4 ms·

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

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.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  > "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? No. People have good faith beliefs in all sorts of insane/horrible things. If I encounter holocaust deniers, I ask them if they're calling me a liar. I've been to Dachau. I'm convinced. And Germany is hardly the gold standard of freedom. > 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? Are we talking about opinions or not? "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year" is different than "I think all of Group Y are dangerous and have no place in our country." Certainly "hate speech" would go after both with equal vigor (and quite a bit more), but only the first is defamatory. The latter is simply an opinion. Other opinions: "I don't trust the Trump administration's COVID vaccine." "The rent is too damn high." "We need to build the wall." Etc. > This idea of free speech is not us straightforward as "free speech maximalists" try to make it appear. No, it really, really is. Engaging in good faith is apparently much harder.
  - slg 6y ago
    >And Germany is hardly the gold standard of freedom. What country do you want to use as your gold standard? Holocaust denial is illegal in most of Europe. Many countries outlaw hate speech. Most other countries have more restrictive speech laws than the US. >Are we talking about opinions or not? "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year" is different than "I think all of Group Y are dangerous and have no place in our country." Certainly "hate speech" would go after both with equal vigor (and quite a bit more), but only the first is defamatory. The latter is simply an opinion. Either. Both of those are fully legal in the US. Is that a problem? Why do we need to protect speech like "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year"? What is the societal good that comes from protecting that speech?
quantified 6y ago
But lies are speech. Free speech allows you to say whatever you want. The OP and this entire thread chain is about lies that incite violence.

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.

baryphonic 6y ago
> "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? No. People have good faith beliefs in all sorts of insane/horrible things. If I encounter holocaust deniers, I ask them if they're calling me a liar. I've been to Dachau. I'm convinced. And Germany is hardly the gold standard of freedom. > 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? Are we talking about opinions or not? "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year" is different than "I think all of Group Y are dangerous and have no place in our country." Certainly "hate speech" would go after both with equal vigor (and quite a bit more), but only the first is defamatory. The latter is simply an opinion. Other opinions: "I don't trust the Trump administration's COVID vaccine." "The rent is too damn high." "We need to build the wall." Etc. > This idea of free speech is not us straightforward as "free speech maximalists" try to make it appear. No, it really, really is. Engaging in good faith is apparently much harder.
- slg 6y ago
  >And Germany is hardly the gold standard of freedom. What country do you want to use as your gold standard? Holocaust denial is illegal in most of Europe. Many countries outlaw hate speech. Most other countries have more restrictive speech laws than the US. >Are we talking about opinions or not? "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year" is different than "I think all of Group Y are dangerous and have no place in our country." Certainly "hate speech" would go after both with equal vigor (and quite a bit more), but only the first is defamatory. The latter is simply an opinion. Either. Both of those are fully legal in the US. Is that a problem? Why do we need to protect speech like "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year"? What is the societal good that comes from protecting that speech?

quantified 6y ago

But lies are speech. Free speech allows you to say whatever you want. The OP and this entire thread chain is about lies that incite violence.