago
  Having a university acceptance rescinded isn’t government interference? Being protected because of your age but not because of your speech isn’t government interference?
odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
Can we also ban speech/hate/discrimination towards short men? I mean, it is genetic and it is also known that short men get payed less, have less dating options, aren't represented in top management positions, top sports, modelling, etc. It is even ok and funny for a good part of the population to insult them publicly and reject them. If you see a tinder/online post 'black men aren't real men' everyone would jump on them and crucify them, but 'Manlets 6'0 under are just little boys' is even shared and laughed by many. ps: I don't want any ban, but free speech is free speech, unless inciting violence, no amount of hurt feelings should mould what we are allowed to say, otherwise pretty much every race/religion/physical aspect/intelligence/etc will be somewhat offended at a point in time
randcraw 6y ago
Free speech != hate speech. There's a big difference between stating a reasoned point of view that some might find offensive and stating something that's intended only to offend. The first is essential to a free society and deserves our enthusiastic protection. The second is only destructive and should be shunned. Behaving offensively is not strictly in the eye of the beholder. If you hate something/someone, do not share your opinion unless you're willing to provide a reasoned argument to support your conclusion. If you're not willing to do that, then we're done listening. That's not free speech. Free speech should always be constructive, never just opinion -- especially a destructive one. The purpose of free speech is to make a positive contribution, support your assertion with facts and logic (and emotion, if you like), and then always be willing to discuss to the merits and demerits of your argument using civil discourse. Absent facts AND logic AND civil exchange... THAT'S NOT FREE SPEECH. It's just one person sounding off, often motivated by hate. That's not just offensive, that's intended only to offend. It's an assault on others. And assault is a crime. Yes, the US First Amendment defends the free exchange of ideas. But if you're not willing to listen as well, to think, discuss, and consider alternative points of view, then protected Free Speech should not apply to you. Take your lust to offend and go away. You're not welcome here.
- jakeogh 6y ago
  "hate speech" == whatever you want it to be Hitchens - Free Speech (2006): https://youtu.be/olefVguutfo https://youtu.be/olefVguutfo
  - randcraw 6y ago
    But that reduces the term to be meaningless. Unless you attempt to draw a line between what is and isn't hate, you cannot address it by law or even in discourse. If we want less of it, first we must define it. Only then can we draw a line so we can say, "Free speech stops here. Beyond this, the cost is too high (and the benefit too small)." The courts have drawn lines in the past when it comes to speech inviting bodily harm. Weaponized speech intended only to injure is little different.
    - 6y ago
zzo38computer 6y ago
I support freedom of speech, whether I agree or disagree what you have to say, or if I am offended by it (which I probably am not, but just in case). Freedom of speech shall also include the freedom to not say if you don't want to, but if you do want to say (or write), then you should say (or write), please. It was a (mis)quotation of Voltaire: I may not agree what you have to say but defend your right to say it.
jgeada 6y ago
I think they're misunderstanding the difference between freedom of speech and not having any negative consequences accruing to you for said speech. Yes, we all agree that government must not censor speech. However, all us other individuals and non-government organizations are certainly free to decide who to associate with and who not to associate with. You are free to say whatever stupid shit you want in public, but the rest of us are well within our rights to ostracize you, fire you, etc as a consequence of learning that you, due to your free speech, are an ignorant/repulsive/racist/evil person.
- phreeza 6y ago
  That is the legal situation, but the question then arises if it is desirable for a society to develop in the direction where such ostracisms happen a lot. I think there is an argument to be made that speech which is overly constrained by societal norms at some point would lead to similar negative consequences as speech constrained by the government. I am not saying that we are anywhere close to that point, but it think it is an important point to keep in mind.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "...any negative consequences accruing to you for said speech..." I see this argument all the time but it's pretty clear that progressives would be livid if an organization/business chose to impose "negative consequences" on one of their won for their progressive beliefs. Quite a double standard.
addicted44 6y ago
Free speech means you dont get put into jail, or worse, for the speech you exercise. The right to free speech does not mean you are entitled to no negative consequences for your speech in the private domain. Free speech doesn't mean that you get to do opeds (otherwise clearly I'm being repressed because this comment of mine wasn't included in the NYT on their oped page), or that they shouldnt affect your admissions, which are significantly based on like 10 essays you write anyways. Anyways, the NYT Cotton op-ed example is highly disingenuous. Tom Cotton suffered no negative consequences, and no one was unhappy with him. The NY Times also defended the op-ed and never once said they regretted publishing it or wouldn't in the future. The NYT only took responsibility for egregious factual errors, that should have been caught during an editorial process, and the opinion editor was fired because he spent days defending the article, including in an all hands on deck internal meeting, without having read it! That's literally the first job of an editor. To read an article so they can "edit" it.
- neilparikh 6y ago
  > Free speech means you dont get put into jail, or worse, for the speech you exercise. The right to free speech does not mean you are entitled to no negative consequences for your speech in the private domain. I'm not sure where you came up with that definition. Free speech as whole is much more expansive than that. From Wikipedia: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction." Free speech as legal concept means exactly what you claim (via the 1st amendment). But there's a broader concept to consider as well. Just because the government isn't arresting you doesn't mean your speech can't be restricted. People in the private domain targeting you for you speech can lead to an effective restriction on your speech. Now, I'm in agreement with you that the NYT case isn't really a a great example for this at all, since Tom Cotton has many other avenues for exercising his right to speech, and it was NYT who faced the backlash, not him. But I'd say the David Shor[0] case, and Justine Sacco case[1] is great example for showing the effect private actions can have on restricting speech. It's likely that both these individuals will be much more careful when they speak in the public sphere again. My point isn't that we should make this sort of "harassment" (for lack of a better word) illegal. That would just be restricting the free speech of the critics instead. But we should recognize that restrictions on free speech come from more than just the government, and work to build a culture where these kinds of restrictions are more rare. That would have the added benefit of strengthening public discourse and debate. [0] - first part of this article: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-... [1] - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/internet-uproar-erupts-after-pr-woman-for-media-firm-tweets https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/internet-...
dangoljames 6y ago
The right to say what you will is absolute, and protected from the federal government by the first amendment. However, nothing protects you from the consequences of harmful speech, and those consequences do not approximate a violation of your rights.
monadic2 6y ago
Popper disagreed rather famously.
stillbourne 6y ago
You are free to speak and exercise your freedom of speech no one really disputes that. You are not, however, anywhere guaranteed or granted the liberty to a platform for your dialog. That is the problem that we are encountering today, people are thinking that there are attacks to freedom of speech and confusing that with the freedom of an establishment to defend their property from damages. I think we can all agree that art is a medium for free speech but if you graffiti private property without the permission of the owner of said property than the owner of that property has the right to remove the graffiti. Likewise the operator of a website has the same right to remove content they may consider damaging to the value of their property. The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. It does not preserve the right to defame, demean, or slander others or their property or to damage the property in a way contrary to the desires of the owner of that property. No one is stopping you though from making your own platform to spread your own message. Although it is also the right of those you may purchase services from to terminate those services if they feel that it devalues their property. For instance if a dns provider decides that website is offensive it is their prerogative to terminate services as a private owner. Same with any content provider, isp, hosting service or social media website. No where in the law does anything grant you an unlimited ability to say anything you want in a private forum and any private forum is entitled to moderating the content on its properties. I wish people would stop conflating free speech as some sort of absolute. It is not. The only case where a platform must provide services outside of the strictest sense of an intended audience is in through US Code Titles that may be applicable by law such ADA accessibilities (these codes are of course regional and may not apply outside the region in which that service is provided).

394 points by undefined1 6y ago

“I trust you guys. I love you guys. We'll keep this space open. This is the last stronghold for civil discourse. After this shit it's just rat-a-tat tattity tat-tat ta tat tat TAT.” - Dave Chappelle

mellosouls 6y ago
“I seen Candace Owens try to convince white America, ‘don’t worry about it he’s a criminal anyway', I don’t give a fuck what this nigga did… I don’t care if he personally kicked Candace Owens in her stink pussy. I don’t know if it stinks, but I imagine it does." - Dave Chappelle, civil discourse champion, also
- guscost 6y ago
  “There’s something so true about this genre when done correctly that I will fight anybody that gets in a true practitioner of this art form’s way, because I know you’re wrong. This is the truth and you are obstructing it. I’m not talking about the content, I’m talking about the art form.”
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    I love Chappelle - but he's not an angel, and didn't serve the free speech cause well with his personal attack (she took it sportingly) on somebody genuinely brave in speaking off-message.
    - guscost 6y ago
      I’m with you that the personal attack was rude, and he likely lost support for his side on that issue by including it. But I don’t agree that the effect extends to lost support for free speech in general. It is commonly understood that rude speech is the most important kind of speech to defend, since it is the “front line” where the forces opposing free speech are most active. Dave is surely aware of this too. He says rude things all the time, probably intentionally, because when documented they become fortifications which are actually harder to break through. I’m pretty sure he has outright declared an intention to get things wrong sometimes, but I can’t find the quote.
      - mellosouls 6y ago
        Sure (and good points), but in the context here - quoting Chappelle on civil discourse and free speech I think it's important to question the consistency when such uncivil jibes are aimed from a position of power at a hate figure.
        guscost 6y ago
        In context, the phrase “civil discourse” has an alternative meaning that you arrive at by substituting the first dictionary definition of the word “civil”: > 1. relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters. It’s a brilliant argument that works on two levels: violence is the only alternative to free speech, and raw and ugly honesty can lead to greater understanding.
    - augustt 6y ago
      I would not call it bravery. She started her career as an anti-conservative blogger and then realized there was money to be made in being conservatives' token minority friend.
      - mellosouls 6y ago
        The nicest names she gets called are things like "conservatives' token minority friend". Whatever else she is, she's damned brave.
        augustt 6y ago
        No, Candace "if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine" Owens is not brave because she gets called out for being a sack of shit.
      - syshum 6y ago
        That is somewhat revisionist I would say, She was cancelled by the left like many have been over the years, because while she was "anti-conservative" (though not really) she was far more moderate than the Extreme Authoritarian left accepts
        nl 6y ago
        You don't find it slightly ironic that you are defending her when she was "cancelled" for setting up a website with the express purpose of doxxing people who didn't want to be identified?[1] I think it was you who claimed this on the Scott Alexander story: > One of the biggest problems in modern society is the lack of respect for privacy and anonymous speech. anonymous speech has been a cornerstone of the advancement of civilization many times through out history including playing a critical role in the formation of the United States as well as the US Constitution It seems to me that she was criticised by the left (and many on the right!) for attempting to start a pretty distasteful service. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens#Privacy_violation,_Gamergate,_and_political_transformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens#Privacy_violatio...

rbecker 6y ago

Just in case someone finds the examples in the article all acceptable censorship, here's a few more off the top of my head: Evergreen professor forced to resign for opposing day of white absence: https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-weinstein-explained-the-evergreen-scandal-f3dfe07b1d70 https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-weinstei... UCLA professor placed under investigation for reading MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-lecturer-for-reading-mlks-letter-from-birmingham-jail/ https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-lect... Data scientist fired for retweeting study showing non-violent protests are more effective: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-...

harryh 6y ago
The last one about the data scientist tweet got even crazier: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/white-fragility-racism-racism-progressive-progressphiles-david-shor.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/white-fragility-raci...
- rajup 6y ago
  Wow. That was an eye-opening read.
- graton 6y ago
  That link was posted here on HN and then got flagged. You can find it if you paste the URL into HN's search.
- coffeeling 6y ago
  O_o
ChristianBundy 6y ago
> Data scientist fired for retweeting study showing non-violent protests are more effective This is a blatant misrepresentation. The tweet talked about "race riots" and Democrat election results. Many people would argue that the point of direct action is not to sway electoral votes toward the Democratic party.

the_resistence 6y ago

Regrettably, that is what's lost in all of this. Protesters against other opinions and belief systems strongly defend free speech so long as you are saying what they approve of.

edoo 6y ago
Typical Marxism.
fennecfoxen 6y ago
The world, in general, is abandoning the past two centuries in which freedom has risen, to become illiberal, and enforce intellectual orthodoxies. It is more obvious and markedly so in in places like Turkey, but even here in the US we see those who would blacklist all political enemies and dissenters. These efforts will ultimately fail here, but not before grave harm is inflicted; history will judge us as harshly as we judge the McCarthy era. There were Communists in the government in the McCarthy era. There were quite a few Communists, much as there is still racism at large in the USA today. And yet you will note that successfully rooting out spies is not why McCarthy is remembered, but rather, for his self-aggrandizing campaign of paranoid repression.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  I don't think equating racist power structures in police and government to red scare communists is a good analogy. The fear of communists was mostly made up in rhetoric. The protestors on race relations are pretty clear on why they're upset.
  - TMWNN 6y ago
    The US and the West faced for 45 years a totalitarian system that had conquered a dozen neighboring countries and had a powerful military. How far was "too far" in combating that? As mentioned, there were Communist spies in the US government, far more than was generally understood at the time; we know that now thanks to the Venona files. That doesn't change the fact that Joe McCarthy was almost always correct only by accident. (You shoot in a random direction often enough, you'll hit someone eventually.) Worse, his excessive rhetoric likely for years discouraged legitimate rooting out of said spies.

patrick5151 6y ago

Got this in an from gab.ai ceo, === Let’s review the past week of internet censorship: The Federalist and Zerohedge were censored by Google TMZ removed their comment section to censor “hate speech” Gavin Mcinnes was banned from YouTube VDARE is losing their domain registrar Gab was blacklisted by Visa E Michael Jones had his books censored by Amazon Katie Hopkins was banned by Twitter @CarpeDonktum was banned by Twitter Trump’s tweet was censored by Twitter === Surprised to see E. Michael Jones get banned on Amazon, lol downvotes you censorious jerks

tasubotadas 6y ago
It's pretty impressive that HN crowd got upset just by stating some facts.

bryan_w 6y ago

The same free speech that is protecting racists today is the same one that prevented Gay people from being censored in the 90s for their "deviant" behavior.

gamblor956 6y ago
Is your statement intended to be ironic? Gay people were heavily censored in the early 90s outside of cities like San Francisco and West Hollywood. It wasn't until Will and Grace premiered in 1998 that the needle began moving toward acceptance.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  I mean, there was literally an official government policy called "Don't ask, don't tell".
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Which was entirely reasonable. ...because the point of the military isn't to discuss your gender alignment. The unfairness of it became obvious when every other enlisted man would talk about their latest sex partner and the gay person had to just stand awkwardly silent. ...but the policy itself was rooted in a reasonable desire for soldiers to focus on soldiering.
    - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
      I'd love to see the list of all the other mundane things you weren't allowed to talk about because they distracted from soldiering. It only seems reasonable if you only consider it in an idealized vacuum.
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  According to Wikipedia [1], comedy TV shows with LGBT characters by decade (which is probably a good proxy). Ellen's "coming out" episode was in 1997. 70s: 12 80s: 11 90s: 28 00s: 45 Willing to wager the trend is similar to movies. We had (just the ones I can recall off-hand, but had to lookup years): Paris is Burning ('90) My Own Private Idaho ('91) Fried Green Tomatoes ('91) Philadelphia ('93) To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar ('95) Jeffrey ('95) Birdcage ('96) Bound ('96) In & Out ('97) Boys Don't Cry ('99) Of course, most of these role were filled by cis people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_comedy_television_series_with_LGBT_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_comedy_television_seri...

klmadfejno 6y ago

As great as free speech is, I don't think western political systems will survive it if it's not accompanied by transparency and accountability. Humans are hard wired to perceive their environments as local. They are not local anymore. The bar of plausible deniability has sunk two inches into the mud we stand on for any dumbass political justification. I don't want restrictions on free speech, but I also feel absolutely screwed by the way society functions right now.

krapp 6y ago
Sorry, but both "transparency" and "accountability" are considered censorship now.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  I think that you are confused. If anything it is the lack of transparency that is closer to censorship.
- krapp 6y ago
  I'm being censored for my facetious, low quality comment!
Proven 6y ago
You can't get screwed if there's no government to screw you. You want the government to do 100 different things. One of them will be to screw you over. Big government is not a predominantly western political system. Small government is.

cumcastsucks 6y ago

the left just wants an echo chamber and to act like children, they could care less about actual rights.

bosswipe 6y ago

There's a disconnect that keeps running through a lot of the arguments from the conservative side which I don't understand. The examples given in this piece are a) the right of street protesters to be heard without being attacked by government officers vs b) the right of people to not get fired for what they say by private organizations like the New York Times. This disconnect keeps coming up, and it's extra weird because conservatives have traditionally been the bigger proponents of corporate freedom to fire whoever they want. But now many conservatives seem to want some kind of new labor protection laws. Maybe what is going on is not really about free speech but more about quickly changing cultural norms. It used to be OK to make blatant racist and sexist jokes in an office setting but at some point that changed and now you can easily get fired over it. That's not a change in free speech restrictions, it's a change in what is considered culturally acceptable behavior between private actors. But changing cultural norms aren't something that should be somehow regulated by the government.

nmfisher 6y ago
True, but by the same token, there is a clear distinction between these two opinions: 1) I believe the government should outlaw firing people based on what they say in the office 2) I believe that companies should not fire people based on what they say in the office. Believing in small government doesn't mean you have no opinion on cultural norms. It just means you don't think the government should enforce them. But you're also right that many modern "conservatives" don't grasp the distinction.
- syshum 6y ago
  it is not just conservatives that do not grasp that The 2 statements are the difference between a liberty minded person and the authority minded person Liberty mined (or libertarian) can easily separate their personal beliefs on what is "proper" but still allow that other people may view differently and as long as they are not harming them (or anyone else) should be allowed to live their life in the manner they deem "proper" Authority minded people (or Authoritarian) can not do this, they believe their worldview is the "right" or "correct" world view and that must be imposed upon everyone, by force if necessary. These 2 mindsets exist in both "Left" and "Right" political orthodoxy

cwhiz 6y ago

Shouting people down in public and on the internet doesn’t change opinions. People just talk more quietly or take more care with whom they share their thoughts and opinions. Cancel culture, outrage culture, and the general “social justice” movement is not much more than a wide scale attempt to silence dissenting thought. Build your own bubble, and shout down anyone who thinks or speaks differently. Yell and call it “offensive.” The genius of it is you get to decide what’s offensive, and move the goalposts as you see it. Brilliant! Once you’ve successfully filled your world with only viewpoints that you don’t find problematic, you can be shocked when a man like Donald Trump wins the Presidency. People in the United States need to thicken up. Learn to hear a thought different from your own. Stop retreating into a stupid safe bubble where your thoughts and ideas don’t have to be challenged. Grow up.

missosoup 6y ago
This is an excellent summary of what's going on. Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. Instead it makes them more hostile and causes them to double down. I'm pretty confused how America keeps going down this path even after an actual 50% of the entire population revolted against the 'good' ideologies and voted in Trump with religious fervour. Pretending that people with different views don't exist, or that their views don't matter, doesn't make those views go away. Marginalising and attacking people for views they hold just hardens their resolve.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  > Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a > 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively. Look at the anti-vaxers, "chem trails", or 5G conspiracy theorists: the majority of these paranoiacs didn't independently arrive at these theories.
  - missosoup 6y ago
    > However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively How'd that work out with the Trump election and the massive resurgence of outright racism and sexism? How far does one's subjective view of the world around them have to diverge from reality before they stop and think, huh, maybe this doesn't work at all. Silencing dissenting views has never worked in history. Not once. It just increases internal societal pressure until it reaches a critical point and boils over, usually in a physically violent upturn.

mrfusion 6y ago

Wait but why has some good articles on the value of free speech. https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/american-brain.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/american-brain.html If you have time, the whole series that article is part of is a great read.

mrfusion 6y ago

Jon Stuart Mill “On Liberty” full text: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liberty.pdf https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liber... Has anyone read it? I found it eye opening for these kind of discussions.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gentleman11 6y ago
There are some pretty decent librevox recordings available also

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gentleman11 6y ago

There are a lot of downvoted posts in this thread that make reasonable arguments and that are promoting discussion. I disagree with a lot of them, but it’s awkward for this to be a story where people are heavily downvoting people they disagree with

cheschire 6y ago
It's a question I've been struggling with lately. Downvotes reinforce groupthink, that much is subjectively clear. I've considered solutions, and I believe forcing people to reply before they are allowed to downvote would help. However, in opposition to my own idea, I consider that simply requiring a more effort wouldn't necessarily change the groupthink problem, but would just stifle low effort downvotes. Let's consider then the whole idea of votes in the first place. Are downvotes considered "speech" in an abstract sense? Should they be protected in the same way disagreeable opinions are? Is the level of effort necessary to express the speech relevant to the level of protection it deserves? Would restricting downvotes in any way be considered a speech restriction? So these are all interesting aspects to the problem that cause me a lot of internal debate.
- yodelshady 6y ago
  >but would just stifle low effort downvotes With the exception of spam, that's a feature. If something offends you, you should consider why. Upvotes are useful in reducing spam, as without them, I'd have to repeat a sentiment to show agreement. In my experience (anecdata warning!) that nicely leads to both the best post for an argument, and the best rebuttal, sharing visibility. Neither combat the problem of "fake news", because frauds don't have to be well done if the local community agrees with the sentiment.
- mettamage 6y ago
  To reply to a part of your comment: I've come to realize that most downvotes can be mitigated by simply adding in disclaimers, explicit assumptions, general kindness and general positivity [1]. In that sense HN really made me a more civil person to discuss with, while I am still able to write controversial opinions when I happen to have them. So on balance, in my experience, the downvoting has been a good development for me. [1] There was a year where I was arguably mildly depressed about my job situation. I graduated had all the bells and whistles, and worked amazingly hard for it (I almost burned out twice). Yet, I couldn't get a prestigious job. And for me, that was the whole point. Why work hard if it doesn't get you anywhere? I gave up on a lot of things. The tone in my comments during that year was more negative than usual despite my opinions being similar. I experimented with being more positive than I actually felt, while still expressing the same opinions, and noticed I'd be downvoted less and upvoted more.

cat_plus_plus 6y ago

For the past five years or so, I prefer discussing current events with conservatives - not because I think they are closer to truth, but because they are willing to be a good sport in a conversation. This has nothing to do with political parties, which are both dumpster fires. Maybe Republicans started earlier with Tea Party and got worse, but Democrats are heading in the same direction after Occupy Wall Street. And I realize that conservatives are not super tolerant of rowdy burn cars/block highway protests. But in actual intellectual conversations, they are the champs. Sad because I though tech liberals were supposed to be brainy and open minded.

nikanj 6y ago
You might get cancelled for discussing things with the wrong people, despite what you say. Especially if you get on a podcast to discuss things with a conservative figure.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  One might get cancelled for liking or sharing the wrong Tweet or FB post. Even if the content of the liked or shared comment is non-controversial, if the wrong person said it, you can get cancelled. I remember when my left leaning daughter made one of her very first tweets, it was a policy question related to immigration. (It was related to questioning why the US has birthright citizenship -- a topic being covered in one of her HS courses.) In seconds the hate tweets and retweets started from progressives...I jumped out of bed (it was kind of late at night) and ran into her room to suggest/implore that she delete the tweet and her entire account and never share anything like that again. Saved her life that night. Though, I am thankful that she did learn her lesson without much cost.
cjslep 6y ago
I think you've simply found the "able-to-have-these-convos conservatives" to have these discussions with and haven't found the "able-to-have-these-convos liberals". Note that I hate using these categories. Anyway, in my personal experience almost all the people I can think of that I have deep political discussions with who may fall into the latter camp almost never discuss politics online, for various reasons.

AHappyCamper 6y ago

I understand that there are a lot of people who are hurting right now, and I empathize with their pain, but how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other or convey important information to the public if we believe there might be serious reprisals against us if we "say the wrong thing". For example, I personally helped work against slavery on the Black Market in the Middle East, and I wanted to raise awareness of this issue. But now I have to be worried that I'll insult people by using the term Black Market, and will also insult people by giving off the impression that the the Middle East is a 3rd world primitive place where they buy and sell slaves. There is no "right" way to convey the issue above without offending someone. So what should I do? Just shut my mouth and don't say anything? Then the slave trade will continue to operate freely... All speech besides threats of violence needs to be free, or we can't progress as a society.

imgabe 6y ago
Part of the issue is that some people consider any speech they disagree with as a threat of violence or "endangering my safety".
- AHappyCamper 6y ago
  Again, I empathize with the feelings of people who may feel emotionally threatened by a derogatory comment, but some speech deals with people whose lives are in imminent mortal danger (e.g. those about to be sold on Black Market) and if we can't quickly discuss their cases and potential responses to rescue them, then they will be doomed to a life of untold misery. In such situations, there is no time to filter every comment and every email for potential sources of offense - we need to convey info as fast as possible.
  - Guthur 6y ago
    This has become a problem because the internet social networking has opened up the potential of mob justice tar and feathering that is causing people real harm in terms of their livelihood and I'd imagine mental well being.
  - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Causality1 6y ago

To quote Noam Chomsky, "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for people we despise, we do not believe in it at all." That's not to say you're entitled to not be fired for any reason that makes you a liability to a company, but I'm seeing far too many people applauding political violence. "Punch Nazis" is now the standard internet response to any right-wing demonstration and those who repeat that slogan always fail to see the incredible irony of it.

coffeeling 6y ago
Punch Nazis is bankrupt in any case: Punching an ideologue makes you feel good, but it won't change their mind. So it serves your own need for righteousness but little else. "But it worked in WWII", someone will say. No. They didn't punch Nazis in WWII. They killed them. They took to them with rifle and bayonet, bombed their towns and factories, and forcibly dismantled their party and government. You don't need to convince the person if you're unilaterally revoking their right to live. You just shoot, bomb, and stab them. Punch a Nazi is bankrupt because it doesn't solve the problem it purports to. You reduce Nazi headcount by convincing them and by giving people sane alternatives so they don't end up throwing their lot in with clowns celebrating Hitler's birthday or by straight up killing them, and Punch does none of those.

gadders 6y ago

Unpopular speech is the only speech worth defending.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
You've been downvoted, but it's a fair point. You don't need freedom of speech to express ideas already accepted by the mainstream and by the state. That's permitted even in the most oppressive regimes. Freedom of speech is, by definition, concerned with unpopular speech.

Myce 6y ago

To me the limit in freedom of speech is when one calls for violence. As I truly believe in free speech, every exception you make to free speech, is arbitrary. If we have to everyone's exceptions into account, it's over with real free speech. I personally can't be easily hurt by people I don't know well, but also understand that other people are easier hurt. This can be due to their current situation or things from the past that can more easily hurt their feelings. I also want to stress that there's obviously something as politeness, empathy and social behavior. These should be encouraged at all times. But we all know some people simply can't behave and sometimes you even yourself can make an insulting remark But due to free of speech, I do believe that people who are rude, insult others and make insensitive jokes, should be allowed to do so. Without any limit. How terrible it is what they say They practice their freedom of speech. And we shouldn't punish them, other than telling them how we feel about what they say and making clear it can hurt the feelings of others. On the other side we should invest in becoming more resilent to insults etc. Obviously I see a task for parents and maybe even schools. Thet should invest time in teaching children how to deal with rude, insensitive, insulting people and make them more resilient e.g. by boosting their self confidence. For me that would be the best solution to keep an open society where people can speak freely. Making exceptions will kill it. After all what can be insulting to person 1 can mean totally nothing to person 2.

lazylizard 6y ago

We know that the wages of secrecy are corruption. We know that in secrecy error, undetected, will flourish and subvert. – Robert Oppenheimer “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” – Salman Rushdie

didibus 6y ago

In the Canadian Charter of Rights (which is like the Canadian equivalent to the US Constitution), there is a concept of reasonable limits. This allows a right to be limited to the extent that it is justified in a free and democratic society. In practice, this has been used in Canada to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech and obscenity. There's all kinds of limits on the limits themselves, and well defined tests and criterias for what can qualify as an appropriate limitation which since IANAL goes a little over my head. I'm bringing it up simply because the concept of having an absolutely applicable in all circumstances free speech right is not a concept used everywhere. So I feel the idea that those who defend free speech should defend it also when it's offensive isn't universal, and in Canada, the charter of rights doesn't make it so. It's an interesting contrast I believe. Here's a good read on other free democracies that also have certain limitations around freedom of speech: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitation...

phonypc 6y ago
>the concept of having an absolutely applicable in all circumstances free speech right is not a concept used everywhere. It is as a moral concept. I'd argue (as a Canadian) the Canadian legal concept of "free speech" doesn't really resemble the moral concept at all. Which is shameful. Unobjectionable conduct doesn't need protection.

jonnypotty 6y ago

Western society is moving past the ideals of tolerance and free speech. Philosophical ideas like this are now pretty easily dismissed as artifacts of a rasist, sexist system. Losing your job for saying the wrong thing, makes some people us feel like we are "making progress" but it's the capitalist PR machine protecting its interests. We express ourselves through curated systems directly controlled by huge corporations and the change we see is basically only in these same systems.

aimor 6y ago

There's a great episode of Snap Judgement with Daryl Davis where he talks about his interactions with KKK members. I haven't seen Accidental Courtesy, but I'm curious to see how BLM members respond to Davis in the documentary. They have wildly different intents. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/snapjudgment/episodes/real-black-klansman-snap-classic https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/snapjudgment/episodes/r...

jessaustin 6y ago

Sure, and journalists should defend journalism. Meanwhile most news media employees celebrate the persecution of Assange...

ngngngng 6y ago

I argued with a family member about this just the other day. She was trying to get a faculty member at a local university fired for saying something offensive on Twitter. I asked her what happens after we get him fired? Can he earn back the worthiness to again feed his family? Will he need to denounce his views or just stop spewing them publicly? Will he just need to collect unemployment for the rest of his life now that we've deemed him a heretic unworthy of work? The answers of her and her friends bounced between "I don't care what happens to racists like him" and calling me a racist for "defending" him. One participant said that he'll just have to work a job making far less like "the rest of us." As if there's a cap on how much money racists are allowed to make. I read everything he said that offended people, and I didn't see anything racist, as far as I can tell, he just hates protesters and "PC" culture. I just can't shake the first 3 words of The Constitution from my thoughts lately. Very nice of the LA Times to include a picture of it at the top of the page. We are not two separate entities in this country, the government and the NOT government. We are all The People. And we should all uphold the rights guaranteed in The Constitution to all of our fellow citizens. Shoutout to Paul Grahams ever applicable "What You Can't Say" http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

nonsince 6y ago
People with racist or otherwise regressive views know that these views will (rightly) get them criticised by the majority, and so they won't couch them in those terms precisely, but it's often very clear when you take context into account. I can't speak for this exact case, because we don't know what his exact words were, but it's telling that even your defence of him describes him criticising protesters at a time when protesters are being shot and having chemical weapons used on them by the police, a state militia who can kill pretty much anyone without threat of consequence. If your stance in this case is to support that militia, their murders and their use of chemical weapons, then I think that it's not remotely unfair to say that you not only do not support the black lives matter movement, but that you support the continuation of black people in the states being murdered without recompense. When you have such a significant power over someone's higher education and therefore their life earnings, I don't think it's unfair to scrutinise these people's views further than had they little structural power.

pornel 6y ago

Like with the Paradox of Tolerance, the absolutist free speech position paradoxically leads to loss of free speech. Speech that is "truth to power" has to be defended. But defending the opposite kind—lies spread by the powerful—is helping them silence dissent. There are people/orgs/governments that are experts in twisting the idea of free speech to their advantage. They know very well what to say to change clear opposing voices into a "controversy", represent indisputable facts as "opinions", and play free speech card when called out on it. They can keep doing it until people who genuinely want to evaluate all sides can't keep up with all the distractions. And there are lots of cases when people are just being assholes. They enjoy that they can troll as much as they want and "freeze peach! slippery slope!" magically elevates any stupid shit they say into an important political message to be defended at all costs.

Thorentis 6y ago
Right now, the "powerful people" are shaping the narrative far more by what they censor, than what they say. Preventing particular sides from sharing their views shapes the debate far more than adding noise to another side.
luckylion 6y ago
> But defending the opposite kind—lies spread by the powerful—is helping them silence dissent. But that just moves the problem to the question of "who is powerful?", doesn't it? Everybody feels that their side isn't in power because their goals and ideals haven't been completely achieved, so obviously they are the powerless who are speaking truth to power, and therefore the other side are the powerful who are spreading lies to silence dissent. That doesn't help. I think there's a good chance for anybody that they are wrong in their perception of who is in power, their perception of what "the powerful" want, their political convictions and theories of life, so any kind of distinction of what speech to suppress and what to allow is pretty much a coin flip with regards to this "allow & support speaking truth to power".
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Who is more powerful: The President of the United States, or me? While it's indeed possible that there are ambiguous cases, that doesn't invalidate the idea in general. Unless you legitimately believe that it is always impossible to determine when there is a power imbalance in a relationship. But we make that decision just fine in many other situations, so I don't know why speech would be different.

trabant00 6y ago

Why are we beating around the bush even on anonymous platform like this one? What do "conversations", language policing, social media activism, etc actually do to improve the situation? Where are the actual actions and involvements like volunteering for actual work in a poor community? Why is the suggested action so often giving money? Buy this book about how to be a good white person, donate to local BLM chapter, support this twitter activist on Patreon, hire a racial issues consultant for a company seminar? If anybody really cares about black lives they should be deeply concerned with gang violence, human trafficking, drugging minors, etc. Where are the conversations about that? For me it is clear that a lot of individuals are taking advantage of a real problem for their own goals and purposes, even wiling to do more harm than good. And now we are debating whether it's worth to sacrifice certain freedoms not to offend them.

koheripbal 6y ago
> If anybody really cares about black lives they should be deeply concerned with gang violence, human trafficking, drugging minors, etc. Where are the conversations about that? There's no question that BLM is being hijacked by groups with entirely different agendas - most of whom couldn't care less about black lives. ...but this argument is a logically flawed whataboutism. It's entirely reasonable to protest a lesser problem. It doesn't mean you don't care or work to fix the larger problems.
nec4b 6y ago
BLM has as much in common with black lives as ANTIFA has with anti fascism as Democratic People's Republic of Korea has with democracy. Just empty slogans.

JoshTko 6y ago

For free speech to work you must have an educated populace. I think America today is a great example of what happens if you have the former without investment in the latter.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

Free-Speech is a concept that governs government interference, not people losing their jobs or having university acceptance rescinded.

marsrover 6y ago
Having a university acceptance rescinded isn’t government interference? Being protected because of your age but not because of your speech isn’t government interference?

odshoifsdhfs 6y ago

Can we also ban speech/hate/discrimination towards short men? I mean, it is genetic and it is also known that short men get payed less, have less dating options, aren't represented in top management positions, top sports, modelling, etc. It is even ok and funny for a good part of the population to insult them publicly and reject them. If you see a tinder/online post 'black men aren't real men' everyone would jump on them and crucify them, but 'Manlets 6'0 under are just little boys' is even shared and laughed by many. ps: I don't want any ban, but free speech is free speech, unless inciting violence, no amount of hurt feelings should mould what we are allowed to say, otherwise pretty much every race/religion/physical aspect/intelligence/etc will be somewhat offended at a point in time

randcraw 6y ago

Free speech != hate speech. There's a big difference between stating a reasoned point of view that some might find offensive and stating something that's intended only to offend. The first is essential to a free society and deserves our enthusiastic protection. The second is only destructive and should be shunned. Behaving offensively is not strictly in the eye of the beholder. If you hate something/someone, do not share your opinion unless you're willing to provide a reasoned argument to support your conclusion. If you're not willing to do that, then we're done listening. That's not free speech. Free speech should always be constructive, never just opinion -- especially a destructive one. The purpose of free speech is to make a positive contribution, support your assertion with facts and logic (and emotion, if you like), and then always be willing to discuss to the merits and demerits of your argument using civil discourse. Absent facts AND logic AND civil exchange... THAT'S NOT FREE SPEECH. It's just one person sounding off, often motivated by hate. That's not just offensive, that's intended only to offend. It's an assault on others. And assault is a crime. Yes, the US First Amendment defends the free exchange of ideas. But if you're not willing to listen as well, to think, discuss, and consider alternative points of view, then protected Free Speech should not apply to you. Take your lust to offend and go away. You're not welcome here.

jakeogh 6y ago
"hate speech" == whatever you want it to be Hitchens - Free Speech (2006): https://youtu.be/olefVguutfo https://youtu.be/olefVguutfo
- randcraw 6y ago
  But that reduces the term to be meaningless. Unless you attempt to draw a line between what is and isn't hate, you cannot address it by law or even in discourse. If we want less of it, first we must define it. Only then can we draw a line so we can say, "Free speech stops here. Beyond this, the cost is too high (and the benefit too small)." The courts have drawn lines in the past when it comes to speech inviting bodily harm. Weaponized speech intended only to injure is little different.
  - 6y ago

zzo38computer 6y ago

I support freedom of speech, whether I agree or disagree what you have to say, or if I am offended by it (which I probably am not, but just in case). Freedom of speech shall also include the freedom to not say if you don't want to, but if you do want to say (or write), then you should say (or write), please. It was a (mis)quotation of Voltaire: I may not agree what you have to say but defend your right to say it.

jgeada 6y ago

I think they're misunderstanding the difference between freedom of speech and not having any negative consequences accruing to you for said speech. Yes, we all agree that government must not censor speech. However, all us other individuals and non-government organizations are certainly free to decide who to associate with and who not to associate with. You are free to say whatever stupid shit you want in public, but the rest of us are well within our rights to ostracize you, fire you, etc as a consequence of learning that you, due to your free speech, are an ignorant/repulsive/racist/evil person.

phreeza 6y ago
That is the legal situation, but the question then arises if it is desirable for a society to develop in the direction where such ostracisms happen a lot. I think there is an argument to be made that speech which is overly constrained by societal norms at some point would lead to similar negative consequences as speech constrained by the government. I am not saying that we are anywhere close to that point, but it think it is an important point to keep in mind.
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "...any negative consequences accruing to you for said speech..." I see this argument all the time but it's pretty clear that progressives would be livid if an organization/business chose to impose "negative consequences" on one of their won for their progressive beliefs. Quite a double standard.

addicted44 6y ago

Free speech means you dont get put into jail, or worse, for the speech you exercise. The right to free speech does not mean you are entitled to no negative consequences for your speech in the private domain. Free speech doesn't mean that you get to do opeds (otherwise clearly I'm being repressed because this comment of mine wasn't included in the NYT on their oped page), or that they shouldnt affect your admissions, which are significantly based on like 10 essays you write anyways. Anyways, the NYT Cotton op-ed example is highly disingenuous. Tom Cotton suffered no negative consequences, and no one was unhappy with him. The NY Times also defended the op-ed and never once said they regretted publishing it or wouldn't in the future. The NYT only took responsibility for egregious factual errors, that should have been caught during an editorial process, and the opinion editor was fired because he spent days defending the article, including in an all hands on deck internal meeting, without having read it! That's literally the first job of an editor. To read an article so they can "edit" it.

neilparikh 6y ago
> Free speech means you dont get put into jail, or worse, for the speech you exercise. The right to free speech does not mean you are entitled to no negative consequences for your speech in the private domain. I'm not sure where you came up with that definition. Free speech as whole is much more expansive than that. From Wikipedia: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction." Free speech as legal concept means exactly what you claim (via the 1st amendment). But there's a broader concept to consider as well. Just because the government isn't arresting you doesn't mean your speech can't be restricted. People in the private domain targeting you for you speech can lead to an effective restriction on your speech. Now, I'm in agreement with you that the NYT case isn't really a a great example for this at all, since Tom Cotton has many other avenues for exercising his right to speech, and it was NYT who faced the backlash, not him. But I'd say the David Shor[0] case, and Justine Sacco case[1] is great example for showing the effect private actions can have on restricting speech. It's likely that both these individuals will be much more careful when they speak in the public sphere again. My point isn't that we should make this sort of "harassment" (for lack of a better word) illegal. That would just be restricting the free speech of the critics instead. But we should recognize that restrictions on free speech come from more than just the government, and work to build a culture where these kinds of restrictions are more rare. That would have the added benefit of strengthening public discourse and debate. [0] - first part of this article: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-... [1] - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/internet-uproar-erupts-after-pr-woman-for-media-firm-tweets https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/internet-...

dangoljames 6y ago

The right to say what you will is absolute, and protected from the federal government by the first amendment. However, nothing protects you from the consequences of harmful speech, and those consequences do not approximate a violation of your rights.

monadic2 6y ago

Popper disagreed rather famously.

stillbourne 6y ago

You are free to speak and exercise your freedom of speech no one really disputes that. You are not, however, anywhere guaranteed or granted the liberty to a platform for your dialog. That is the problem that we are encountering today, people are thinking that there are attacks to freedom of speech and confusing that with the freedom of an establishment to defend their property from damages. I think we can all agree that art is a medium for free speech but if you graffiti private property without the permission of the owner of said property than the owner of that property has the right to remove the graffiti. Likewise the operator of a website has the same right to remove content they may consider damaging to the value of their property. The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. It does not preserve the right to defame, demean, or slander others or their property or to damage the property in a way contrary to the desires of the owner of that property. No one is stopping you though from making your own platform to spread your own message. Although it is also the right of those you may purchase services from to terminate those services if they feel that it devalues their property. For instance if a dns provider decides that website is offensive it is their prerogative to terminate services as a private owner. Same with any content provider, isp, hosting service or social media website. No where in the law does anything grant you an unlimited ability to say anything you want in a private forum and any private forum is entitled to moderating the content on its properties. I wish people would stop conflating free speech as some sort of absolute. It is not. The only case where a platform must provide services outside of the strictest sense of an intended audience is in through US Code Titles that may be applicable by law such ADA accessibilities (these codes are of course regional and may not apply outside the region in which that service is provided).