4 ms·

Freedom of speech aims to protect speech from government suppression, not from societal norms or the consequences of that speech in the marketplace.

• zajio1am 6y ago
  The pivotal book about freedom of speech, 'On Liberty' from J. S. Mill, is predominantly interested in freedom from societal suppression, not just government suppression: "Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant - society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it - its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own."
  • gamblor956 6y ago
    This book had no bearing on the First Amendment's conception of freedom of speech, seeing as how it was written several decades after the formation of the U.S. This book may have been pivotal to British utilitarianists, but it didn't have much, if any, impact on the U.S.
    • zajio1am 6y ago
      The thread is not about First Amendment, as a specific legal protection, but about general societal principle of freedom of speech.
      • gamblor956 6y ago
        Which has its foundations in the First Amendment... Before then, "free speech" as a concept did not exist. (The closest was the freedom of religious practice, which is not the same thing.)
        • throwaway829 6y ago
          As an ex-Scientologist it saddens me that I have to tell HN readers this, but please read "On liberty" which explains why censorship is a flawed approach.
        • flyingfences 6y ago
          > Before then, "free speech" as a concept did not exist. Now that is a heavy claim to be making. Do you have anything to back it up?
          • gamblor956 6y ago
            History itself? Before the U.S., nobody even thought free speech was possible. England was the closest, but their version of free speech was still subject to government censorship. It was the writings of the Founding Fathers, and the Bill of Rights in particular, that established the doctrine that is today known as "freedom of speech."
            • zajio1am 6y ago
              French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen expressed freedom of speech at roughly the same time as american Bill of Rights, and used formulation that is more general and does not restrict just the government: "The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law."
  • evgen 6y ago
    Mill may be the most passionate philosopher to defend this maximalist interpretation of free speech, but he is hopelessly out of date. Mill was a proponent of the 'marketplace of ideas' delusion that has been shown over the past few decades to be an illusion; Mill seems to think that knowledge, and only knowledge, emerges from arguments between dedicated opponents. These quaint bon mots from twee English gentlemen of the Victorian period are about as relevant to modern life as are their opinions about medicine, hygiene, education, and the role of women. Interesting as a historical artifact but not for much more.
    • hertzrat 6y ago
      You are saying that social censure is no longer something that humans need to worry about. That the concept of is a free exchange of ideas is antiquated, and that the principle of letting people learn from their debates was only valid a hundred years ago? All because of some tech algorithms?
• jumby 6y ago
  I saw a great analogy on Twitter: Imagine Twitter as the anti-homosexual cake shop and Q-Anon/Trump/Radical Right as the couple who want a cake for their gay wedding.
  • kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    Tolerance for the intolerant is a virtue? There need to be boundaries on destructive behavior. One scenario isn't substantively harming society.
    • jumby 6y ago
      Not at all. The hypocrisy is that the same folks who cheered the Supreme Court cake ruling are now wanting AWS to bake them a cake.
  • joshuamorton 6y ago
    Why is this a great analogy? Specifically, how does banning people for their actions work well as an analogy for banning someone for who they are (and you must take that for granted, because that's the legal frameworks opinions on the matter)? That's also an even worse example because the supreme court found in favor of the cake shop.
    • evgen 6y ago
      I think it is the reverse. If a baker can't be forced to bake a rainbow cake (for members of a protected class) then AWS most certainly cannot be forced to provide service to people espousing violent political action (not a protected class.)
  • Steltek 6y ago
    Are people born "QAnon"? If you consider yourself moderate, are you Bi? Am I cis-liberal? I think this analogy needs a lot of work.