4 ms·

This is literally the foundation of American govt structure namely the respect for unalienable rights of individuals to express themselves. It’s the first line

This is literally the foundation of American govt structure namely the respect for unalienable rights of individuals to express themselves. It’s the first line in our enumerated rights. This isn’t “oh we should rethink things” this is a matter of natural rights and precedes anything we’ve constructed.

ardy42 6y ago
> This is literally the foundation of American govt structure namely the respect for unalienable rights of individuals to express themselves. > It’s the first line in our enumerated rights. > This isn’t “oh we should rethink things” this is a matter of natural rights and precedes anything we’ve constructed. I never said anyone shouldn't have the right to express themselves. Do you think it's in the Constitution that you have the unalienable right post any lie you want to YouTube? I don't remember that being in there. IMHO, lies are toxic to free speech, and it's in everyone's interest (and moral obligation) to do their best to limit their spread.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > lies are toxic to free speech IMHO you're not interested in free speech unless you're willing to defend speech you find repugnant. You don't need to protect speech everyone finds unobjectionable. You need to protect speech that is almost universally opposed. Minorities need protection, majorities don't, and this the basis of the American notion of freedom - insofar as the individual is the smallest minority. > Do you think it's in the Constitution that you have the unalienable right post any lie you want to YouTube? I don't remember that being in there. Clearly it isn't and I believe in freedom of association completely too. If a business wants to not serve anyone for any reason, I recognize that - clearly law has developed to qualify this. This notion of freedom of association has no bearing on my ability to criticize Youtube for doing something I find wrong. I can simultaneously believe that what Youtube is doing is wrong and they're completely allowed to do it.
  - Daishiman 6y ago
    You're not really offering any solutions with these platitudes, because if we take your statement to its conclusion, heck it seem we'll just have to live with a third of the population being lulled into supporting potentially violent and seditious people who want to subvert democracy itself. Oh, guess we'll just have to let them or allow the situation to devolve into a civil war.
    - MrMan 6y ago
      This is what a lot of hacker dudes seem to want, I feel despair.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > You don't need to protect speech everyone finds unobjectionable. I wasn't talking about objectionable opinions or perspectives. I was talking about lies and falsehoods, which are becoming alarmingly widespread. Even now those things don't full First Amendment protections, which is why there can be laws against fraud and defamation, and the Supreme Court has even said "false statements of fact" do not enjoy protection [1]. You've recited many slogans, but it's important to consider what free speech is supposed to achieve, which, IMHO, is to allow progress towards truth. It's also important to keep other considerations in mind, and balance them. If you but too much focus on too small an area, you can easily find yourself becoming a Paperclip Maximizer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#False_statements_of_fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      Do note that US v Alvarez did hold that false statements are not a sufficient basis to restrict speech--there needs to be something else to justify restriction of speech. Or, a better quote from the syllabus: > Although the Court has frequently said or implied that false factual statements enjoy little First Amendment protection, see, e.g., Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 340, those statements cannot be read to mean “no protection at all.”
int_19h 6y ago
Given that the Alien and Sedition Acts took less than 10 years after the passing of the Bill of Rights, and were passed by many of the same people working on the original Constitution, I would dare say that it wasn't all that unanimous. But, and perhaps more importantly, relatively few people at the time could vote - in 1789 it was about 6% of the population as a whole. On the federal level, there was basically no protection of the right to vote at all - there was that bit about states having to have a "republican form of government", but it wasn't codified, and the broad understanding was that property requirements, poll taxes etc are all compatible with it. So, it was a very different environment overall. (I'm not disagreeing with your basic premise - I support, it actually. But US is not a good historical model for it. I don't think there's any country that really is, or ever was. Those of us who believe that democracy is dead without radical free speech, have to figure out how to make it all work in a way that is, at least, tolerable to those who disagree with us.)
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  It's a common way to dismiss Founding stuff, but I'm a fan of the Frederick Douglass view that the Constitution is a "glorious liberty document." So what if the writers didn't always practice it? If it's been unequally applied - there's no stronger case than to hold people to account with the law of the land.
8note 6y ago
But that's not democracy. Go is arguing that free speech is required for democracy, and that democracy is why we want free speech. The founders didn't like democracy all that much though
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > and that democracy is why we want free speech We don't "want free speech," it exists and a government that represents free people will recognize that. The founders arrived at a consensus with representative democracy. They realized the dangers of democracy.
  - 8note 6y ago
    It's just a made up concept though. It would be physically impossible for YouTube to ban anything if it was a real thing. That there's a conversation about YouTube censoring people says that it is perfectly possible for free speech to not exist. It's not a physical law of the universe

ardy42 6y ago

> This is literally the foundation of American govt structure namely the respect for unalienable rights of individuals to express themselves. > It’s the first line in our enumerated rights. > This isn’t “oh we should rethink things” this is a matter of natural rights and precedes anything we’ve constructed. I never said anyone shouldn't have the right to express themselves. Do you think it's in the Constitution that you have the unalienable right post any lie you want to YouTube? I don't remember that being in there. IMHO, lies are toxic to free speech, and it's in everyone's interest (and moral obligation) to do their best to limit their spread.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> lies are toxic to free speech IMHO you're not interested in free speech unless you're willing to defend speech you find repugnant. You don't need to protect speech everyone finds unobjectionable. You need to protect speech that is almost universally opposed. Minorities need protection, majorities don't, and this the basis of the American notion of freedom - insofar as the individual is the smallest minority. > Do you think it's in the Constitution that you have the unalienable right post any lie you want to YouTube? I don't remember that being in there. Clearly it isn't and I believe in freedom of association completely too. If a business wants to not serve anyone for any reason, I recognize that - clearly law has developed to qualify this. This notion of freedom of association has no bearing on my ability to criticize Youtube for doing something I find wrong. I can simultaneously believe that what Youtube is doing is wrong and they're completely allowed to do it.
- Daishiman 6y ago
  You're not really offering any solutions with these platitudes, because if we take your statement to its conclusion, heck it seem we'll just have to live with a third of the population being lulled into supporting potentially violent and seditious people who want to subvert democracy itself. Oh, guess we'll just have to let them or allow the situation to devolve into a civil war.
  - MrMan 6y ago
    This is what a lot of hacker dudes seem to want, I feel despair.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > You don't need to protect speech everyone finds unobjectionable. I wasn't talking about objectionable opinions or perspectives. I was talking about lies and falsehoods, which are becoming alarmingly widespread. Even now those things don't full First Amendment protections, which is why there can be laws against fraud and defamation, and the Supreme Court has even said "false statements of fact" do not enjoy protection [1]. You've recited many slogans, but it's important to consider what free speech is supposed to achieve, which, IMHO, is to allow progress towards truth. It's also important to keep other considerations in mind, and balance them. If you but too much focus on too small an area, you can easily find yourself becoming a Paperclip Maximizer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#False_statements_of_fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    Do note that US v Alvarez did hold that false statements are not a sufficient basis to restrict speech--there needs to be something else to justify restriction of speech. Or, a better quote from the syllabus: > Although the Court has frequently said or implied that false factual statements enjoy little First Amendment protection, see, e.g., Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 340, those statements cannot be read to mean “no protection at all.”

int_19h 6y ago

Given that the Alien and Sedition Acts took less than 10 years after the passing of the Bill of Rights, and were passed by many of the same people working on the original Constitution, I would dare say that it wasn't all that unanimous. But, and perhaps more importantly, relatively few people at the time could vote - in 1789 it was about 6% of the population as a whole. On the federal level, there was basically no protection of the right to vote at all - there was that bit about states having to have a "republican form of government", but it wasn't codified, and the broad understanding was that property requirements, poll taxes etc are all compatible with it. So, it was a very different environment overall. (I'm not disagreeing with your basic premise - I support, it actually. But US is not a good historical model for it. I don't think there's any country that really is, or ever was. Those of us who believe that democracy is dead without radical free speech, have to figure out how to make it all work in a way that is, at least, tolerable to those who disagree with us.)

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
It's a common way to dismiss Founding stuff, but I'm a fan of the Frederick Douglass view that the Constitution is a "glorious liberty document." So what if the writers didn't always practice it? If it's been unequally applied - there's no stronger case than to hold people to account with the law of the land.

8note 6y ago

But that's not democracy. Go is arguing that free speech is required for democracy, and that democracy is why we want free speech. The founders didn't like democracy all that much though

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> and that democracy is why we want free speech We don't "want free speech," it exists and a government that represents free people will recognize that. The founders arrived at a consensus with representative democracy. They realized the dangers of democracy.
- 8note 6y ago
  It's just a made up concept though. It would be physically impossible for YouTube to ban anything if it was a real thing. That there's a conversation about YouTube censoring people says that it is perfectly possible for free speech to not exist. It's not a physical law of the universe