4 ms·

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 inten

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.
  - jakeogh 6y ago
    The term is meaningless. That's the point. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20623177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20623177
toast0 6y ago
These sound like guidelines for a discussion site, but I don't think there's a basis in the law for the US freedom of speech to be freedom of constructive speech or freedom of civil exchange. There are plenty of hateful people and group that say reprehensible things in public and face no government sanctions. And, as much as I dislile the reprehensible things they say, I feel that's appropriate. The governments of the US should not be in the business of deciding what can be said or by whom, and historically has done a poor job when they have. Any venue claiming to be a free speech venue but policing hate speech isn't really a free speech venue after all. More so if the policing is ad-hoc and capricious. Of course, HN never claims to be a free speech venue (and certainly isn't). And I don't think I would participate in many group discussions in a legitimately free speech venue either --- there are a lot of opinions I don't want to hear, and I am content for them to be voiced somewhere else, but then, I avoid the public square in real life as well.
- randcraw 6y ago
  Public speech has long been limited by law: slander, libel, sedition, public nuisance, public safety, violation of NDA, violation of gag orders, indecency, and more. Your argument is only that no amount of hate speech is too much. But I see no principle in civil rights that defends the repercussions that ensue from purely bilious expression, any more than the claim that mercilessly berating some individual unto suicide should be an act of free expression. Verbal misconduct often leads to penalties in civil court. The question here is whether it should also lead to criminal penalties, as speech that is intended only to injure. It seems to me that a civil society cannot coexist with the unfettered right to speak hate. One of the two must win out. I hope it's civility. So far, I think it's been hate.

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.
- jakeogh 6y ago
  The term is meaningless. That's the point. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20623177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20623177

toast0 6y ago

These sound like guidelines for a discussion site, but I don't think there's a basis in the law for the US freedom of speech to be freedom of constructive speech or freedom of civil exchange. There are plenty of hateful people and group that say reprehensible things in public and face no government sanctions. And, as much as I dislile the reprehensible things they say, I feel that's appropriate. The governments of the US should not be in the business of deciding what can be said or by whom, and historically has done a poor job when they have. Any venue claiming to be a free speech venue but policing hate speech isn't really a free speech venue after all. More so if the policing is ad-hoc and capricious. Of course, HN never claims to be a free speech venue (and certainly isn't). And I don't think I would participate in many group discussions in a legitimately free speech venue either --- there are a lot of opinions I don't want to hear, and I am content for them to be voiced somewhere else, but then, I avoid the public square in real life as well.

randcraw 6y ago
Public speech has long been limited by law: slander, libel, sedition, public nuisance, public safety, violation of NDA, violation of gag orders, indecency, and more. Your argument is only that no amount of hate speech is too much. But I see no principle in civil rights that defends the repercussions that ensue from purely bilious expression, any more than the claim that mercilessly berating some individual unto suicide should be an act of free expression. Verbal misconduct often leads to penalties in civil court. The question here is whether it should also lead to criminal penalties, as speech that is intended only to injure. It seems to me that a civil society cannot coexist with the unfettered right to speak hate. One of the two must win out. I hope it's civility. So far, I think it's been hate.