4 ms·

Why is it that we have to ignore nuances in these arguments? We never had unrestricted free speech in this country. There is a whole Wikipedia article about it:

Why is it that we have to ignore nuances in these arguments? We never had unrestricted free speech in this country. There is a whole Wikipedia article about it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... In addition other democratic states have strict limits on free speech such as Singapore: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constitution_of_Singapore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constituti... After all even “democracy” is nuanced here in the states. Obvious examples from our past include the wholesale disenfranchisement of women until 100 years ago, Jim Crow era laws, poll taxes, and more. Did we have democracy then? Do we have democracy now? Did we have free speech when broadcasters in the USA had to abide by the Fairness Doctrine? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine. Our system has it’s faults. But one can’t say that we ever had unfettered democracy or free speech, ever. At what point is speech considered abuse? If you make the analogy between speech and network traffic, we intentionally censor “abusive” traffic to save our networks from collapse. Could one make the argument that entities with an interest in destabilizing our democracy should not be able to inject propaganda into our discourse because “free speech”? I think it’s a valid argument to have and a nuance that we have to contend with. There are no absolutes. Trivializing this with a snappy trope of “democracy can’t survive without free speech” is disingenuous IMO.

wkjenjkwenf 6y ago
What a stupid argument. "Child pornography and obscenity are banned, therefore democracy does not rely on free speech, therefore we don't need free speech at all." Obviously "free speech" comes with the colloquially-understood fact that it doesn't include child pornography.
- ipython 6y ago
  Be careful. Your hot air may just blow over the straw man you’re arguing with.
- m3at 6y ago
  You're new so you might wonder why you're downvoted. Hackernews has some guidelines, and while they're far from being perfect they do help to maintain above average online conversation. Please have a read (it's pretty short!): https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Key point related to your comment: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
- Gunax 6y ago
  Sometimes arguing about where the line should be drawn necessitates establishing that there exists a line. By mentioning child porn, he/she shows that there is actually a line and now we can discuss where it should lie.
- dang 6y ago
  Please make your substantive points without name-calling, which is against the site guidelines: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
waheoo 6y ago
This is an extremely bizzare argument. Firstly, the op like myself would have been against all those disasters of democracy as well. Secondly, you're using things we deemed reprehensible enough to stop doing, outlaw, or repeal as an excuse to now do something in kind. Op seems to have learned from those mistakes, why are you trying to use them to justify making new ones? > Why is it that we have to ignore nuances in these arguments? I very much agree. Why can't you understand that just because we've never had perfectly free speech, that maybe it's still worth fighting for most of the time. And that a few counter examples do not therefore equate to free speech being something unworthy of protecting.
iliketosleep 6y ago
> Could one make the argument that entities with an interest in destabilizing our democracy should not be able to inject propaganda into our discourse because “free speech”? One could also argue that censoring one side of politics deepens divisions and drives people to polical extremes. I would rephrase "democracy can’t survive without free speech" as "democracy can’t survive without free political speech"
kenneth 6y ago
I wouldn't call Singapore a democracy. It's an authoritarian one-party state that happens to hold elections. These elections are always won by the same party. The democracy index rates Singapore at 6.02/10. About 0.03 away from being a "hybrid regime" and currently rated a "flawed democracy." It's ranked as worse than places such as Ukraine (currently in a civil war), Thailand (run by a military dictatorship), etc. Having been stuck in the lockdown they imposed earlier this year, which was widely unpopular with the city's residents and which lead to the biggest support for the opposition in the country's history, I would not at all call Singapore a democracy.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  Singapore is essentially an extremely well-run, technocratic police state. Lovely place, but I definitely wouldn't want to live there.
- kyriee 6y ago
  Canada has limits in free speech and seems to be doing just fine as a democracy. At least, it’s muuuuch better than the American one.
- cr4zy 6y ago
  Interesting that Singapore also is the 4th least corrupt country per the Corruption Perceptions Index - one of the biggest discrepancies with the Democracy Index.
swiley 6y ago
Making analogies requires that the two ideas come from the same class of ideas. In what way is traffic and speech in the same class? The reason this becomes an absolute is, unlike with traffic, the decision about which speech is abusive is objective and itself easy to abuse. When there's no way to talk about the abuse (a situation the abuser would create) then it will continue until the abuser's ability to censor speech is removed. In the real world this ability is often removed as the result of some serious violence and so most people don't like to create conditions that could lead to such a situation. People sometimes say that speech in a democracy is a nicer alternative to violence.
- matt_kantor 6y ago
  I think you meant "subjective".

wkjenjkwenf 6y ago

What a stupid argument. "Child pornography and obscenity are banned, therefore democracy does not rely on free speech, therefore we don't need free speech at all." Obviously "free speech" comes with the colloquially-understood fact that it doesn't include child pornography.

ipython 6y ago
Be careful. Your hot air may just blow over the straw man you’re arguing with.
m3at 6y ago
You're new so you might wonder why you're downvoted. Hackernews has some guidelines, and while they're far from being perfect they do help to maintain above average online conversation. Please have a read (it's pretty short!): https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Key point related to your comment: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Gunax 6y ago
Sometimes arguing about where the line should be drawn necessitates establishing that there exists a line. By mentioning child porn, he/she shows that there is actually a line and now we can discuss where it should lie.
dang 6y ago
Please make your substantive points without name-calling, which is against the site guidelines: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

waheoo 6y ago

This is an extremely bizzare argument. Firstly, the op like myself would have been against all those disasters of democracy as well. Secondly, you're using things we deemed reprehensible enough to stop doing, outlaw, or repeal as an excuse to now do something in kind. Op seems to have learned from those mistakes, why are you trying to use them to justify making new ones? > Why is it that we have to ignore nuances in these arguments? I very much agree. Why can't you understand that just because we've never had perfectly free speech, that maybe it's still worth fighting for most of the time. And that a few counter examples do not therefore equate to free speech being something unworthy of protecting.

iliketosleep 6y ago

> Could one make the argument that entities with an interest in destabilizing our democracy should not be able to inject propaganda into our discourse because “free speech”? One could also argue that censoring one side of politics deepens divisions and drives people to polical extremes. I would rephrase "democracy can’t survive without free speech" as "democracy can’t survive without free political speech"

kenneth 6y ago

I wouldn't call Singapore a democracy. It's an authoritarian one-party state that happens to hold elections. These elections are always won by the same party. The democracy index rates Singapore at 6.02/10. About 0.03 away from being a "hybrid regime" and currently rated a "flawed democracy." It's ranked as worse than places such as Ukraine (currently in a civil war), Thailand (run by a military dictatorship), etc. Having been stuck in the lockdown they imposed earlier this year, which was widely unpopular with the city's residents and which lead to the biggest support for the opposition in the country's history, I would not at all call Singapore a democracy.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
Singapore is essentially an extremely well-run, technocratic police state. Lovely place, but I definitely wouldn't want to live there.
kyriee 6y ago
Canada has limits in free speech and seems to be doing just fine as a democracy. At least, it’s muuuuch better than the American one.
cr4zy 6y ago
Interesting that Singapore also is the 4th least corrupt country per the Corruption Perceptions Index - one of the biggest discrepancies with the Democracy Index.

swiley 6y ago

Making analogies requires that the two ideas come from the same class of ideas. In what way is traffic and speech in the same class? The reason this becomes an absolute is, unlike with traffic, the decision about which speech is abusive is objective and itself easy to abuse. When there's no way to talk about the abuse (a situation the abuser would create) then it will continue until the abuser's ability to censor speech is removed. In the real world this ability is often removed as the result of some serious violence and so most people don't like to create conditions that could lead to such a situation. People sometimes say that speech in a democracy is a nicer alternative to violence.

matt_kantor 6y ago
I think you meant "subjective".