4 ms·

I wonder if the author of xkcd is ever going to apologize for his comic on free speech.

by jquery 6y ago

bonoboTP 6y ago
Why would he? I think he's even more convinced of it today. "Free speech" is a pretty right-wing issue nowadays and people assume it's a dog whistle for hate speech. If you want to be a progressive leftist like Randall Munroe, you can't advocate for free speech without hurting your reputation in the current environment.
- the_af 6y ago
  If this [1] is the xkcd strip we're talking about, and don't see how Randall Munroe isn't advocating for free speech, nor how it is a left vs right issue. He's simply saying "free speech means the government cannot arrest you for what you say", nothing more, nothing less. He furthermore argues that the right to free speech doesn't mean everyone else can't criticize you, have your shows/books/whatever canceled, shout you down, etc. He says "[free speech] doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences". Now, you may or may not agree with his position (I certainly don't agree with some key aspects of it) but Randall is explaining what free speech is, not arguing for censorship. The alt text is pretty thought provoking, too. [1] https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - baggy_trough 6y ago
    You are confusing the 1st Amendment with 'free speech'. Free speech is a value that is broadly applicable to society, far larger in scope than prohibition from the government.
    - jsonne 6y ago
      I have no idea why you're being downvoted because you're completely right. The petty legalism around the issue does nothing to further the conversation. The 1st amendment is about the US government censoring people. It doesn't own the concept of free speech as a whole in the same way the constitution doesn't own the idea of God given rights, or democracy, or republic, or numerous other concepts mentioned.
      - anonunivgrad 6y ago
        The petty legalism is just a technique for people to stop thinking about their flagrant hypocrisy. As if the people screaming "they're a private business, they can do what they want" have ever entertained that as a serious argument for any other issue.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      A comic response to the original comic: https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/index.html https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...
      - the_af 6y ago
        This is more like what I think, thanks for posting! I was merely correcting the misconception that Randall Munroe from xkcd doesn't advocate for free speech. I didn't say I agreed 100% with the comic itself, though I do find parts of it thought-provoking.
      - metabagel 6y ago
        I think this concept of freedom of speech is in opposition to freedom of association.
        Karunamon 6y ago
        Society already makes inroads on freedom of association. Businesses aren't allowed to turn away customers based on race and so forth.
    - the_af 6y ago
      > You are confusing the 1st Amendment with 'free speech' I'm not Randall Munroe, how am I confusing anything by simply explaining he doesn't claim to be against free speech but rather is clarifying what he thinks free speech is? I'm ok if you disagree with him, but please don't make claims about what I think, when I didn't say what I think. I was replying to a comment arguing that xkcd doesn't support free speech because the author is leftist. I showed the author does support what he believes is free speech. That's all.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Free speech is a value that is broadly applicable to society, far larger in scope than prohibition from the government The idea of free speech is the ideas should succed or fail based on their ability to convince private actors tomhold and relay them. Compelling actors to relay speech they disapprove of, unless those actors are the State or agents thereof, generally violates that principal. Free speech is not an entitlement to third-party magnification of your speech, it is indeed the opposite: the idea that such magnification must be earned by convincing the party whose magnification is sought. “People who disagree with me aren't relaying my speech or speech I like” isn't a violation of free speech.
  - jquery 6y ago
    I’m sure the CCP finds the alt text pretty thought provoking, too.
    - the_af 6y ago
      I'm sorry, but "guilt by association" is not a compelling argument. If the CCP agrees with something, this alone doesn't make the something they agree with automatically bad. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
      - jquery 6y ago
        They don’t just agree with it, they explicitly use that alt text to justify their oppression. Also, I never made a “guilt by association” argument, you inferred it. You just committed the fallacy fallacy. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
        the_af 6y ago
        > They don’t just agree with it, they explicitly use that alt text to justify their oppression. [citation needed] "I'm sure the CCP thinks the same" is the laziest, weakest form of objection. You're not off the hook, you must still prove the idea being criticized is wrong regardless of what the CCP thinks about it. (Like I pointed out in another comment, I think you've misread the alt-text, because it certainly doesn't support censorship).
  - morlockabove 6y ago
    Free speech isn't synonymous with the first amendment. "Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences!" is one of the most infuriating lines I've ever had the displeasure to hear parroted. What else could it possibly be, but the general idea of not being punished for saying things? The only thing that matters to the principle of freedom of speech is those consequences. Who cares whether it's a government that decides that when you express a certain opinion, you lose your job- or twitter? Funny, but not surprising, how even self-proclaimed leftists will side with capital when it's treading on the right people. You might say "but you can't force people to platform/associate with those they find odious!", to which I reply 'of course you can'- there's laws against unlimited free association, with the argument that bulk group dynamics end up diminishing individual freedom on net. You might say opinions are a different category from e.g. ethnicity, as they can be changed, while race can't. In that case, in the future when we can change our bodies in a day, will it be alright if 'race', no longer existing as such, becomes as acceptably targetable as speech?
    - the_af 6y ago
      > Who cares whether it's a government that decides that when you express a certain opinion, you lose your job- or twitter? I actually agree with you. I think the narrow definition that "only the government has the ability to censor speech" isn't useful, especially in an age where some businesses, platforms and corporations have so much power. I was just correcting the perception that xkcd had a comic "against" free speech (and because "he is a leftist"). It's not against free speech. The author clarifies what he thinks free speech is. Some people apparently thought because I linked to a comic to correct someone's claim about that comic, that said comic represents my opinion. Puzzling.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        If one is against freedom from (in this case corporate) censorship, one is against free speech. 'Explaining' that free speech is not actually freedom from (one's particular preferred form of) censorship is de facto a attempt to excuse that particular form of censorship from the general principles of free speech that would otherwise condemn it, and is therefore in favor of censorship and against freedom from censorship, aka free speech.
samb1729 6y ago
Can you please elaborate on what about that comic warrants an apology? I assume it is this comic[0] you are on about. [0]: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
ajkjk 6y ago
It seems more correct than ever, no?
- jquery 6y ago
  No. It conflates the principle free speech with a narrow legal reading of the first amendment. Whether on purpose, or accident, I cannot say. The alt-text is also only illuminating in the sense that the CCP might heartily agree with it as well, as they see their crusade against free speech as nothing more than maintaining the public order and peace. In publishing the comic and leaving it up, Munroe has done more to damage the principle of free speech in the West than any opinion article I can think of, because it chains together several fallacies in a clever and funny way. A comic response to xkcd - https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/index.html https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in... A legal rebuttal to anybody thinking AWS’s actions were legal (they were not, and hopefully a judge will agree soon) - https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/SGS7Z4Y/137165184/Parler_LLC_v_Amazon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0001.0.pdf https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/SGS7Z4Y/137165184/Par...
  - ajkjk 6y ago
    Hm, that fails to land as a criticism. Depends whether you're talking about (a) "free speech, the legally-protected institution" or (b) "free speech, your right to be awful and not suffer consequences". The xkcd is saying that people saying "but my free speech!" are defending (b) by describing it as (a), which it's not. That's basically true. Afaik the part xkcd definitely gets wrong is the part about "can't arrest you for what you say", which isn't really how it works (for instance https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... discusses the case of how it enters into civil suits). Of course _philosophically_, yeah, the people who included (a) in the constitution were interested in (b). Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here. But at some point if someone is yelling Nazi stuff, I'm gonna punch them for it. It's not a legal question at all; my actions aren't governed by laws, just what I feel is right to do. That is the same point xkcd was making. I don't know enough to say whether AWS or whoever has the same right because they are operating in a legal system. But as a _person_, yeah, I can do whatever I want to you, including 'show you the door', if you're awful.

I wonder if the author of xkcd is ever going to apologize for his comic on free speech.

by jquery 6y ago

I wonder if the author of xkcd is ever going to apologize for his comic on free speech.

Why would he? I think he's even more convinced of it today. "Free speech" is a pretty right-wing issue nowadays and people assume it's a dog whistle for hate speech. If you want to be a progressive leftist like Randall Munroe, you can't advocate for free speech without hurting your reputation in the current environment.

the_af 6y ago
If this [1] is the xkcd strip we're talking about, and don't see how Randall Munroe isn't advocating for free speech, nor how it is a left vs right issue. He's simply saying "free speech means the government cannot arrest you for what you say", nothing more, nothing less. He furthermore argues that the right to free speech doesn't mean everyone else can't criticize you, have your shows/books/whatever canceled, shout you down, etc. He says "[free speech] doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences". Now, you may or may not agree with his position (I certainly don't agree with some key aspects of it) but Randall is explaining what free speech is, not arguing for censorship. The alt text is pretty thought provoking, too. [1] https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  You are confusing the 1st Amendment with 'free speech'. Free speech is a value that is broadly applicable to society, far larger in scope than prohibition from the government.
  - jsonne 6y ago
    I have no idea why you're being downvoted because you're completely right. The petty legalism around the issue does nothing to further the conversation. The 1st amendment is about the US government censoring people. It doesn't own the concept of free speech as a whole in the same way the constitution doesn't own the idea of God given rights, or democracy, or republic, or numerous other concepts mentioned.
    - anonunivgrad 6y ago
      The petty legalism is just a technique for people to stop thinking about their flagrant hypocrisy. As if the people screaming "they're a private business, they can do what they want" have ever entertained that as a serious argument for any other issue.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    A comic response to the original comic: https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/index.html https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...
    - the_af 6y ago
      This is more like what I think, thanks for posting! I was merely correcting the misconception that Randall Munroe from xkcd doesn't advocate for free speech. I didn't say I agreed 100% with the comic itself, though I do find parts of it thought-provoking.
    - metabagel 6y ago
      I think this concept of freedom of speech is in opposition to freedom of association.
      - Karunamon 6y ago
        Society already makes inroads on freedom of association. Businesses aren't allowed to turn away customers based on race and so forth.
  - the_af 6y ago
    > You are confusing the 1st Amendment with 'free speech' I'm not Randall Munroe, how am I confusing anything by simply explaining he doesn't claim to be against free speech but rather is clarifying what he thinks free speech is? I'm ok if you disagree with him, but please don't make claims about what I think, when I didn't say what I think. I was replying to a comment arguing that xkcd doesn't support free speech because the author is leftist. I showed the author does support what he believes is free speech. That's all.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Free speech is a value that is broadly applicable to society, far larger in scope than prohibition from the government The idea of free speech is the ideas should succed or fail based on their ability to convince private actors tomhold and relay them. Compelling actors to relay speech they disapprove of, unless those actors are the State or agents thereof, generally violates that principal. Free speech is not an entitlement to third-party magnification of your speech, it is indeed the opposite: the idea that such magnification must be earned by convincing the party whose magnification is sought. “People who disagree with me aren't relaying my speech or speech I like” isn't a violation of free speech.
- jquery 6y ago
  I’m sure the CCP finds the alt text pretty thought provoking, too.
  - the_af 6y ago
    I'm sorry, but "guilt by association" is not a compelling argument. If the CCP agrees with something, this alone doesn't make the something they agree with automatically bad. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
    - jquery 6y ago
      They don’t just agree with it, they explicitly use that alt text to justify their oppression. Also, I never made a “guilt by association” argument, you inferred it. You just committed the fallacy fallacy. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
      - the_af 6y ago
        > They don’t just agree with it, they explicitly use that alt text to justify their oppression. [citation needed] "I'm sure the CCP thinks the same" is the laziest, weakest form of objection. You're not off the hook, you must still prove the idea being criticized is wrong regardless of what the CCP thinks about it. (Like I pointed out in another comment, I think you've misread the alt-text, because it certainly doesn't support censorship).
- morlockabove 6y ago
  Free speech isn't synonymous with the first amendment. "Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences!" is one of the most infuriating lines I've ever had the displeasure to hear parroted. What else could it possibly be, but the general idea of not being punished for saying things? The only thing that matters to the principle of freedom of speech is those consequences. Who cares whether it's a government that decides that when you express a certain opinion, you lose your job- or twitter? Funny, but not surprising, how even self-proclaimed leftists will side with capital when it's treading on the right people. You might say "but you can't force people to platform/associate with those they find odious!", to which I reply 'of course you can'- there's laws against unlimited free association, with the argument that bulk group dynamics end up diminishing individual freedom on net. You might say opinions are a different category from e.g. ethnicity, as they can be changed, while race can't. In that case, in the future when we can change our bodies in a day, will it be alright if 'race', no longer existing as such, becomes as acceptably targetable as speech?
  - the_af 6y ago
    > Who cares whether it's a government that decides that when you express a certain opinion, you lose your job- or twitter? I actually agree with you. I think the narrow definition that "only the government has the ability to censor speech" isn't useful, especially in an age where some businesses, platforms and corporations have so much power. I was just correcting the perception that xkcd had a comic "against" free speech (and because "he is a leftist"). It's not against free speech. The author clarifies what he thinks free speech is. Some people apparently thought because I linked to a comic to correct someone's claim about that comic, that said comic represents my opinion. Puzzling.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      If one is against freedom from (in this case corporate) censorship, one is against free speech. 'Explaining' that free speech is not actually freedom from (one's particular preferred form of) censorship is de facto a attempt to excuse that particular form of censorship from the general principles of free speech that would otherwise condemn it, and is therefore in favor of censorship and against freedom from censorship, aka free speech.

samb1729 6y ago

Can you please elaborate on what about that comic warrants an apology? I assume it is this comic[0] you are on about. [0]: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

ajkjk 6y ago

It seems more correct than ever, no?

jquery 6y ago
No. It conflates the principle free speech with a narrow legal reading of the first amendment. Whether on purpose, or accident, I cannot say. The alt-text is also only illuminating in the sense that the CCP might heartily agree with it as well, as they see their crusade against free speech as nothing more than maintaining the public order and peace. In publishing the comic and leaving it up, Munroe has done more to damage the principle of free speech in the West than any opinion article I can think of, because it chains together several fallacies in a clever and funny way. A comic response to xkcd - https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/index.html https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in... A legal rebuttal to anybody thinking AWS’s actions were legal (they were not, and hopefully a judge will agree soon) - https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/SGS7Z4Y/137165184/Parler_LLC_v_Amazon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0001.0.pdf https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/SGS7Z4Y/137165184/Par...
- ajkjk 6y ago
  Hm, that fails to land as a criticism. Depends whether you're talking about (a) "free speech, the legally-protected institution" or (b) "free speech, your right to be awful and not suffer consequences". The xkcd is saying that people saying "but my free speech!" are defending (b) by describing it as (a), which it's not. That's basically true. Afaik the part xkcd definitely gets wrong is the part about "can't arrest you for what you say", which isn't really how it works (for instance https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... discusses the case of how it enters into civil suits). Of course _philosophically_, yeah, the people who included (a) in the constitution were interested in (b). Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here. But at some point if someone is yelling Nazi stuff, I'm gonna punch them for it. It's not a legal question at all; my actions aren't governed by laws, just what I feel is right to do. That is the same point xkcd was making. I don't know enough to say whether AWS or whoever has the same right because they are operating in a legal system. But as a _person_, yeah, I can do whatever I want to you, including 'show you the door', if you're awful.