4 ms·

You are transmuting a private organization’s choice, which is equivalent to a person kicking nazis out of their dinner party, into something only a government c

by freen 6y ago

You are transmuting a private organization’s choice, which is equivalent to a person kicking nazis out of their dinner party, into something only a government can do: limit free speech. Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

mistermann 6y ago
Not true. Rather, you (and the cartoon) are confusing the abstract general principle of free speech, for the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If one steps back and observes this conversation from a disinterested 3rd party perspective, one might notice that these same arguments, based on falsehoods from both sides, reoccur every single time the topic comes up. And if one exercises this practice over time, across many conversations, one may notice that this same pattern is present always and everywhere. Might a reason that we never seem to move the ball forward on these conversations (or representations in physical reality) be that everyone thinks they're talking about "objective reality", but in fact, each person is actually talking about their individual snapshot (perspective, worldview) of reality? If this is what was actually happening, what might the conversations look like? Might they bear an uncanny resemblance to the conversations we see before our very eyes, year after year after year, on topic after topic after topic? Even funnier about the situation is that typically, at least here on HN, most everyone probably has enough depth in psychology to decently realize the degree to which each individual has a "unique" (to put it mildly) perspective on reality. However, if one is to then consider this, and then observe the nature of the conversations, it appears as if this knowledge is not possessed by people who are arguing over a particular, object level topic (politics, racism, sexism, sexuality, etc). But while people can realize that individual bias exists in the abstract, they seem curiously (and passionately) unwilling/unable to realize (and acknowledge) that it actually comes into play in real world conversations, like this one. "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles I think "politics" in the above sentence could be replaced with "reality" and it would fully retain it's truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Origins Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments. It is thought that the ancient Athenian democratic principle of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC. The values of the Roman Republic included freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents. England's Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of freedom of speech in Parliament which is still in effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, or that would prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_century The 5th century is the time period from 401 to 500 Anno Domini (AD) or Common Era (CE) in the Julian calendar. The 5th century is noted for being a period of migration and political instability throughout Eurasia.
- freen 6y ago
  You are mistaking the ability to say whatever you want with the ability to escape the social consequences of your expression. Both are fully compatible with any understanding of “free speech” constitutionally, politically and socially. Would you kick nazis out of your dinner party? Yes or No? That’s the fundamental question that is being asked. If your answer is no, you would not kick nazis out of your dinner party, on account of “free speech”, well, that is your free speech. Mine is kicking the nazis out. If you would not permit me to alter my behavior to stop my resources and forum to be utilized by nazis, meaning I must support and publish nazi material, your position is very extreme, severely limits my autonomy and in many ways forces me to “speak” on behalf of others. “Free speech” that does not allow for others to express the consequences of that speech is not, in fact a support of free speech. If you say “I hate nazis, but you must allow them to publish on your website” you are effectively prioritizing one type of speech over another. You are saying I must allow nazis at my dinner party. (Note: the government, with its force of law, is very, very different)
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > You are mistaking the ability to say whatever you want with the ability to escape the social consequences of your expression. Am I though, in fact? Is this idea expressly conveyed in the text above? Not that I can see, and it certainly wasn't intended, because I do not hold that belief. So this raises an interesting question: where did that idea come from? This may look like a rhetorical question, but it isn't - it is literal, and I ask it for a very specific and important reason. Are you able to answer the question? After all, it's your idea, isn't it? > Would you kick nazis out of your dinner party? Yes or No? That’s the fundamental question that is being asked. Fine - then discuss it in those terms, not in objectively false terms like removing them from the dinner party does not diminish their freedom of speech. The actual actions (and subsequent changes in the state of reality), and the justifications for those actions, are two different things. Acknowledge this distinction, please. > If you would not permit me to alter my behavior to stop my resources and forum to be utilized by nazis, meaning I must support and publish nazi material, your position is very extreme, severely limits my autonomy and in many ways forces me to “speak” on behalf of others. It is not I who am forcibly restricting anything, so please refrain from making such accusations. I am merely discussing ideas. > “Free speech” that does not allow for others to express the consequences of that speech is not, in fact a support of free speech. Agreed. I am not doing that. Others may, but I am not. > If you say “I hate nazis, but you must allow them to publish on your website” you are effectively prioritizing one type of speech over another. You are saying I must allow nazis at my dinner party. (Note: the government, with its force of law, is very, very different) If I was saying that, you would have a fine point. But I'm not saying that. What I am saying, is what I have said above - supplementing what I have said with one's own interpretations and predictions, and then accusing me of holding those interpreted beliefs, seems like a sub-optimal way to solve problems - if we were to do it in our day jobs, we'd write shitty software, and that's why this type of behavior gets called out. So why is it not just acceptable, but enthusiastically preferred, to behave in this manner in "the real world" (including here on HN, home of the intellectually gifted)? Is this not a very odd state of affairs? I mean, if one drops all priors and playfully observes (a certain subset of) the conversations we have here all day every day, is the whole thing not beautifully (but also tragically) absurd? Why do we do this, and why do we refuse to acknowledge it (and why do we downvote people who dare to point these things out - don't shoot the messenger, as they say)? These seem like good questions to be asking in the 21st century - it's odd not only that no one asks them, but also that there's such unanimous and passionate aversion to the ideas contained within such questions. This aversion can be observed, if one has the fortitude to look.
betwixthewires 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama A private dinner party is not publicly accessible. There is a distinction there.
- freen 6y ago
  So I can’t delete comment spam on my public blog as that would violate “free speech”? I also don’t need a Facebook account in order to post content and consume it? You are missing the point about Marsh v Alabama: unrestricted public accessibility vs the private club with authentication and exclusion built into its very core. Rockefeller center, though a “public” space closes and excludes the public for around 5 minutes annually to prove that it is not a truly public space and so they can kick anyone out at any time for any reason. Facebook’s registration and authentication does the same. You publish at their pleasure. In marsh, the equivalent would be a velvet rope around the sidewalk where only approved and registered people could enter, view and express their opinions. Facebook is emphatically not the public sphere, as much as y’all want it to be: it is allowed exclusion of anyone according to its own choosing. That it can ban someone and delete their account makes Facebook not a public sphere. Same as my blog: your comment stays up if I want it to, no implication on the right to free speech.

by freen 6y ago

mistermann 6y ago

Not true. Rather, you (and the cartoon) are confusing the abstract general principle of free speech, for the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If one steps back and observes this conversation from a disinterested 3rd party perspective, one might notice that these same arguments, based on falsehoods from both sides, reoccur every single time the topic comes up. And if one exercises this practice over time, across many conversations, one may notice that this same pattern is present always and everywhere. Might a reason that we never seem to move the ball forward on these conversations (or representations in physical reality) be that everyone thinks they're talking about "objective reality", but in fact, each person is actually talking about their individual snapshot (perspective, worldview) of reality? If this is what was actually happening, what might the conversations look like? Might they bear an uncanny resemblance to the conversations we see before our very eyes, year after year after year, on topic after topic after topic? Even funnier about the situation is that typically, at least here on HN, most everyone probably has enough depth in psychology to decently realize the degree to which each individual has a "unique" (to put it mildly) perspective on reality. However, if one is to then consider this, and then observe the nature of the conversations, it appears as if this knowledge is not possessed by people who are arguing over a particular, object level topic (politics, racism, sexism, sexuality, etc). But while people can realize that individual bias exists in the abstract, they seem curiously (and passionately) unwilling/unable to realize (and acknowledge) that it actually comes into play in real world conversations, like this one. "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles I think "politics" in the above sentence could be replaced with "reality" and it would fully retain it's truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Origins Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments. It is thought that the ancient Athenian democratic principle of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC. The values of the Roman Republic included freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents. England's Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of freedom of speech in Parliament which is still in effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, or that would prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_century The 5th century is the time period from 401 to 500 Anno Domini (AD) or Common Era (CE) in the Julian calendar. The 5th century is noted for being a period of migration and political instability throughout Eurasia.

freen 6y ago
You are mistaking the ability to say whatever you want with the ability to escape the social consequences of your expression. Both are fully compatible with any understanding of “free speech” constitutionally, politically and socially. Would you kick nazis out of your dinner party? Yes or No? That’s the fundamental question that is being asked. If your answer is no, you would not kick nazis out of your dinner party, on account of “free speech”, well, that is your free speech. Mine is kicking the nazis out. If you would not permit me to alter my behavior to stop my resources and forum to be utilized by nazis, meaning I must support and publish nazi material, your position is very extreme, severely limits my autonomy and in many ways forces me to “speak” on behalf of others. “Free speech” that does not allow for others to express the consequences of that speech is not, in fact a support of free speech. If you say “I hate nazis, but you must allow them to publish on your website” you are effectively prioritizing one type of speech over another. You are saying I must allow nazis at my dinner party. (Note: the government, with its force of law, is very, very different)
- mistermann 6y ago
  > You are mistaking the ability to say whatever you want with the ability to escape the social consequences of your expression. Am I though, in fact? Is this idea expressly conveyed in the text above? Not that I can see, and it certainly wasn't intended, because I do not hold that belief. So this raises an interesting question: where did that idea come from? This may look like a rhetorical question, but it isn't - it is literal, and I ask it for a very specific and important reason. Are you able to answer the question? After all, it's your idea, isn't it? > Would you kick nazis out of your dinner party? Yes or No? That’s the fundamental question that is being asked. Fine - then discuss it in those terms, not in objectively false terms like removing them from the dinner party does not diminish their freedom of speech. The actual actions (and subsequent changes in the state of reality), and the justifications for those actions, are two different things. Acknowledge this distinction, please. > If you would not permit me to alter my behavior to stop my resources and forum to be utilized by nazis, meaning I must support and publish nazi material, your position is very extreme, severely limits my autonomy and in many ways forces me to “speak” on behalf of others. It is not I who am forcibly restricting anything, so please refrain from making such accusations. I am merely discussing ideas. > “Free speech” that does not allow for others to express the consequences of that speech is not, in fact a support of free speech. Agreed. I am not doing that. Others may, but I am not. > If you say “I hate nazis, but you must allow them to publish on your website” you are effectively prioritizing one type of speech over another. You are saying I must allow nazis at my dinner party. (Note: the government, with its force of law, is very, very different) If I was saying that, you would have a fine point. But I'm not saying that. What I am saying, is what I have said above - supplementing what I have said with one's own interpretations and predictions, and then accusing me of holding those interpreted beliefs, seems like a sub-optimal way to solve problems - if we were to do it in our day jobs, we'd write shitty software, and that's why this type of behavior gets called out. So why is it not just acceptable, but enthusiastically preferred, to behave in this manner in "the real world" (including here on HN, home of the intellectually gifted)? Is this not a very odd state of affairs? I mean, if one drops all priors and playfully observes (a certain subset of) the conversations we have here all day every day, is the whole thing not beautifully (but also tragically) absurd? Why do we do this, and why do we refuse to acknowledge it (and why do we downvote people who dare to point these things out - don't shoot the messenger, as they say)? These seem like good questions to be asking in the 21st century - it's odd not only that no one asks them, but also that there's such unanimous and passionate aversion to the ideas contained within such questions. This aversion can be observed, if one has the fortitude to look.

betwixthewires 6y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama A private dinner party is not publicly accessible. There is a distinction there.

freen 6y ago
So I can’t delete comment spam on my public blog as that would violate “free speech”? I also don’t need a Facebook account in order to post content and consume it? You are missing the point about Marsh v Alabama: unrestricted public accessibility vs the private club with authentication and exclusion built into its very core. Rockefeller center, though a “public” space closes and excludes the public for around 5 minutes annually to prove that it is not a truly public space and so they can kick anyone out at any time for any reason. Facebook’s registration and authentication does the same. You publish at their pleasure. In marsh, the equivalent would be a velvet rope around the sidewalk where only approved and registered people could enter, view and express their opinions. Facebook is emphatically not the public sphere, as much as y’all want it to be: it is allowed exclusion of anyone according to its own choosing. That it can ban someone and delete their account makes Facebook not a public sphere. Same as my blog: your comment stays up if I want it to, no implication on the right to free speech.