6 ms·
To save free speech, we have to destroy free speech. In the future, some historian is going to write the seminal work on the decline and dissolution of the Uni
by jcadam 6y ago
To save free speech, we have to destroy free speech.
In the future, some historian is going to write the seminal work on the decline and dissolution of the United States - and there's going to be an entire chapter dedicated to social media.
- pm90 6y agoAlmost certainly but it probably will read different from what you seem to think.
- jcadam 6y agoHistory is written by the victors, eh? I guess we'll just have to wait and see (or, rather our descendants will).
- mcfly1985 6y agoYes - and the Holocaust is a perfect example of history being written by the victors.
- boccko 6y agoThe Holocaust indirectly lead to (a the abolishment of centuries old anti-semitic laws (from Magna Carta) (b the establishment of the state of Israel. I'm not implying 'they won', but they are in a better place now than they were at the beginning of the century.
- mcfly1985 6y agoAlmost like certain aspects may have been exaggerated or have been outright lies.
- shadowgovt 6y agoI know it's not what they're going for, but sometimes I wish HN would follow FB's example.
- mcfly1985 6y agoAnother HN commenter who's never wrong and knows everything!
- shadowgovt 6y agoN'ah, there's plenty I don't know. I'm just using my free speech to make my preferences known regarding this service I use and support via my attention.
- mcfly1985 6y ago"Using my free speech to make my preferences known to limit other's free speech". Got it.
- apta 6y ago> but they are in a better place now than they were at the beginning of the century. At the cost of the thousands of innocent lives (Palestenians and others) they murdered. Kind of ironic given what they went through.
- UncleMeat 6y agoHistory isn't written by the victors. This is a common if pithy misunderstanding. For example, there has been explicit effort among historians over the last 40 years to give voice to previously silent actors throughout history. Examples include women, the poor, and the colonized.
- davidivadavid 6y agoI don't think it's a misunderstanding so much as a tautology. "Giving voice" is something victors decide to do on their own terms, they're still the ones writing history.
- UncleMeat 6y agoHistory professors come from a variety of backgrounds. Many of them are from groups that are still struggling in the US (ex. trans people). The definition of "victor" must become so amazingly broad that it becomes useless if you want to encompass modern historical narratives.
- whateveracct 6y agoFacebook removing Holocaust Denial content isn't a step towards dystopia lmao. Video game forums in the '00s did this.
- audessuscest 6y agoyes it is
- syspec 6y agoNo it's not
- zarathustreal 6y agoActually it is, step 1 is define good and evil. Step 2 is enforce your definition.
- t-writescode 6y agoThe missing step is deciding that, in the human world, it is better to make all evil illegal, no matter the level of evil and no matter the cost to good or neutral that might get caught up in it.
- Barrin92 6y agolol do you think the criminalisation of holocaust denial is a new invention that somehow needs to be studied by future historians? Most democratic countries on this earth, except for the US, not only ban holocaust denial on private platforms, which is insidious historical revisionism, but punishes it by law. I have absolutely no idea how someone can be so childish as to not see that rights have their limitations to be preserved. Yes, to protect truth and the ability to speak freely we need to put limits on the damage someone can do by abusing free speech, in the same way we have highway speed limits, have a police that can do arrests and sometimes can use violence to stop other violence.
- will4274 6y ago> Most democratic countries on this earth, except for the US, not only ban holocaust denial on private platforms, which is insidious historical revisionism, but punishes it by law. Pretty much only Germany and bordering countries actually. Democracies outside of Europe pretty uniformly do not ban Holocaust denial. See e.g. India.
- Barrin92 6y agoIndia flat out has laws that prohibit hate speech and creation of racial disharmony of all sorts. I'm not sure if an Indian court has ever dealt with holocaust denial in particular, probably because there's barely any Jews in India at this point, but Indian limitations on speech go far beyond the genocide-speech laws that exist in Europe. Same of course is also true for Singapore and most other Asian countries.
- will4274 6y agoYou may want to check out the Indian supreme court opinion on the topic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_India
- Barrin92 6y agoOther than one dissenting view in 2014, that page indeed does document decades of enforcement of the Indian penal code, which is very clear, and cited on that page. "Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, . . . shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." That is without a doubt very explicit and much further reaching than any European legislation. And from the cases actually given in that article also practised as such. Just to take one example, but there are many more in that very article In 2007, R.V. Bhasin's Islam - A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims was banned, and house raided, in Maharashtra on grounds that it outrages the feelings of Muslim section of society.[12][13][14] In January 2010, the Bombay High upholds the ban imposed by the Government of Maharashtra.[15]
- remram 6y ago"destroy free speech" You will find that Holocaust denying specifically has been banned by law from a number of European countries for a very long time. And free speech is still doing just fine. This might not be the slippery slope you believe it is.
- mcfly1985 6y agoEurope banning speech doesn't make it ok. The truth has nothing to hide.
- jaywalk 6y agoFree speech simply does not exist in a number of (perhaps any?) European countries.
- shadowgovt 6y agoI believe the citizens of those countries might respectfully disagree. The US is somewhat absolutist relative to the global average on this topic (and even the US isn't complete freedom of speech---pornography law exists, as do various extremely tight constraints on pedophilia imagery).
- f1refly 6y agoAs a citizen of a European state I can guarantee you that close to everyone here is very aware that we don't live in a legislation that permits free speech. If america decides that they're limiting their speech as well I wouldn't know where to go to discuss. The darknet, presumably, or maybe some shell company on an island nation that rents servers.
- colordrops 6y ago"Free speech is not allowed in a number of European countries. And free speech is still doing just fine."
- dudul 6y agoThat's a good point, and maybe it would be interesting to compare how much Holocaust denial is a problem in these countries and in the US. Has the criminalization of such hate speech helped at all with solving the problem? That being said, a lot of countries in Europe do not have the concept of "free speech" as is it defined in the US.
- moscovium 6y agoSince its inception facebook has not had completely full free speech. It doesn't allow targeted bullying, scamming, or any other way of causing material harm to another person. All this is doing is admitting genocide denial causes material harm to another person, which I'm sure you would agree with.
- onelovetwo 6y agoThis usually isnt the best course though. The U.S. for example after invading iraq squashed any anti west/american speech. It lead to members going underground instead of having discussions in an open civilized way. This lead to a further radicalization of Muslims and an even deeper hate for Americans and lead to the eventual terror attacks across the world. Let these ideas get tackled and shunned in the public and be exposed to what they really are.
- mam2 6y agoOr people should stop thinking private social medias have any duty in respecting "free speech". Make your own platform if you are unhappy. Plus it's worked in many country: less hate speech, less hate. Everyone saying "people are going to get more angry" are just wrong.