4 ms·

>People are free to circulate petitions, including those making demands about someone's Linguistic Society status. [...] Though, of course, you're free to circu

>People are free to circulate petitions, including those making demands about someone's Linguistic Society status. [...] Though, of course, you're free to circulate a counter-petition against them! People are free to insult others and you are free to counter-insult them. And you are also free to write an open letter asking people to try to discuss their issues, rather then insulting each other, circulating petitions against each other or getting each other fired. >People are not required to express only opinions you approve of. This is what you might call the "doctrine of the second speaker". Alice expresses a view Bob finds offensive. Bob calls for Alice to be fired. John says that people shouldn't be fired for expressing offensive views. Then Tom points out that "People are not required to express only opinions you approve of." After all, Bob's call for Alice to be fired is protected by the first amendment, therefore (?) it's wrong to critizise people for calling for others to be fired for offensive views.

tptacek 6y ago
That's true. People can insult each other. There are limits: you can't intentionally and convincingly relate false facts about people (that's defamation). But calling for people's termination? That's an opinion you're unquestionably free to share.
- nokcha 6y ago
  Yes, calling for a company to fire someone is generally protected under the First Amendment. (There might be some edge cases, like if a state has a criminal anti-discrimination law and someone is inciting the company (to unlawfully fire a specific person specifically on the basis on a legally protected characteristic).) But the ideal of freedom of expression is broader than limitations on the powers of government. The ideal also encompasses social norms that encourage open and honest discussion. Bad arguments made in appropriate public forums should be met with counterarguments, and certainly not with being placed on industry blacklists or getting fired. Otherwise, there are very real chilling effects on the willingness of people to engage in honest discussion. (To clarify what I mean by "appropriate public forum" above, let me give an example: Protesting someone's funeral by marching on a public sidewalk and waving signs inscribed "God hates X" is legally protected (Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)), but is outside the bounds of what most people would consider appropriate. Protesting in that place and manner rightfully subjects the protester to public scorn.)
  - tptacek 6y ago
    I can't say anything about this better than Ken White did today; I cosign this in its entirety: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1280992193591689221 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1280992193591689221
    - amadeuspagel 6y ago
      > /6 That's because of the fundamental deal behind First Amendment values: you can't use the government to punish speech because the marketplace of ideas, the private sector, society's "more speech" is the best way to address "bad speech," not government action. This category of "more speech", including everything from criticism to calling for someone to get fired is dishonest. The letter doesn't oppose criticism.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        Calling for people to be fired is "more speech".
        enoch_r 6y ago
        The HN guidelines say: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Are these good guidelines? Do you think they encourage better better discussions? Do you value having a community in which these guidelines are culturally accepted? If people started violating these guidelines en masse, do you think it would make sense to defend them? Or would that be silly, because the answer to bad speech is more speech? The way I see it, the answer to bad speech is more speech. But that doesn't mean there can't be cultural differences in the way we use speech - some worlds in which we more often misrepresent our oppenents, interpret their statements in the worst possible light, and use that to attempt to destroy their lives, and some worlds in which we choose not to. I view the letter as an attempt to move us towards the latter world - say, to push discourse away from Twitter-style and towards HN-style debate.

tptacek 6y ago

That's true. People can insult each other. There are limits: you can't intentionally and convincingly relate false facts about people (that's defamation). But calling for people's termination? That's an opinion you're unquestionably free to share.

nokcha 6y ago
Yes, calling for a company to fire someone is generally protected under the First Amendment. (There might be some edge cases, like if a state has a criminal anti-discrimination law and someone is inciting the company (to unlawfully fire a specific person specifically on the basis on a legally protected characteristic).) But the ideal of freedom of expression is broader than limitations on the powers of government. The ideal also encompasses social norms that encourage open and honest discussion. Bad arguments made in appropriate public forums should be met with counterarguments, and certainly not with being placed on industry blacklists or getting fired. Otherwise, there are very real chilling effects on the willingness of people to engage in honest discussion. (To clarify what I mean by "appropriate public forum" above, let me give an example: Protesting someone's funeral by marching on a public sidewalk and waving signs inscribed "God hates X" is legally protected (Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)), but is outside the bounds of what most people would consider appropriate. Protesting in that place and manner rightfully subjects the protester to public scorn.)
- tptacek 6y ago
  I can't say anything about this better than Ken White did today; I cosign this in its entirety: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1280992193591689221 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1280992193591689221
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    > /6 That's because of the fundamental deal behind First Amendment values: you can't use the government to punish speech because the marketplace of ideas, the private sector, society's "more speech" is the best way to address "bad speech," not government action. This category of "more speech", including everything from criticism to calling for someone to get fired is dishonest. The letter doesn't oppose criticism.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      Calling for people to be fired is "more speech".
      - enoch_r 6y ago
        The HN guidelines say: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Are these good guidelines? Do you think they encourage better better discussions? Do you value having a community in which these guidelines are culturally accepted? If people started violating these guidelines en masse, do you think it would make sense to defend them? Or would that be silly, because the answer to bad speech is more speech? The way I see it, the answer to bad speech is more speech. But that doesn't mean there can't be cultural differences in the way we use speech - some worlds in which we more often misrepresent our oppenents, interpret their statements in the worst possible light, and use that to attempt to destroy their lives, and some worlds in which we choose not to. I view the letter as an attempt to move us towards the latter world - say, to push discourse away from Twitter-style and towards HN-style debate.