7 ms·

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 a

by 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.
- jquery 6y ago
  > Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here No they aren’t, including you. I don’t trust your judgement of who is a Nazi, and even if I did, I especially don’t trust everyone who hears you say that. However, despite your endorsement of political violence (terrorism) I don’t believe that it would be right for you to be deplatformed, especially if it’s breach of contract (like what AWS is doing). Nor would I want HN taken offline despite them not moderating terrorist comments such as yours. Edit: you’re confusing my clinical label of terrorism with name calling. I am not calling names, except insofar as I’m making a point about how easily it is to make content seem unacceptable when we strip away context, which is why due process is so necessary. We are all terrorists to some group, however disfavored... if child molestation was somehow legalized, anyone who attempted it would face severe extra-legal consequences for example.
  - ajkjk 6y ago
    I'm not asking you to trust my judgment of who's a nazi. I get to decide who I think is a nazi and do what I want, _as a person_, and so do you. Of course I will try to convince you that I'm right, but if someone's being a nazi and can't be convinced that they're saying nazi stuff and they get banned from society, that's their problem, not society's. They should have listened. The point is that while free speech might be protected as a legal concept, it's not protected as a personal concept. I espouse free speech, until someone really screws up and gets super evil, and then I don't want them to talk anymore (especially not to rally people to their evil causes). I'm not a government. And that's completely consistent with wanting a government/overall society which defends free speech. (also, you're not doing your argument any favors by for some reason calling me a terrorist. it's not even clear why you're doing that)
    - alentist 6y ago
      That’s not what you said. You said you would punch them.
      - ajkjk 6y ago
the_af 6y ago
> 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. Which alt-text did you read? It cannot possibly be this one: > "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express." This is saying "that your idea cannot be censored is not good enough in order to convince people that it's good". This cannot be used to censor anything -- in fact, it claims the position is legal -- neither by the CCP or anyone else. It's a judgment on the quality of the idea. It seems to me you're trying to invoke the CCP boogeyman regardless of whether it actually fits this argument.
- jquery 6y ago
  > that your idea cannot be censored is not good enough in order to convince people that it's good Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking the government for redress, your speech is abhorrent. In the context of the comic it’s clearly meant to be interpreted that way. Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism, as if anyone claims they’re correct because what they’re saying isn’t illegal. Nobody makes that argument.
  - the_af 6y ago
    > Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking the government for redress, your speech is abhorrent That's your reading. Mine is that if the best you can say about a position is "it's not illegal" then you're on shaky ground. I.e. it's legal, but unconvincing. It doesn't mean you should be censored, it just means your position probably lacks merit if you can't mention anything else that's good about it. > Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism At this point I have to ask: you are aware I'm not the author of xkcd, aren't you?
  - ajkjk 6y ago
    > in the context of the comic it’s clearly meant to be interpreted that way. That's just not true. The claim is that if you're censored and your only defense of your position is that you should be allowed to say it, you position is flimsy. Nobody would agree with the claim that "_in general_ if you're censored your speech is abhorrent", that's laughable. Now, yeah, agreed, it's debatable whether this actually happens. But it sure feels like it happens.
ac29 6y ago
Its worth posting Amazon's legal response here [0]. Its certainly clearly and compellingly argued to me that it was Parler who breached the contract. Note, there is some potentially upsetting language in this document where Amazon gives examples of the type of content on Parler they deemed to be in violation of the contract. Consider yourself warned, if that sort of thing bothers you. [0] 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...

by jquery 6y ago

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.

jquery 6y ago
> Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here No they aren’t, including you. I don’t trust your judgement of who is a Nazi, and even if I did, I especially don’t trust everyone who hears you say that. However, despite your endorsement of political violence (terrorism) I don’t believe that it would be right for you to be deplatformed, especially if it’s breach of contract (like what AWS is doing). Nor would I want HN taken offline despite them not moderating terrorist comments such as yours. Edit: you’re confusing my clinical label of terrorism with name calling. I am not calling names, except insofar as I’m making a point about how easily it is to make content seem unacceptable when we strip away context, which is why due process is so necessary. We are all terrorists to some group, however disfavored... if child molestation was somehow legalized, anyone who attempted it would face severe extra-legal consequences for example.
- ajkjk 6y ago
  I'm not asking you to trust my judgment of who's a nazi. I get to decide who I think is a nazi and do what I want, _as a person_, and so do you. Of course I will try to convince you that I'm right, but if someone's being a nazi and can't be convinced that they're saying nazi stuff and they get banned from society, that's their problem, not society's. They should have listened. The point is that while free speech might be protected as a legal concept, it's not protected as a personal concept. I espouse free speech, until someone really screws up and gets super evil, and then I don't want them to talk anymore (especially not to rally people to their evil causes). I'm not a government. And that's completely consistent with wanting a government/overall society which defends free speech. (also, you're not doing your argument any favors by for some reason calling me a terrorist. it's not even clear why you're doing that)
  - alentist 6y ago
    That’s not what you said. You said you would punch them.
    - ajkjk 6y ago

the_af 6y ago

> 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. Which alt-text did you read? It cannot possibly be this one: > "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express." This is saying "that your idea cannot be censored is not good enough in order to convince people that it's good". This cannot be used to censor anything -- in fact, it claims the position is legal -- neither by the CCP or anyone else. It's a judgment on the quality of the idea. It seems to me you're trying to invoke the CCP boogeyman regardless of whether it actually fits this argument.

jquery 6y ago
> that your idea cannot be censored is not good enough in order to convince people that it's good Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking the government for redress, your speech is abhorrent. In the context of the comic it’s clearly meant to be interpreted that way. Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism, as if anyone claims they’re correct because what they’re saying isn’t illegal. Nobody makes that argument.
- the_af 6y ago
  > Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking the government for redress, your speech is abhorrent That's your reading. Mine is that if the best you can say about a position is "it's not illegal" then you're on shaky ground. I.e. it's legal, but unconvincing. It doesn't mean you should be censored, it just means your position probably lacks merit if you can't mention anything else that's good about it. > Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism At this point I have to ask: you are aware I'm not the author of xkcd, aren't you?
- ajkjk 6y ago
  > in the context of the comic it’s clearly meant to be interpreted that way. That's just not true. The claim is that if you're censored and your only defense of your position is that you should be allowed to say it, you position is flimsy. Nobody would agree with the claim that "_in general_ if you're censored your speech is abhorrent", that's laughable. Now, yeah, agreed, it's debatable whether this actually happens. But it sure feels like it happens.

ac29 6y ago

Its worth posting Amazon's legal response here [0]. Its certainly clearly and compellingly argued to me that it was Parler who breached the contract. Note, there is some potentially upsetting language in this document where Amazon gives examples of the type of content on Parler they deemed to be in violation of the contract. Consider yourself warned, if that sort of thing bothers you. [0] 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...