6 ms·

"hate speech" is a term that was coined in recent years to silence people. The only things that are dangerous are when people actually act or are explicit and

"hate speech" is a term that was coined in recent years to silence people. The only things that are dangerous are when people actually act or are explicit and then we deal with them. This isnt Minority Report. Free speech is meant to be nearly absolute and protect unpopular opinions. The only restrictions are explicit threats (someone is literally saying they are going to kill someone and names said person) Today the interpretation has morphed into whatever is unpopular or is 3 steps away from being an actual threat.

dhosek 6y ago
I'm older than 5 years old. This isn't remotely true.
- trident5000 6y ago
  time-frame admittedly was way off. I edited it.
eightysixfour 6y ago
> Free speech is meant to be nearly absolute and protect unpopular opinions. You're missing a part in this line that's very important, it should be "nearly absolute and protect unpopular opinions from the government."
- chrchang523 6y ago
  Let's set aside the distinction between free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment vs. the broader free speech ideal that's foundational to our society, since it isn't even needed: as suggested by the objections from Germany, France, and Mexico noted by Greenwald, these corporations are effectively acting as the government, so the reasoning behind the First Amendment's existence directly applies here. (This is not an endorsement of the delusional presidential behavior that created the leadership vacuum filled by the corporations.)
  - eightysixfour 6y ago
    The irony of referencing Germany as an example when Germany has an explicit ban on speech that is anti-constitutional is pretty high here. It would be government overreach to tell the platforms that they're required to host whatever speech is posted to them, not the other way around. As I've mentioned in other comments, there are more ways to communicate now than at any other time in history. Facebook and Twitter do not have monopolies on speech, nothing on the internet does. See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25750501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25750501 Where would you draw the line?
    - chrchang523 6y ago
      The issue is that the corporations are acting as the government. As you noted, Germany restricts speech more than the US for obvious historical reasons. So the fact that even their government objects to this behavior is evidence against your position, not mine. In your linked comment, all of these governments recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by laws (which vary between countries).
      - eightysixfour 6y ago
        > In your linked comment, all of these governments recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by laws (which vary between countries). So why not 2? When does 2 become 3? > As you noted, Germany restricts speech more than the US for obvious historical reasons. So the fact that even their government objects to this behavior is evidence against your position, not mine. The German and French government objects to the US not having laws that require this behavior and leaving it in the hands of private companies, sure, and I object to the US having censorship laws and would rather private entities be able to make the decision for themselves, the direction of MORE freedom of speech.
        chrchang523 6y ago
        If this was primarily about "[objecting] to the US not having laws that require this behavior", their emphasis would not have been on the platforms being out of line.
nrmitchi 6y ago
By this logic you're saying that advocating and inciting genocide is just an "unpopular opinion" that deserves to be protected. You know, because it's not against a specific, named person. I'm not even going converse this with nonsense.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Actually that would be a direct threat of harm which I specifically mentioned several times. So no, I'm actually not saying that. I'm not sure how its even possible you arrived at that conclusion.
  - afuchs 6y ago
    How is it determined if something is a call to genocide or otherwise a call to commit harm? From what I can tell, whether speech in the form of "group X should be eliminated" constitutes a threat is still subject to controversy [1]. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/02/steyn-and-genocide/230754/ https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/02/steyn...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
TeaDrunk 6y ago
"hate speech" is not a recent term unless you mean that it was developed in the past century. In the united states, hate speech was determined as a limitation on the first amendment in 1942.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Can you point to the court case (court case that was not subsequently overruled)? The reason I dont believe this is that would be extremely arbitrary. If hate speech is in fact banned it likely has a very narrow and explicit definition in the ruling, most likely circling back to direct threats of harm.
  - chc 6y ago
    Chaplinsky v New Hampshire found that a law forbidding abusive speech in public was Constitutional because the words in question "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
    - trident5000 6y ago
      v New Hampshire. I dont know much about this one (which is limited to a single state) but 1) it can be overturned by the supreme court, 2) if its an old ruling there may be an updated ruling 3) I have not seen the parameters that justify abusive speech, its probably quite specific.
      - mcguire 6y ago
        You know, if you narrow your definition enough, it becomes physically impossible to satisfy. Try adding "...and was issued on a Thursday."
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      We're so far down in the comments I forget who's arguing for what but I don't think that case is relevant. That case gave rise to the "fighting words" doctrine or test which has (thus far) only been applied (successfully) to speech that is so vulgar or offensive as to provoke violence. A good representative example is the recent Twisted Tea smackdown video that made the rounds. If a police officer had swooped in and arrested the instigator before he got hit the arrest likely would have been kosher under the doctrine because the n-word is generally so vulgar you don't expect to be able to use it in that manner and not start a fight. Basically it's used to justify arresting someone for speech so inflammatory that even though you are not picking a fight someone is inevitably gonna pick a fight with you whether you want one or not. I can't think of any case where it was used to prosecute someone for calling for "adjacent to violence" type behavior. I am unaware of any cases (that have not been overturned) where fighting words doctrine was used as a justification for suppressing political speech. If you know of any examples I'd be interested to read them.
Daishiman 6y ago
You need to actually read up on the history of the Enlightenment and the philosophers who actually devised the notion of free speech and how they envisioned its use. In no way does it even reflect the possibility of something like Parler being used to amplify the sort of messaging it does.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- trident5000 6y ago
  We have court opinions on what free speech means in this country and the supreme court has made the heavy decisions on that. Its not a distorted wish list of what each individual wants it to be.
  - chc 6y ago
    Those court opinions all say it's absolutely fine under the First Amendment for a private business to refuse to do business with another business that it finds objectionable, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      This off-shooting discussion has nothing to do with Parler or any other business which for sure does have that legal right.
panopticon 6y ago
> "hate speech" is a term that was coined in recent years to silence people. Americans have been struggling with hate speech and censorship for well over a century. The most obvious example is the censoring of the film The Birth of a Nation back in the late 1910s, but there are examples even further back in US history. Our interpretation of "freedom of speech" (both philosophically and as protected by the First Amendment) isn't immutable and has changed since the Bill of Rights was adopted. Prior to the 1950s, the supreme court upheld the censorship of books and film for reasons that we now interpret as unconstitutional, and censorship remained the law in many states for decades after. I would argue that our current expectation for "free speech" and this idea that it is "nearly absolute" is far more liberal than what we've seen through most of American history.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Freedom of speech starts at absolute, and then has carve-outs as opined by courts, specifically the supreme court.
  - panopticon 6y ago
    And everything I said fits within that framing. Hopefully I've illustrated how those "carve-outs" have changed quite a bit over the centuries.
  - staticman2 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by this but Free Speech in America certainly did not start at absolute. Our constitution endorsed slavery and slaves had no freedom, including speech. The constitution only prevented the federal government from restricting speech. The Supreme court has both expanded or restricted free speech depending on the ruling.
intended 6y ago
None of this is true. Hate speech was very much an issue even before 1947. Libel laws alone put paid to your second sentence. Free speech is not meant to be nearly absolute - it is not even meant to be largely absolute, copy right alone would be incompatible with such a strength of freedom.
- trident5000 6y ago
  None of what you just wrote is true actually and it is meant to be nearly absolute. Everything you just listed is a specific legal carve out. We start with absolute and insert very specific exceptions through court cases which are narrow. Copy right just happens to be one of them.

dhosek 6y ago

I'm older than 5 years old. This isn't remotely true.

trident5000 6y ago
time-frame admittedly was way off. I edited it.

eightysixfour 6y ago

> Free speech is meant to be nearly absolute and protect unpopular opinions. You're missing a part in this line that's very important, it should be "nearly absolute and protect unpopular opinions from the government."

chrchang523 6y ago
Let's set aside the distinction between free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment vs. the broader free speech ideal that's foundational to our society, since it isn't even needed: as suggested by the objections from Germany, France, and Mexico noted by Greenwald, these corporations are effectively acting as the government, so the reasoning behind the First Amendment's existence directly applies here. (This is not an endorsement of the delusional presidential behavior that created the leadership vacuum filled by the corporations.)
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  The irony of referencing Germany as an example when Germany has an explicit ban on speech that is anti-constitutional is pretty high here. It would be government overreach to tell the platforms that they're required to host whatever speech is posted to them, not the other way around. As I've mentioned in other comments, there are more ways to communicate now than at any other time in history. Facebook and Twitter do not have monopolies on speech, nothing on the internet does. See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25750501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25750501 Where would you draw the line?
  - chrchang523 6y ago
    The issue is that the corporations are acting as the government. As you noted, Germany restricts speech more than the US for obvious historical reasons. So the fact that even their government objects to this behavior is evidence against your position, not mine. In your linked comment, all of these governments recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by laws (which vary between countries).
    - eightysixfour 6y ago
      > In your linked comment, all of these governments recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by laws (which vary between countries). So why not 2? When does 2 become 3? > As you noted, Germany restricts speech more than the US for obvious historical reasons. So the fact that even their government objects to this behavior is evidence against your position, not mine. The German and French government objects to the US not having laws that require this behavior and leaving it in the hands of private companies, sure, and I object to the US having censorship laws and would rather private entities be able to make the decision for themselves, the direction of MORE freedom of speech.
      - chrchang523 6y ago
        If this was primarily about "[objecting] to the US not having laws that require this behavior", their emphasis would not have been on the platforms being out of line.

nrmitchi 6y ago

By this logic you're saying that advocating and inciting genocide is just an "unpopular opinion" that deserves to be protected. You know, because it's not against a specific, named person. I'm not even going converse this with nonsense.

trident5000 6y ago
Actually that would be a direct threat of harm which I specifically mentioned several times. So no, I'm actually not saying that. I'm not sure how its even possible you arrived at that conclusion.
- afuchs 6y ago
  How is it determined if something is a call to genocide or otherwise a call to commit harm? From what I can tell, whether speech in the form of "group X should be eliminated" constitutes a threat is still subject to controversy [1]. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/02/steyn-and-genocide/230754/ https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/02/steyn...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

TeaDrunk 6y ago

"hate speech" is not a recent term unless you mean that it was developed in the past century. In the united states, hate speech was determined as a limitation on the first amendment in 1942.

trident5000 6y ago
Can you point to the court case (court case that was not subsequently overruled)? The reason I dont believe this is that would be extremely arbitrary. If hate speech is in fact banned it likely has a very narrow and explicit definition in the ruling, most likely circling back to direct threats of harm.
- chc 6y ago
  Chaplinsky v New Hampshire found that a law forbidding abusive speech in public was Constitutional because the words in question "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
  - trident5000 6y ago
    v New Hampshire. I dont know much about this one (which is limited to a single state) but 1) it can be overturned by the supreme court, 2) if its an old ruling there may be an updated ruling 3) I have not seen the parameters that justify abusive speech, its probably quite specific.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      You know, if you narrow your definition enough, it becomes physically impossible to satisfy. Try adding "...and was issued on a Thursday."
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    We're so far down in the comments I forget who's arguing for what but I don't think that case is relevant. That case gave rise to the "fighting words" doctrine or test which has (thus far) only been applied (successfully) to speech that is so vulgar or offensive as to provoke violence. A good representative example is the recent Twisted Tea smackdown video that made the rounds. If a police officer had swooped in and arrested the instigator before he got hit the arrest likely would have been kosher under the doctrine because the n-word is generally so vulgar you don't expect to be able to use it in that manner and not start a fight. Basically it's used to justify arresting someone for speech so inflammatory that even though you are not picking a fight someone is inevitably gonna pick a fight with you whether you want one or not. I can't think of any case where it was used to prosecute someone for calling for "adjacent to violence" type behavior. I am unaware of any cases (that have not been overturned) where fighting words doctrine was used as a justification for suppressing political speech. If you know of any examples I'd be interested to read them.

Daishiman 6y ago

You need to actually read up on the history of the Enlightenment and the philosophers who actually devised the notion of free speech and how they envisioned its use. In no way does it even reflect the possibility of something like Parler being used to amplify the sort of messaging it does.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
trident5000 6y ago
We have court opinions on what free speech means in this country and the supreme court has made the heavy decisions on that. Its not a distorted wish list of what each individual wants it to be.
- chc 6y ago
  Those court opinions all say it's absolutely fine under the First Amendment for a private business to refuse to do business with another business that it finds objectionable, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    This off-shooting discussion has nothing to do with Parler or any other business which for sure does have that legal right.

panopticon 6y ago

> "hate speech" is a term that was coined in recent years to silence people. Americans have been struggling with hate speech and censorship for well over a century. The most obvious example is the censoring of the film The Birth of a Nation back in the late 1910s, but there are examples even further back in US history. Our interpretation of "freedom of speech" (both philosophically and as protected by the First Amendment) isn't immutable and has changed since the Bill of Rights was adopted. Prior to the 1950s, the supreme court upheld the censorship of books and film for reasons that we now interpret as unconstitutional, and censorship remained the law in many states for decades after. I would argue that our current expectation for "free speech" and this idea that it is "nearly absolute" is far more liberal than what we've seen through most of American history.

trident5000 6y ago
Freedom of speech starts at absolute, and then has carve-outs as opined by courts, specifically the supreme court.
- panopticon 6y ago
  And everything I said fits within that framing. Hopefully I've illustrated how those "carve-outs" have changed quite a bit over the centuries.
- staticman2 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by this but Free Speech in America certainly did not start at absolute. Our constitution endorsed slavery and slaves had no freedom, including speech. The constitution only prevented the federal government from restricting speech. The Supreme court has both expanded or restricted free speech depending on the ruling.

intended 6y ago

None of this is true. Hate speech was very much an issue even before 1947. Libel laws alone put paid to your second sentence. Free speech is not meant to be nearly absolute - it is not even meant to be largely absolute, copy right alone would be incompatible with such a strength of freedom.

trident5000 6y ago
None of what you just wrote is true actually and it is meant to be nearly absolute. Everything you just listed is a specific legal carve out. We start with absolute and insert very specific exceptions through court cases which are narrow. Copy right just happens to be one of them.