6 ms·

>I remain a free speech maximalist. What does this mean? Do you oppose laws against defamation, child pornography, fraud, violent threats, etc? No developed

by slg 6y ago

>I remain a free speech maximalist. What does this mean? Do you oppose laws against defamation, child pornography, fraud, violent threats, etc? No developed nation has truly free speech. The debate is where the line is drawn. Pretending it is a binary choice just ends up hiding all the smaller choices that we could make that could actually lead to a better society. EDIT: There is irony in "free speech maximalists" downvoting questions like this rather than trying to answer them.

chrisco255 6y ago
Do we really have to go to asinine level of detail given that freedom of speech has been a constitutionally protected right for over 230 years? We have plenty of legal precedent for what should be protected. There's no reason to move those markers. Ethiopia has many problems and Facebook is but one. I think social media is toxic, but not because it allows freedom of speech. Social media rewards virality and outrage is inherently and unfortunately one of the most viral things you can put out on social media. The problem is the platform, not the speech.
- slg 6y ago
  I would argue the fact that the rules were first created 230+ years ago is an argument in favor of reevaluating them not an argument in favor of them being infallible. The laws were written before social media, the internet, and the foundations go back to before any real form of mass media. What is the harm in questioning if our laws are setup in the best possible way?
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    I would argue that the founders were students of Greek and Roman history which preceded them by almost 2000 years. The lessons encoded in the bill of rights were in fact, timeless and speak to the innate nature of human beings. As a species we haven't evolved much in 200K years. Freedom of speech is an important check against a monopoly on ideas. Propaganda is one of the most powerful and dangerous forces and the only way to fight it is with opposing propaganda or debate. Freedom of speech guarantees the right to have that debate. The printing press was a form of mass media. The problem is not the speech on social media. The problem is the platform. Who knows if social media will even be a thing in 10 years? It could just be a temporary fad in history, like disco, that just fades away. It already is starting to wane. More people are tuning out and gen Z is just not as into Facebook or Twitter as my gen was. The need to protect speech and debate will always be essential, however.
    - slg 6y ago
      >I would argue that the founders were students of Greek and Roman history which preceded them by almost 2000 years. The lessons encoded in the bill of rights were in fact, timeless and speak to the innate nature of human beings. As a species we haven't evolved much in 200K years. Which is why it took until just within the last century to guarantee voting rights to people besides white men? It is bizarre how we want to pretend that those who came before us had some magical foresight to setup rules to govern a world they could never imagine while we ignore so many clear mistakes they made such as calling rights inalienable while simultaneously disenfranchising a majority of the population.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        Voting rights as a whole are about 2 centuries old. The United States, as young as it is, is the oldest continuous democracy in existence. The United States came out of a world of empires and war and conquering, which is how the world was for almost all of human history. Not a square mile of it hasn't had blood spilt over it several times over. At any rate, it was Thomas Jefferson who encoded the bold words "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." in our founding documents. That the world wasn't ready for its eventual conclusion didn't matter. A seed was sown. And that same language was used by MLK (himself taking full advantage of the first amendment to effect change). Lot of powerful and timeless ideas there.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  "For over 230 years _in the united states_". The world doesn't stop outside of US borders and cultures don't all agree on the ideal extent of free speech. I find it silly to assume that the world should revolve around the US constitution. So yes, the idea that if you say "I support free speech" you should specify more clearly what that means and where it ends, is not really unreasonable.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Do we really have to go to asinine level of detail given that freedom of speech has been a constitutionally protected right for over 230 years? We have plenty of legal precedent for what should be protected. We have plenty of legal precedent on what is protected in the US. There is considerable debate, even in the US, as to whether this captures all of and only that whic should be protected. One should not confuse even well established US Constitutional law with universally accepted moral principles.
baryphonic 6y ago
I didn't downvote your post, however pedantic and silly I found it. You have no idea who downvoted it or for what reason, and neither do I. And simply because I want all speech to be aired without constraints doesn't mean I judge it all to be of the same quality. As to the substance... > What does this mean? Do you oppose laws against defamation, child pornography, fraud, violent threats, etc? No developed nation has truly free speech. The debate is where the line is drawn. Pretending it is a binary choice just ends up hiding all the smaller choices that we could make that could actually lead to a better society. I assumed we all understood what "free speech" meant: the principle that opinions can be aired without restrictions. Obviously I don't think malicious lies, true threats, depictions of abuse and even "fighting words" are somehow pro-social or deserving of protection according to that rule. Malicious lies are the hardest to draw the proverbial line about - if someone has a deranged but good faith belief in some bizarre conspiracy theory that aliens all run the big tech companies or something, is that a "malicious lie?" Anyway, there are pretty straightforward limiting principles for what constitutes free speech that deserves to be protected by law or in principle.
- slg 6y ago
  I didn't accuse you specifically of downvoting. You can't downvote direct responses to your comments on HN so I know you didn't downvote it. However I would bet people with similar ideologies downvoted it. "Free speech" does not have a universal definition. I doubt people in Germany think they don't have free speech just because they can't legally deny the holocaust. However we allow that in the US even if it is a "malicious lie" that is disputing facts and therefore isn't an opinion which would seem to leave it outside your definition of free speech. Would you be in favor of a similar law in the US to outlaw holocaust denial? You also seem to be in support of defamation not being protected speech. But why should defamation of an entire group of people in the form of hate speech be protected? Saying a specific person has negative traits X, Y, and Z isn't protected but it is protected when you say everyone of that person's ethnicity including that specific individual has traits X, Y, and Z. Why the distinction? This idea of free speech is not us straightforward as "free speech maximalists" try to make it appear.
  - 6y ago

by slg 6y ago

chrisco255 6y ago

Do we really have to go to asinine level of detail given that freedom of speech has been a constitutionally protected right for over 230 years? We have plenty of legal precedent for what should be protected. There's no reason to move those markers. Ethiopia has many problems and Facebook is but one. I think social media is toxic, but not because it allows freedom of speech. Social media rewards virality and outrage is inherently and unfortunately one of the most viral things you can put out on social media. The problem is the platform, not the speech.

slg 6y ago
I would argue the fact that the rules were first created 230+ years ago is an argument in favor of reevaluating them not an argument in favor of them being infallible. The laws were written before social media, the internet, and the foundations go back to before any real form of mass media. What is the harm in questioning if our laws are setup in the best possible way?
- chrisco255 6y ago
  I would argue that the founders were students of Greek and Roman history which preceded them by almost 2000 years. The lessons encoded in the bill of rights were in fact, timeless and speak to the innate nature of human beings. As a species we haven't evolved much in 200K years. Freedom of speech is an important check against a monopoly on ideas. Propaganda is one of the most powerful and dangerous forces and the only way to fight it is with opposing propaganda or debate. Freedom of speech guarantees the right to have that debate. The printing press was a form of mass media. The problem is not the speech on social media. The problem is the platform. Who knows if social media will even be a thing in 10 years? It could just be a temporary fad in history, like disco, that just fades away. It already is starting to wane. More people are tuning out and gen Z is just not as into Facebook or Twitter as my gen was. The need to protect speech and debate will always be essential, however.
  - slg 6y ago
    >I would argue that the founders were students of Greek and Roman history which preceded them by almost 2000 years. The lessons encoded in the bill of rights were in fact, timeless and speak to the innate nature of human beings. As a species we haven't evolved much in 200K years. Which is why it took until just within the last century to guarantee voting rights to people besides white men? It is bizarre how we want to pretend that those who came before us had some magical foresight to setup rules to govern a world they could never imagine while we ignore so many clear mistakes they made such as calling rights inalienable while simultaneously disenfranchising a majority of the population.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Voting rights as a whole are about 2 centuries old. The United States, as young as it is, is the oldest continuous democracy in existence. The United States came out of a world of empires and war and conquering, which is how the world was for almost all of human history. Not a square mile of it hasn't had blood spilt over it several times over. At any rate, it was Thomas Jefferson who encoded the bold words "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." in our founding documents. That the world wasn't ready for its eventual conclusion didn't matter. A seed was sown. And that same language was used by MLK (himself taking full advantage of the first amendment to effect change). Lot of powerful and timeless ideas there.
Tainnor 6y ago
"For over 230 years _in the united states_". The world doesn't stop outside of US borders and cultures don't all agree on the ideal extent of free speech. I find it silly to assume that the world should revolve around the US constitution. So yes, the idea that if you say "I support free speech" you should specify more clearly what that means and where it ends, is not really unreasonable.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Do we really have to go to asinine level of detail given that freedom of speech has been a constitutionally protected right for over 230 years? We have plenty of legal precedent for what should be protected. We have plenty of legal precedent on what is protected in the US. There is considerable debate, even in the US, as to whether this captures all of and only that whic should be protected. One should not confuse even well established US Constitutional law with universally accepted moral principles.

baryphonic 6y ago

I didn't downvote your post, however pedantic and silly I found it. You have no idea who downvoted it or for what reason, and neither do I. And simply because I want all speech to be aired without constraints doesn't mean I judge it all to be of the same quality. As to the substance... > What does this mean? Do you oppose laws against defamation, child pornography, fraud, violent threats, etc? No developed nation has truly free speech. The debate is where the line is drawn. Pretending it is a binary choice just ends up hiding all the smaller choices that we could make that could actually lead to a better society. I assumed we all understood what "free speech" meant: the principle that opinions can be aired without restrictions. Obviously I don't think malicious lies, true threats, depictions of abuse and even "fighting words" are somehow pro-social or deserving of protection according to that rule. Malicious lies are the hardest to draw the proverbial line about - if someone has a deranged but good faith belief in some bizarre conspiracy theory that aliens all run the big tech companies or something, is that a "malicious lie?" Anyway, there are pretty straightforward limiting principles for what constitutes free speech that deserves to be protected by law or in principle.

slg 6y ago
I didn't accuse you specifically of downvoting. You can't downvote direct responses to your comments on HN so I know you didn't downvote it. However I would bet people with similar ideologies downvoted it. "Free speech" does not have a universal definition. I doubt people in Germany think they don't have free speech just because they can't legally deny the holocaust. However we allow that in the US even if it is a "malicious lie" that is disputing facts and therefore isn't an opinion which would seem to leave it outside your definition of free speech. Would you be in favor of a similar law in the US to outlaw holocaust denial? You also seem to be in support of defamation not being protected speech. But why should defamation of an entire group of people in the form of hate speech be protected? Saying a specific person has negative traits X, Y, and Z isn't protected but it is protected when you say everyone of that person's ethnicity including that specific individual has traits X, Y, and Z. Why the distinction? This idea of free speech is not us straightforward as "free speech maximalists" try to make it appear.
- 6y ago