3 ms·

I'm going to stand up on a soapbox and use this incident to flog my pet issue, here. It may not be obvious to everyone how it relates, so bear with me. Many pe

I'm going to stand up on a soapbox and use this incident to flog my pet issue, here. It may not be obvious to everyone how it relates, so bear with me. Many people wonder how a "free speech absolutist", such as myself, can hold the point of view that we do: how can we advocate for absolute free speech when it allows anti-vaxxers or bullies or holocaust deniers or racists or fake news purveyors to freely promote their reprehensible views? Many people think we must, on some level agree with these terrible views, or at best be severely misguided, in order to so vociferously actually defend their rights to say it. Not at all. We defend the rights of the least popular, even reprehensible, points of view in order to protect our own right to say and hear ideas with which others may disagree. Remember, many beliefs we hold now, were once illegal: equality of races, marriage between races, that one should worship or not as their own conscience dictates, marriage between same sexes - these were not only illegal - but it was illegal even to advocate for these. In some places even today it is still illegal to express such points of view. We free-speech advocates believe that a good idea is stronger than a bad idea, and as a stronger idea, will win in the marketplace of ideas. Good medical information will always defeat bad information; good moral ideas will always defeat bad moral ideas, and so forth. By legally suppressing the expression of reprehensible ideas, a government is conceding that they believe that these bad ideas are somehow stronger and more convincing than good ideas. Yes, there will always be people who are convinced by a bad idea, but if the expression of the idea is suppressed, no right-thinking person will ever bother to argue against it. And now I get to my point: laws such as this one that criminalize defamation, or those against "blasphemy", or against "profaning the honor of the country", or against spreading lies, or even hate speech, are all the same at the end of the day: they might sound like they are helping society, but they will be used in unexpected ways, as we see here. Often they will be to suppress speech that offends the powerful, as we see here. Moreover, they will chill adjacent speech, that is not necessarily illegal, but since non-lawyers are never really sure where the bounds of the law lie precisely, they will be reluctant to cross even imaginary barriers. Now I'm hopping off my soapbox, and I would love to read your reply especially if you disagree!

stephenr 6y ago
He was free to post what he wanted. He is now free to enjoy the consequences of his previous speech.
- rendall 6y ago
  What does this mean?
  - stephenr 6y ago
    Most people whining about “free speech” when something like this happens, are actually calling for “consequence free speech”. He practiced free speech, and made repeated false or misleading statements about a business. The business responded, and he now faces the consequences.
    - rendall 6y ago
      Most people whining about “free speech” when something like this happens, are actually calling for “consequence free speech”. What does "consequence free speech" mean to you? To me "consequence free speech" means "One must be polite and extend invitations to tea even to those who advocate for the extermination of your race!" That's not what I mean when I whine about free speech. If that's what you also mean about consequence free speech then we are in complete agreement. But if by consequences of free speech you mean that a business should be able to use the power of the state to jail and fine those who leave bad reviews even if those reviews are unfair then, you are definitely correct: when I whine about free speech, I am whining about speech laws that enable that kind of behavior. I don't think anyone should suffer those kinds of consequences for that. Again, many people might think I am "on the side of leaving shitty reviews and hurting businesses" Not at all. The business should be free to exclude this individual from enjoying their services, and should be free to issue a public statement as they have, telling their side. If that's "consequence free speech" then you and I disagree only about degree. "The business responded, and he now faces the consequences." Indeed! Not a society I want. I will avoid Thailand.
      - 6y ago
xfz 6y ago
Freedoms are always a balance between the freedom of self and others.
Miraste 6y ago
I used to think like you do, and I've increasingly come to disagree. Free speech absolutism was a core belief of the open source and early internet community in the 90s and 00s, which is where I picked it up. The idea was that publishing information would no longer be limited to the claws of established powers, and with anyone able to distribute anything, science and art would flow freely over international borders, global unity would reach unprecedented heights, and humanity would enter a new dawn. It was a very attractive idea, and it was hard to argue against because nothing like it had ever been possible. Then, through the power of capitalism rather than hacker spirit, it came true. Mark Twain famously said "A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots." Pithy at the time, but now that the experiment of instant global publishing for everyone is playing out in real time, we can see that it's true. You say > a good idea is stronger than a bad idea and this is where free speech absolutism has lost me. When everyone has a chance to weigh in on it, false information spreads wider and faster than true information. This isn't a theory any more, there's data now. The average human cannot evaluate true from false, and tend toward false. I'd guess that true things have complexities and ambiguities that make them less engaging than tailored lies. We are now in an age of truly unrestricted free speech, as opposed to the centuries in which free speech was practically available only to those with a printing press or the like. Given the immense damage that has already been wrought on dozens of fields, I no longer think totally free speech is worth the price. A few angry tripadvisor reviewers going to jail is a small price to pay for continuing to have scientific progress and functioning infrastructure.
- rendall 6y ago
  If you could set up a perfect scheme to eliminate fake news, how would you do it? There is a lot to think about. Would it be a committee that has authority to decide what is true, for example? Comprised of whom from where? Would there be appeals for mistakes? What would a final appeal look like? What would penalties for non-compliance look like? Could you be jailed for fake news spreading? What would prevent abuse: say, an annoyed powerful person labeling something embarrassing but true as fake news? What if, say, a scientific fact that everyone knew turned out to be wrong? How would this be different from fake news?

stephenr 6y ago

He was free to post what he wanted. He is now free to enjoy the consequences of his previous speech.

rendall 6y ago
What does this mean?
- stephenr 6y ago
  Most people whining about “free speech” when something like this happens, are actually calling for “consequence free speech”. He practiced free speech, and made repeated false or misleading statements about a business. The business responded, and he now faces the consequences.
  - rendall 6y ago
    Most people whining about “free speech” when something like this happens, are actually calling for “consequence free speech”. What does "consequence free speech" mean to you? To me "consequence free speech" means "One must be polite and extend invitations to tea even to those who advocate for the extermination of your race!" That's not what I mean when I whine about free speech. If that's what you also mean about consequence free speech then we are in complete agreement. But if by consequences of free speech you mean that a business should be able to use the power of the state to jail and fine those who leave bad reviews even if those reviews are unfair then, you are definitely correct: when I whine about free speech, I am whining about speech laws that enable that kind of behavior. I don't think anyone should suffer those kinds of consequences for that. Again, many people might think I am "on the side of leaving shitty reviews and hurting businesses" Not at all. The business should be free to exclude this individual from enjoying their services, and should be free to issue a public statement as they have, telling their side. If that's "consequence free speech" then you and I disagree only about degree. "The business responded, and he now faces the consequences." Indeed! Not a society I want. I will avoid Thailand.
    - 6y ago

xfz 6y ago

Freedoms are always a balance between the freedom of self and others.

Miraste 6y ago

I used to think like you do, and I've increasingly come to disagree. Free speech absolutism was a core belief of the open source and early internet community in the 90s and 00s, which is where I picked it up. The idea was that publishing information would no longer be limited to the claws of established powers, and with anyone able to distribute anything, science and art would flow freely over international borders, global unity would reach unprecedented heights, and humanity would enter a new dawn. It was a very attractive idea, and it was hard to argue against because nothing like it had ever been possible. Then, through the power of capitalism rather than hacker spirit, it came true. Mark Twain famously said "A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots." Pithy at the time, but now that the experiment of instant global publishing for everyone is playing out in real time, we can see that it's true. You say > a good idea is stronger than a bad idea and this is where free speech absolutism has lost me. When everyone has a chance to weigh in on it, false information spreads wider and faster than true information. This isn't a theory any more, there's data now. The average human cannot evaluate true from false, and tend toward false. I'd guess that true things have complexities and ambiguities that make them less engaging than tailored lies. We are now in an age of truly unrestricted free speech, as opposed to the centuries in which free speech was practically available only to those with a printing press or the like. Given the immense damage that has already been wrought on dozens of fields, I no longer think totally free speech is worth the price. A few angry tripadvisor reviewers going to jail is a small price to pay for continuing to have scientific progress and functioning infrastructure.

rendall 6y ago
If you could set up a perfect scheme to eliminate fake news, how would you do it? There is a lot to think about. Would it be a committee that has authority to decide what is true, for example? Comprised of whom from where? Would there be appeals for mistakes? What would a final appeal look like? What would penalties for non-compliance look like? Could you be jailed for fake news spreading? What would prevent abuse: say, an annoyed powerful person labeling something embarrassing but true as fake news? What if, say, a scientific fact that everyone knew turned out to be wrong? How would this be different from fake news?