3 ms·

> Folks can rant about free speech all they want, but no sane person would actually want to experience it. Always remember that "free speech" is 100% about the

> Folks can rant about free speech all they want, but no sane person would actually want to experience it. Always remember that "free speech" is 100% about the right to say what you want and not be prosecuted for it. It has never, ever been about the social consequences of any particular one person's speech. Insulting your boss and getting fired isn't an abridgement of free speech, neither is getting banned from the neighborhood pub for racist monologues.

verroq 6y ago
>Always remember that "free speech" is 100% about the right to say what you want and not be prosecuted for it No I don’t remember. You can have “free speech” except the social consequences are that your neighbours lynch you in the streets. No I don’t recall it like that. Free speech has always been absolute because the majority opinion is immune from social consequences. It is the minority opinion that requires protection.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Aside from the extreme hypothetical you made up, there are other laws against lynching, you know. That has nothing to do with free speech.
  - verroq 6y ago
    Lynching has always been a crime and that’s why nobody was lynched ever. The mob already has protection because their numbers. It is everyone but the mob that needs the protection.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      “Laws don’t work, which is why we need more laws” is quite an argument.
      - verroq 6y ago
        Me: “there isn’t enough done to protect dissenting voices” You: “so we should do nothing and give them up to the lynch mob, laws don’t work anyway, this is what I call freedom of speech but not from consequences”
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        You know, there is a rule about presuming good faith. Accusing me of "giv[ing] them up to the lynch mob" is not that. Knock it off. Here's the issue, either you're advocating for something useless, or for the suppression of speech. On one hand, you have the idea of criminalizing violent responses to unpopular speech. This is completely superfluous; we already criminalize violence, what will adding another law do, really? The theory might be that it'll dissuade action, but someone furious enough to literally lynch their neighbor over speech isn't rationally balancing the pros and cons. "I strongly disapprove of this and therefore I want whoever does it to be locked up forever" might feel viscerally good, but we know it's a bad way to run a country. On the other hand, attempting to protect people from non-violent responses involves the suppression of speech based on popularity. You might have the right to say whatever you want, but I also have the right to tell you exactly how I feel about that. You can't abridge my legal right to say that because I happen to be in the majority any more than you can suppress my speech if I was in the minority. And if my push-back to your original speech is noxious in its own right, then maybe I'll suffer social consequences for my own speech, as is completely fair. Oh, and remember that any tool you give the government might be abused. We're already seeing local cities trying to pass "hate speech" laws against anti-cop sentiment, which is probably not what the original authors had in mind. The path between "we need to suppress the mob" and "my political opponents are a mob and must be suppressed" is very straight and very short.
        verroq 6y ago
        I don't think your straw man of my argument is particularly in good faith. >Here's the issue, either you're advocating for something useless, or for the suppression of speech. Incorrect. I'm pointing out your flawed argument where you somehow believe that "free speech" exists if there are social consequences for speaking. I provide a counter example where severe social consequences, effectively suppress speech. As pointed out by another commenter on your post, freedom of speech is much more than the letter of the law. It is a much wider concept for exchanging ideas. Your claim that "not free from consequences" by the letter of the law while legally correct, is ironically, the polar opposite of what freedom of speech actually is.
marvin 6y ago
This is the canonical meme of free speech, but there's a corollary that is becoming increasingly relevant. People who repeat what you just wrote usually seem to ignore it: If every arena where people actually meet is privately owned, and all of these places agree on what ideas are valid topics of discussion, the effect on society will largely be the same as if a state actor suppressed free speech. We're not quite there as a society, but we are moving in that direction. Some of the biggest public arenas are close enough that it is a problem. As a current example, consider if Facebook, Twitter and reddit all agree that any discussion asking critial questions regarding transgender issues are grounds for expulsion. If this happens, there will be valuable discussions that don't happen, and society will be worse off for it. There will be people who make life-changing mistakes because they didn't have access to a viewpoint that catalyzed an insight that was important for them. We're not quite there yet. But there are numerous incidents that make me worried that this trend will leave us with a society that's net worse off. Or moves towards violent conflict as the suppressing the free exchange of ideas has economic consequences where those with social access to free speech arenas get better opportunities, leaving the rest without even the possibility of engaging. You see the latter being alluded to when investors on Twitter or elsewhere state that there are many factually true insights about startups that they would never state outside of a close circle of acquaintances, out of a legitimate worry that it would incite a Twitter mob and cause serious personal consequences. Everyone outside of their own sphere of influence are worse off for not being able to share the knowledge. Yet another wedge increasing the wealth disparity, and more fuel for the anger that comes along with it.
- Can_Not 6y ago
  > There will be people who make life-changing mistakes because they didn't have access to a viewpoint that catalyzed an insight that was important for them. This goes both ways though. Some people will choose to transition their gender because internet people might over-encourage them, but far more people who should transition won't because trans erasure, censorship, and discrimination was the norm until this decade. And technically, mostly still is the norm. You have far more "don't you dare imply being trans is ok" IRL than you have "don't you dare imply being trans is not ok" online. And this comment leaves out critical facts. Medical professionals don't just hand out pills and surgeries to anyone who just walks in. Individuals are given serious consultations where they can help get a diagnosis and then the ability to make an informed decision in regards to their options. People who regret transition are actually a tiny minority. Why is it a tiny minority? Because medical professionals put a lot of effort into vetting patients. People getting "censored" are actually just repeating "somebody once regretted it, therefor no one should ever get it" over and over again, usually in less honest wording, often just transphobia or bullying just for the sake of it. In normal parlance, this is just called "moderation".

verroq 6y ago

>Always remember that "free speech" is 100% about the right to say what you want and not be prosecuted for it No I don’t remember. You can have “free speech” except the social consequences are that your neighbours lynch you in the streets. No I don’t recall it like that. Free speech has always been absolute because the majority opinion is immune from social consequences. It is the minority opinion that requires protection.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Aside from the extreme hypothetical you made up, there are other laws against lynching, you know. That has nothing to do with free speech.
- verroq 6y ago
  Lynching has always been a crime and that’s why nobody was lynched ever. The mob already has protection because their numbers. It is everyone but the mob that needs the protection.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    “Laws don’t work, which is why we need more laws” is quite an argument.
    - verroq 6y ago
      Me: “there isn’t enough done to protect dissenting voices” You: “so we should do nothing and give them up to the lynch mob, laws don’t work anyway, this is what I call freedom of speech but not from consequences”
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        You know, there is a rule about presuming good faith. Accusing me of "giv[ing] them up to the lynch mob" is not that. Knock it off. Here's the issue, either you're advocating for something useless, or for the suppression of speech. On one hand, you have the idea of criminalizing violent responses to unpopular speech. This is completely superfluous; we already criminalize violence, what will adding another law do, really? The theory might be that it'll dissuade action, but someone furious enough to literally lynch their neighbor over speech isn't rationally balancing the pros and cons. "I strongly disapprove of this and therefore I want whoever does it to be locked up forever" might feel viscerally good, but we know it's a bad way to run a country. On the other hand, attempting to protect people from non-violent responses involves the suppression of speech based on popularity. You might have the right to say whatever you want, but I also have the right to tell you exactly how I feel about that. You can't abridge my legal right to say that because I happen to be in the majority any more than you can suppress my speech if I was in the minority. And if my push-back to your original speech is noxious in its own right, then maybe I'll suffer social consequences for my own speech, as is completely fair. Oh, and remember that any tool you give the government might be abused. We're already seeing local cities trying to pass "hate speech" laws against anti-cop sentiment, which is probably not what the original authors had in mind. The path between "we need to suppress the mob" and "my political opponents are a mob and must be suppressed" is very straight and very short.
        verroq 6y ago
        I don't think your straw man of my argument is particularly in good faith. >Here's the issue, either you're advocating for something useless, or for the suppression of speech. Incorrect. I'm pointing out your flawed argument where you somehow believe that "free speech" exists if there are social consequences for speaking. I provide a counter example where severe social consequences, effectively suppress speech. As pointed out by another commenter on your post, freedom of speech is much more than the letter of the law. It is a much wider concept for exchanging ideas. Your claim that "not free from consequences" by the letter of the law while legally correct, is ironically, the polar opposite of what freedom of speech actually is.

marvin 6y ago

This is the canonical meme of free speech, but there's a corollary that is becoming increasingly relevant. People who repeat what you just wrote usually seem to ignore it: If every arena where people actually meet is privately owned, and all of these places agree on what ideas are valid topics of discussion, the effect on society will largely be the same as if a state actor suppressed free speech. We're not quite there as a society, but we are moving in that direction. Some of the biggest public arenas are close enough that it is a problem. As a current example, consider if Facebook, Twitter and reddit all agree that any discussion asking critial questions regarding transgender issues are grounds for expulsion. If this happens, there will be valuable discussions that don't happen, and society will be worse off for it. There will be people who make life-changing mistakes because they didn't have access to a viewpoint that catalyzed an insight that was important for them. We're not quite there yet. But there are numerous incidents that make me worried that this trend will leave us with a society that's net worse off. Or moves towards violent conflict as the suppressing the free exchange of ideas has economic consequences where those with social access to free speech arenas get better opportunities, leaving the rest without even the possibility of engaging. You see the latter being alluded to when investors on Twitter or elsewhere state that there are many factually true insights about startups that they would never state outside of a close circle of acquaintances, out of a legitimate worry that it would incite a Twitter mob and cause serious personal consequences. Everyone outside of their own sphere of influence are worse off for not being able to share the knowledge. Yet another wedge increasing the wealth disparity, and more fuel for the anger that comes along with it.

Can_Not 6y ago
> There will be people who make life-changing mistakes because they didn't have access to a viewpoint that catalyzed an insight that was important for them. This goes both ways though. Some people will choose to transition their gender because internet people might over-encourage them, but far more people who should transition won't because trans erasure, censorship, and discrimination was the norm until this decade. And technically, mostly still is the norm. You have far more "don't you dare imply being trans is ok" IRL than you have "don't you dare imply being trans is not ok" online. And this comment leaves out critical facts. Medical professionals don't just hand out pills and surgeries to anyone who just walks in. Individuals are given serious consultations where they can help get a diagnosis and then the ability to make an informed decision in regards to their options. People who regret transition are actually a tiny minority. Why is it a tiny minority? Because medical professionals put a lot of effort into vetting patients. People getting "censored" are actually just repeating "somebody once regretted it, therefor no one should ever get it" over and over again, usually in less honest wording, often just transphobia or bullying just for the sake of it. In normal parlance, this is just called "moderation".