6 ms·

> I think American's fetishize "free speech" I find something deeply satisfying about the idea of someone generalizing 333-million people in one comment, using

> I think American's fetishize "free speech" I find something deeply satisfying about the idea of someone generalizing 333-million people in one comment, using the word "fetishizing" to describe their view of a principle which has generally been regarded as essential to the vast majority of advances in human rights anywhere progress has been made, and while commenting thusly has done so all in the service of making the central point that it is they who overly-value free speech. > Group b folks, such as myself, are not saying that we're concerned about dinner conversations. We're concerned about speech that is being amplified in a way where there's a civic responsibility to ensure that the harmful messages are not being amplified. So public speech should be further limited, provided La Résistance is still permitted to speak freely as we enter an era with an ever-increasing number of state-aligned location-aware microphones in homes, workplaces, vehicles, pockets and (on) wrists? What could possibly go wrong in that scenario?

sabertoothed 6y ago
I am not the person who wrote: > I think American's fetishize "free speech" But I agree with that statement. "Free speech" is often seen as absolute. But it is not absolute. Not even in the US. It never was. And it should not be. There is always a trade-off. Limits are (copied from Wiki because I am lazy), for example: "libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury"
- handedness 6y ago
  For the record, I do not believe free speech is absolute, nor have I since I was taught that it is not absolute as a child. I think every item listed in the passage you cited is difficult and necessary and should exist in some form that comes after much spirited and reasoned debate. With that said, if you want to see laws have any effect, enforcement is required. Calls for both an increased number of laws and enforcement of said laws (which is implicit in the assumption that these new laws will have a positive effect on a bad situation) is cause for pause, as, again, that has historically been the means by which states have worked actively against things that many observers would reasonably consider to be essential inputs to securing fundamental human rights.
shadowgovt 6y ago
As an American, I agree. US citizens take the First Amendment as a virtue without a lot of exploration into its origins or practical utility. It has a LOT of practical utility... But it's really important, I think, to know what that utility is and what its limits are. And the limits exist and are quite noteworthy. Restricting someone from saying something defamatory is legally challenging relative to, say, the UK. But repeat someone's story verbatim and claim it as your own? Oops, you violated copyright, and no amount of bleating about your First Amendment rights will get you off the hook for the money you owe them, even if you didn't charge for your copy.
- handedness 6y ago
  I wholly agree with your second two paragraph, but for perhaps different reasons: I find those calling for restrictions on free speech often don't sufficiently understand the nature of existing restrictions and what the implications are of either expanding or adding to said restrictions.
arrrg 6y ago
A typical argument pattern is to use free speech as a full stop in any discussion. Engaging with the content of something is rejected straight away, it’s always the principle of the thing. That’s a tiring argument and describing that as a very American way of fetishising free speech is entirely appropriate. Free speech is hard. And there are many difficult questions around it where you have to actually engage with the content of something. So I get why people want to take shortcuts, but that is just so tiring. This unwillingness to even engage with content is extremely tiring.
- handedness 6y ago
  I'm not sure whether you're saying I'm taking that shortcut in my comment, or the person to whom I replied is likely conditioned by seeing too much of that lazy way of avoiding discussing difficult issues. I'll assume it's the latter, and say that's very fair. I'll also say, respectfully, it isn't terribly relevant to my observation of someone who made their point by collectivizing an entire nation of people, and did so in a pretty ham-fisted way, while availing themselves of the thing they seek to restrict. Maybe I just find the complete absence of self-awareness in that comment to be oddly charming.
  - klank 6y ago
    Personally, as the author, I didn't find myself particularly lacking in self awareness. I did qualify it with "I think" meaning it's a personal interpretation I was sharing. Rather than attacking my character, perhaps you'd like to try and understand why I'd have such a view?
    - mpalczewski 6y ago
      > Personally, as the author, I didn't find myself particularly lacking in self awareness. That's exactly how a lack of self awareness works.
      - klank 6y ago
        I missed an /s I guess.

sabertoothed 6y ago

I am not the person who wrote: > I think American's fetishize "free speech" But I agree with that statement. "Free speech" is often seen as absolute. But it is not absolute. Not even in the US. It never was. And it should not be. There is always a trade-off. Limits are (copied from Wiki because I am lazy), for example: "libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury"

handedness 6y ago
For the record, I do not believe free speech is absolute, nor have I since I was taught that it is not absolute as a child. I think every item listed in the passage you cited is difficult and necessary and should exist in some form that comes after much spirited and reasoned debate. With that said, if you want to see laws have any effect, enforcement is required. Calls for both an increased number of laws and enforcement of said laws (which is implicit in the assumption that these new laws will have a positive effect on a bad situation) is cause for pause, as, again, that has historically been the means by which states have worked actively against things that many observers would reasonably consider to be essential inputs to securing fundamental human rights.

shadowgovt 6y ago

As an American, I agree. US citizens take the First Amendment as a virtue without a lot of exploration into its origins or practical utility. It has a LOT of practical utility... But it's really important, I think, to know what that utility is and what its limits are. And the limits exist and are quite noteworthy. Restricting someone from saying something defamatory is legally challenging relative to, say, the UK. But repeat someone's story verbatim and claim it as your own? Oops, you violated copyright, and no amount of bleating about your First Amendment rights will get you off the hook for the money you owe them, even if you didn't charge for your copy.

handedness 6y ago
I wholly agree with your second two paragraph, but for perhaps different reasons: I find those calling for restrictions on free speech often don't sufficiently understand the nature of existing restrictions and what the implications are of either expanding or adding to said restrictions.

arrrg 6y ago

A typical argument pattern is to use free speech as a full stop in any discussion. Engaging with the content of something is rejected straight away, it’s always the principle of the thing. That’s a tiring argument and describing that as a very American way of fetishising free speech is entirely appropriate. Free speech is hard. And there are many difficult questions around it where you have to actually engage with the content of something. So I get why people want to take shortcuts, but that is just so tiring. This unwillingness to even engage with content is extremely tiring.

handedness 6y ago
I'm not sure whether you're saying I'm taking that shortcut in my comment, or the person to whom I replied is likely conditioned by seeing too much of that lazy way of avoiding discussing difficult issues. I'll assume it's the latter, and say that's very fair. I'll also say, respectfully, it isn't terribly relevant to my observation of someone who made their point by collectivizing an entire nation of people, and did so in a pretty ham-fisted way, while availing themselves of the thing they seek to restrict. Maybe I just find the complete absence of self-awareness in that comment to be oddly charming.
- klank 6y ago
  Personally, as the author, I didn't find myself particularly lacking in self awareness. I did qualify it with "I think" meaning it's a personal interpretation I was sharing. Rather than attacking my character, perhaps you'd like to try and understand why I'd have such a view?
  - mpalczewski 6y ago
    > Personally, as the author, I didn't find myself particularly lacking in self awareness. That's exactly how a lack of self awareness works.
    - klank 6y ago
      I missed an /s I guess.