6 ms·

Even if the constitution allows free speech, but practically if free speech is not possible, it is not freedom. Note in the authoritarian totalitarian states t

Even if the constitution allows free speech, but practically if free speech is not possible, it is not freedom. Note in the authoritarian totalitarian states there are no laws against free speech. And usually it is not government actors how punish you for expressing dissenting opinions, it is often mob and your employer. These states are not free. So to some degree SV is not a free place, even if it there are no laws prohibiting free expression.

renewiltord 6y ago
Interesting, so you want to restrict people from saying things because you think they're saying things you don't like. And you use this stance to claim you're advocating for freedom without seeing the inherent contradiction.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  > you want to restrict people from saying things because you think they're saying things you don't like Of course not. How did you get that from my comment?
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    Your idea of freedom of speech means I'm not free to criticize you.
    - lightgreen 6y ago
      Constructively criticise, yes please. But bullying, eg doxxing, petitioning to get fired, calling mob to intimidate etc, that's not exactly freedom of speech.
      - colinmhayes 6y ago
        > But bullying, eg doxxing, petitioning to get fired, calling mob to intimidate etc, that's not exactly freedom of speech. Yes it is. It's the best way to fight back against speech you disagree with.
        lightgreen 6y ago
        Well, I must admit I respect you for your consistent views, although I radically disagree with you. I only wish you not to get into the place and time where you are in the opposition to the aggressive majority. It's quite uncomfortable.
        colinmhayes 6y ago
        It's quite uncomfortable to watch people be radicalized by disinformation.
        goatlover 6y ago
        So you wish to suppress speech you don’t like in the absence of government power to do so. Imagine doing this to a religious persuasion and calling that support for freedom of religion.
        megaman821 6y ago
        I only hope you are in the small, small, small minority. Intimidating people not to speak is not freedom of speech. You may think intimidation is good when it is attacking something you disagree with, but given enough time you will be on the receiving side.
        nobody9999 6y ago
        >Yes it is. It's the best way to fight back against speech you disagree with. While nearly 100 years old, I think Justice Brandeis had it nailed[0]: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California
    - sergeykish 6y ago
      Guys, your are perfect example of trigger happy mob. This is the cause of cooling effect. Why would anyone reasonable touch hot topic if you can't even read it without blazing emotions?
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        I think I've been quite polite and civil here but if you want to provide feedback without being subject to voting here, my email is in my profile. How am I driving? Let renewiltord@protonmail.com know!
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Well, let's get to the bottom of it, shall we? I will describe a sequence of events. You tell me which acts of speech you want to proscribe and which ones you want to permit. 1. Person A says "I don't like people whose name starts with R. They are disgusting and ugly" 2. Person B says "That's bigoted" 3. Person B tells Person C "A is bigoted because he hates people whose name starts with R" 4. Person C says "That's horrible. We should boycott any business that A is employed at" 5. Person B says "You are right. I will tell everyone" 6. Person A says "This is not fair. I have a right to being employed despite these opinions of mine" 7. Person B says "That's right. And I have a right to not use your employer's services unless you are fired" 8. Person D, overhearing this, finds a big soap box "Everyone! A is bigoted! He hates people whose name starts with R! Join me in boycotting his employer until they fire him" 9. Person E says "If he is fired, I will stop using the product. I'm going to tell everyone about this boycott campaign" 10. Person F says "If he is fired, I will hire him. My company has a lot of R-haters and we get along fine" Tell me which of these things you will proscribe and which of these things you will permit. I, because I believe in the freedom of speech and association, would permit all of these. In SV, all of these are permissible. So let's hear what you will do. Name the numbers. That will do. And if you want to offer more examples to narrow the scope of my belief, please do.
    - lightgreen 6y ago
      > Tell me which of these things you will proscribe and which of these things you will permit It depends on definition of "permit". From legal point of view, all of these things should be legal (except maybe A). But some items from that list I consider immoral. Like gathering a mob to attack someone with the opposite point of view, is immoral. By the way, there's a big difference between > I don't like people whose name starts with R. They are disgusting and ugly and > I will vote for Trump. Barely anyone in SV says they consider some group of people ugly. You have invented this unrealistic example. And, I always will support those who are bullied regardless of their beliefs. Like when mob attacks a nazi, I'll try to protect that nazi. Of course when mob attacks radical lefts like antifa, my support goes to antifa. Mob is always wrong regardless of its declared intentions.
      - 6y ago

renewiltord 6y ago

Interesting, so you want to restrict people from saying things because you think they're saying things you don't like. And you use this stance to claim you're advocating for freedom without seeing the inherent contradiction.

lightgreen 6y ago
> you want to restrict people from saying things because you think they're saying things you don't like Of course not. How did you get that from my comment?
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Your idea of freedom of speech means I'm not free to criticize you.
  - lightgreen 6y ago
    Constructively criticise, yes please. But bullying, eg doxxing, petitioning to get fired, calling mob to intimidate etc, that's not exactly freedom of speech.
    - colinmhayes 6y ago
      > But bullying, eg doxxing, petitioning to get fired, calling mob to intimidate etc, that's not exactly freedom of speech. Yes it is. It's the best way to fight back against speech you disagree with.
      - lightgreen 6y ago
        Well, I must admit I respect you for your consistent views, although I radically disagree with you. I only wish you not to get into the place and time where you are in the opposition to the aggressive majority. It's quite uncomfortable.
        colinmhayes 6y ago
        It's quite uncomfortable to watch people be radicalized by disinformation.
      - goatlover 6y ago
        So you wish to suppress speech you don’t like in the absence of government power to do so. Imagine doing this to a religious persuasion and calling that support for freedom of religion.
      - megaman821 6y ago
        I only hope you are in the small, small, small minority. Intimidating people not to speak is not freedom of speech. You may think intimidation is good when it is attacking something you disagree with, but given enough time you will be on the receiving side.
      - nobody9999 6y ago
        >Yes it is. It's the best way to fight back against speech you disagree with. While nearly 100 years old, I think Justice Brandeis had it nailed[0]: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California
  - sergeykish 6y ago
    Guys, your are perfect example of trigger happy mob. This is the cause of cooling effect. Why would anyone reasonable touch hot topic if you can't even read it without blazing emotions?
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      I think I've been quite polite and civil here but if you want to provide feedback without being subject to voting here, my email is in my profile. How am I driving? Let renewiltord@protonmail.com know!
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Well, let's get to the bottom of it, shall we? I will describe a sequence of events. You tell me which acts of speech you want to proscribe and which ones you want to permit. 1. Person A says "I don't like people whose name starts with R. They are disgusting and ugly" 2. Person B says "That's bigoted" 3. Person B tells Person C "A is bigoted because he hates people whose name starts with R" 4. Person C says "That's horrible. We should boycott any business that A is employed at" 5. Person B says "You are right. I will tell everyone" 6. Person A says "This is not fair. I have a right to being employed despite these opinions of mine" 7. Person B says "That's right. And I have a right to not use your employer's services unless you are fired" 8. Person D, overhearing this, finds a big soap box "Everyone! A is bigoted! He hates people whose name starts with R! Join me in boycotting his employer until they fire him" 9. Person E says "If he is fired, I will stop using the product. I'm going to tell everyone about this boycott campaign" 10. Person F says "If he is fired, I will hire him. My company has a lot of R-haters and we get along fine" Tell me which of these things you will proscribe and which of these things you will permit. I, because I believe in the freedom of speech and association, would permit all of these. In SV, all of these are permissible. So let's hear what you will do. Name the numbers. That will do. And if you want to offer more examples to narrow the scope of my belief, please do.
  - lightgreen 6y ago
    > Tell me which of these things you will proscribe and which of these things you will permit It depends on definition of "permit". From legal point of view, all of these things should be legal (except maybe A). But some items from that list I consider immoral. Like gathering a mob to attack someone with the opposite point of view, is immoral. By the way, there's a big difference between > I don't like people whose name starts with R. They are disgusting and ugly and > I will vote for Trump. Barely anyone in SV says they consider some group of people ugly. You have invented this unrealistic example. And, I always will support those who are bullied regardless of their beliefs. Like when mob attacks a nazi, I'll try to protect that nazi. Of course when mob attacks radical lefts like antifa, my support goes to antifa. Mob is always wrong regardless of its declared intentions.
    - 6y ago