10 ms·

Freedom of Speech (2019)

66 points by guerrilla 6y ago

smitty1e 6y ago
"It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so." https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105 https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-...?
- DSingularity 6y ago
  I wish we would revisit these rulings in light of the destructive potential of software. We accept that a person can’t cry out “fire” in a theatre to induce a panic. Why can’t we accept that coordinating messages for propaganda/special interests through misleading ads or fake accounts to also be damaging? Why can a country like Saudi Arabia or Israel both whitewash its crimes on Twitter/Facebook and suppress its enemies? Why can corporations and rich political campaigns specialize ads to prey on fears in an individualized manner to advance its agenda? Such opinions will trigger endless debates when the damage on the ground is real and ongoing. Post-reality is truly the terrible state of this world.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    > We accept that a person can’t cry out “fire” in a theatre to induce a panic. do we actually? Wasn't that overuled, or thrown out, or otherwise dismissed?
  - smitty1e 6y ago
    Back to the point of the quotation: "Outsourcing tyranny does not mitigate the tyranny."
- watwut 6y ago
  > which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so Without that, they are not immune from liability for what someone else wrote. That means, they would censor more, because they would be liable full stop. Private companies are allowed to censor on their servers by default, section 230 does not allow them to censor more then before.
  - baryphonic 6y ago
    > Without that, they are not immune from liability for what someone else wrote. That means, they would censor more, because they would be liable full stop. > Private companies are allowed to censor on their servers by default, section 230 does not allow them to censor more then before. In the absence of 230, platforms would either vigorously censor everything, or would moderate nothing except for outright illegal content (e.g. child pornography). §230 gave more flexibility to allow some "community standards" without subjecting the platform to liability as a publisher.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  Isnt the government dictating the of speech of private companies/people a bigger violation? 230 has nothing to do with censorship/moderation. If anything, it permits more types of content by absolving platforms from the responsibility. Should 230 remove the right for companies/individuals/platforms to have a say in the content they publish? Should platforms not be able to make decisions about how they moderate their own platforms?
  - honest_guy 6y ago
    230 is a legal protection afforded to platforms which host user-generated content. It absolves them of legal liability for the content posted by their users, providing they moderate illegal content properly. > Should 230 remove the right for companies/individuals/platforms to have a say in the content they publish? If they wish to be afforded the legal protections offered by 230, yes. It is a choice - not an obligation. A trade-off. > Should platforms not be able to make decisions about how they moderate their own platforms? They should be able to, but, again, accepting the responsibility of being a platform rather than a publisher means that there should be limits to what can be considered inappropriate. There is certainly no easy answer for where that line is drawn, but it does need to be drawn. A heavy-handed moderation policy can effectively become publishing requirements.
    - madeofpalk 6y ago
      I just don't understand how this is a sensible policy desicion apart from "I don't like how these platforms moderate, and i want them to be punished"
      - edbob 6y ago
        Whenever one group accumulates too much power, that power is inevitably abused. The point of the policy is to limit the extent to which companies can control information.
      - honest_guy 6y ago
        That interpretation is backwards. The "default state" of these websites would be getting sued into oblivion. 230 protected them from that, providing they act as neutral platforms. As they have continually expanded the list of content which is not allowed, whether or not they are acting as a neutral platform is being called into question.
- Ardren 6y ago
  I read the Tech Dirt article [1] and I don't understand how 230 has anything to do with: "permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech". Isn't all about enabling tech companies to actually publish speech without being sued? 1: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
- nabla9 6y ago
  Companies and individuals have always been free to censor constitutionally protested speech (unless they are common carrier or there is some other special exception). Section 230 protects companies from liability in the case they censor and fail to censor unprotected speech.
greatgirl 6y ago
Something i rarely see come up: misinformation is itself an assault on free speech. You are confusing the minds of people who have a right to the truth and therefore the freedom to express themselves. If someone believes a lie that was told to them, their thoughts aren't really their own. They were manufactured by a people whose goal was to gain something out of their ignorance. By contrast, if you were told the truth, you actually have the axiomatic foundations necessary to produce unique thought. Your right to spread misinformation cannot be justified on the grounds of free speech.
- ducktective 6y ago
  And who is the grand judge on what is misinformation? Yeah, that is the whole point...
  - greatgirl 6y ago
    Reason. Reason is the judge
    - stretchcat 6y ago
      Who is reason?
      - greatgirl 6y ago
        It's not a person, it's philosophy, logic, science, etc.
        stretchcat 6y ago
        And the people who will be the impartial applicators of reason? Who will these judges of misinformation be?
        nailer 6y ago
        Who determines reason?
claudiawerner 6y ago
See also another excellent article from this encyclopedia on the topic of porn and censorship, written by Caroline West: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pornography-censorship/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pornography-censorship/
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Something that I find interesting is that in the Netherlands no one talks about “freedom of speech”, rather, what is spoken of is “freedom to express opinions” — this different phrasing putting the focus not on the broad “speech” but the more narrow “opinion” seems to color the discourse differently. For instance, the fire in a crowded theatre-argument has no meaning in that reference, for it is not an opinion; whether there be fire is a fact. Pornography could also not be made legal by it, as it expresses no opinion. In reality however, the Dutch constitution does not guarantee freedom to expression opinions unknown to much of the population, it merely prohibits the government from enacting præventive censorship with the exception of commercial advertisements and broadcasts aimed at minors — it is allowed to censor post factum.
- ruph123 6y ago
  Same in Germany. E.g. you cannot publicly state that the Holocaust was an invention because that it happened is a fact. So it cannot be an opinion. Although differentiating between the two is not always easy and often left for the courts to decide (like in the above example [1]). And of course it leaves room for using clever language to hide statement behind an opinion. Still it seems like a good middle ground. [1]: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2018/06/rk20180622_1bvr067318en.html https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid...
  - eznzt 6y ago
    History is written by the victors. The fact that the winning side can say "this is what happened, and any discussion about it shall land you in jail" should raise a few eyebrows.
    - cesaref 6y ago
      Except that you are
    - spuz 6y ago
      Perhaps, but using Germany's ban on holocaust denial is not a good example to prove the point. Ideally you'd find an example of a government of an otherwise free society actually rewriting history to hide actual real facts.
jack_riminton 6y ago
One aspect I don't think was covered is the subject of accessibility. In other words how easy is it to get a large audience for what is being said? Today hate speech can piped into eyes and ears by our mobile phones, turbocharged by algorithms which are funded by billions in advertising dollars. Back in John Stuart-Mill's day the most anyone could achieve would be to write a book or a newspaper article, which are quite easy to ignore. I think the same equivalence can be said of the right to bear arms. Back in the day the rule was predicated on muskets, not belt-fed assault rifles
- curo 6y ago
  "I know we asserted a principled stance against smoking, but we now live above a tobacconist!" You could also say that when rumors did spread back in Mill's day (or before), they were harder to correct as quickly. As an example Cervantes spends a whole chapter in Don Quixote Part II arguing against the inauthenticity of a false sequel. Times have changed, but the bar must remain high to dismiss centuries of political synthesis and struggle, based on a few new conditions.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  > Today hate speech can piped into eyes and ears by our mobile phones, turbocharged by algorithms which are funded by billions in advertising dollars. > > Back in John Stuart-Mill's day the most anyone could achieve would be to write a book or a newspaper article, which are quite easy to ignore. Turning off Twitter and Facebook are quite easy to do, apart from their addictive designs. (I permanently disconnected from Facebook two years ago, and today only occasionally check Twitter a few times a month.) There are a few things I miss out on not being on Facebook (mostly some groups that would be helpful for my actual, real-life networks); I miss absolutely nothing by being off of Twitter (and HN is like a quality filter for the tech industry Twitter crap). So, indeed, even if someone could define an objective criteria for "hate speech," everyone is still offended by their own consent.
  - jack_riminton 6y ago
    "Apart from their addictive designs" is the key phrase here. Purdue only created OxyContin for legitimate pain management but they knew full well the level of abuse because of their profits I'd rather live in a society where the creators of these things take some responsibility for effects of whatever they've created, whether intentional or not
kebman 6y ago
“And if we agree with John Stuart Mill (1978) that speech should be protected because it leads to the truth, there seems no reason to protect the speech of anti-vaccers or creationists.” This sentence assumes that the state, however it is made up, or perhaps the scientific elite or even clergy, is the final arbiter of truth. If we bring ourselves back a few hundred years, the latter part of the sentence could instead have been written like this: “there seems no reason to protect the speech of round-earthers and atheists.” I think this illustrates quite well the difficulty of regulating speech, at least from the standpoint that it should protect “truth,” because immediately the qestion of “who's truth?” arises.
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  > is the final arbiter of truth That's a strawman argument. Judges are are not final arbiters of truth either, yet they can take away certain constitutional protections from people. It is perfectly possible to have non-final and fallible arbiters of truth - or something more modest like the interpretation of laws - to decide on such matters, as long as there is enough democratic division of power, due process, and appeals mechanisms.
  - kebman 6y ago
    This matters very little to the one being censored. For them, that is indeed the “final stop,” as it were. As it stands the warnings and fact-checkers on places like Facebook serve only as annoynances to most people, and proof to them that the system is both authoritarian and wrong. This is also why so many want to fact check the fact checkers, and so on... In the end, it has just given a cause for a lot of people to unite against.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >This sentence assumes that the state, however it is made up, or perhaps the scientific elite or even clergy, is the final arbiter of truth. Not really; it could easily be the case that when such an issue comes to trial, you can present your evidence and arguments. The issue you point out only arises in the case where undue priority is given to the scientific elite or clergy. But I think the sentence isn't implying what you think it is. It's only highlighting that the goal of seeking truth isn't sufficient to justify the principle of free speech. This is for two reasons: it's not clear that all speech does lead to truth (even in the long run), and it's not clear that all truths should be revealed. The sentence only argues against people who justify free speech on the basis of truth. It does not propose that lies or discussion to find truth should be prohibited. "Free speech is good because it leads to truth/revealing the truth is a good in all contexts" does not stand up as an argument - at least according to this refutation of Mill.
inglor_cz 6y ago
To everyone who uses the phrase "Shouting fire in a crowded theater". An important historical note. This phrase comes from a judgment in the case Schenck vs. United States [0], where the judges found that U.S had the right to punish a pacifist for spreading leaflets that induced young men to resist WWI draft. This is a pretty sordid case from today's point of view and has been partially overturned half a century later by Brandenburg vs. Ohio, which established a much more restrictive "likely to incite imminent lawless action" test for punishability of speech. I wish people were more aware of the context of this phrase when uttering it. It sounds innocent and reasonable, but so do "states rights", which were a code word for slavery. Only in case of "states rights", most people know the history of the phrase. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
29athrowaway 6y ago
Some people are worth censoring. For example, the 1st president of Stanford University, David Starr Jordan. He was one of the most prominent eugenicists in the US, and his ideas served as the basis for the eugenics programs in Nazi Germany. Would not it have been better for everyone if he never published this book? https://archive.org/details/bloodofnationstu00jorduoft/page/n9/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/bloodofnationstu00jorduoft/page/... That book is responsible for the loss of many innocent lives.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  I'd argue that the Nazis are responsible for the loss of lives. Knifes can be murder weapons, we don't ban all knifes. The problem with banning problematic books, is you then establish problematic books can be banned. Once the precedent is established, it creates an additional attack vector on freedom of expression - any attempt at censorship will begin with an attempt at portraying something as problematic/harmful, and liberties will be taken with all variable definitions. Consider "hate speech" is one of few exceptions to the freedom of expression, so now people redefine all kinds of things they dislike as hateful for the purpose of social control.
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    Knives have many uses. A better comparison would be a ballistic knife, which has a more specific purpose. A ballistic tactical knife is not for spreading butter on bread, it is for killing people. Eugenics is achieved by sterilization, euthanasia or murder. It always involves death in one way or another. If you write books promoting eugenics you are promoting the idea some people should die.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      I assume books about war are out too? as are the bible and koran. And where do you draw the line, just death? slavery? immorality ?
      - 6y ago
einpoklum 6y ago
This piece takes as a given that speech is actively limited, and then begins to discuss when and how much. I disagree. The mechanisms for censoring and shutting people up are often problematic and unacceptable, rather than the extent of their use. Once the mechanisms are in place, it is easy for the extent of their use to expand.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  > This piece takes as a given that speech is actively limited, and then begins to discuss when and how much. It begins from the most influential theorist of liberal rights of all time, J.S. Mill, and his very permissive attitude as to what should be restricted - notably, what causes harm. You'd be hard-pressed to find any theorist who argues that we should both have a state, and that no speech (such as threats, child porn, calls to immediate violence, etc.) should be restricted. Once you admit that any restriction on speech (such as the examples I just mentioned) is available, as it is in the U.S. for instance, it becomes a question of where we draw the line. It is decidedly not easy to widen the extent of those restrictions in the U.S. It takes a lot of agreement to change the constitution.
  - einpoklum 6y ago
    > It begins from the most influential theorist of liberal rights of all time, J.S. Mill 1. It doesn't begin from there, it begins with the sentence I pointed out. 2. Mill, while not a nobleman, was still deeply rooted in the British upper class - a state functionary from a well-off family. This is a guy who advocated for the benevolent dictatorship of Britain over its colonists. Even if you could describe him as "permissive" (which I doubt) - that's already a philosophy for the oppressive masters. They permit, or fail-to-permit. Like I said - the _power_ to disallow speech is problematic, not just what gets permitted.
    - claudiawerner 6y ago
      >1. It doesn't begin from there, it begins with the sentence I pointed out. This is because freedom of speech is fundamentally a discussion of rights and their justification. It's a "freedom", situated in a concept of society. The actual article discusses the matter from this point of view. I'm not sure where you expect an article on what is an idea originating in liberal philosophy to start. >Like I said - the _power_ to disallow speech is problematic, not just what gets permitted. This seems like you have a problem with the state itself - or the idea that the state should have powers to compel, anyway. But once you admit some state power over actions (which you may not do, that's fine) then speech easily falls within this remit too. If you think no power over individuals is permissible - whether to speak or kill - a discussion of liberal rights and freedoms is irrelevant.
anovikov 6y ago
I think the whole reason is why we are having such an issue with the freedom of speech today is that this, just as many other "fundamental" rights, were invented in a time when purely technological reasons created a certain threshold to their use. In XVIII century, realising one's right to free speech meant say, printing a pamphlet. Which means a certain level of education because it would be a shame to print on paper some piece of utter bullshit, and some money to print and distribute it. Also, there was a certain threshold of audience too because by far not everyone could read - and thus utter bullshit was unlikely to pass. And just shouting in the corner won't agitate too many people. In 1922, that changed with mass propagation of the radio - and Mussolini reaped all benefits of it - it is entirely unsurprising that totalitarianism was first born in Italy which wasn't such a prepared ground for it as defeated and destroyed Germany or Russia - it happened simply because commercial radio, being invented by Guglielmo Marconi, first became a thing there. Now, Facebook and Twitter let bullshit make another bold step. Same thing can be said about right of free movement: when it took a lot of time and money to travel on a sailing boat, it was OK - now it is entirely different thing - so right of free movement no longer exists. I'll go on to say that probably, all human rights are subject to that rule: they are a benefit for everyone only as long as few are practically able to exercise them.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
I think our current issues around free speech on the internet are not caused by free speech but by free megaphones. It’s the free amplification of speech that is most problematic. Media companies should step up and only amplify opinions they agree with, or only those they think are worth discussing, instead of amplifying opinions even if they think they are terrible or harmful. Stop trying to be “free speech” platforms. You aren’t, and the attempt is making society a worse place.
moneytide1 6y ago
"Almost everyone thinks by talking. They don't even know what they think until they speak. So often, you'll let people speak and they become aware of some internal contradictions or maybe they shock themselves... they hear what they have to say and it's being revealed to themselves. That is often enough to change them. But even if it isn't... you want that out in the air so that people can hear it. Do you want to drive people that hate underground? We know what happens psychologically when you do that - anything you drive underground thrives. It partly thrives because it isn't allowed to express itself and then it festers and turns into hatred that far exceeds the original. The idea that you make society safe by not letting horrible people say terrible things is not a good proposition - you want those people out in the open where they can say what they have to say. First of all, so they can see what they're like. Second of all so they can see how people respond, because you don't even know what you should think, in some sense, until you watch how people respond." -Jordan Peterson [1] The recent Digital Censorship Campaign(s) are attempts to manicure the modern social landscape, in order to identify & quell dissent impeding the more favorable cohesion that would define a progressive society. Consider that the recent commander-in-chief curriculum vitae includes "reality TV" - this qualifies as an acting shaman we can deploy (kingmaker initiative) as part of a four year plan to draw corresponding minds out of the expansive woodwork (given permission to imitate what they are strategically being fed on their handheld screens). Behind closed doors, this operative enjoys symphonies and philosophical musings, but on camera the real work is being done. The resulting "following" is what we are all meant to see - the ones Among Us willing to betray cordial/calm/civilized mannerisms in favor of the Will of an Absolute Demigod (direct contradiction to hive-mind democracy & consensus). We do not seek to reciprocate the harm enacted towards us. We desire corrective measures that can reintroduce the affected into a welcoming community. Socrates thought that writing would ruin memory, because externalized symbols are only reminders and cannot represent the human. The traction of these tyrannical transgressions would not be gained if verbal dialogue in-the-flesh was still the standard of interaction. [1] https://youtu.be/CD67Qs7WGL4?t=97 https://youtu.be/CD67Qs7WGL4?t=97

66 points by guerrilla 6y ago

"It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so." https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105 https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-...?

DSingularity 6y ago
I wish we would revisit these rulings in light of the destructive potential of software. We accept that a person can’t cry out “fire” in a theatre to induce a panic. Why can’t we accept that coordinating messages for propaganda/special interests through misleading ads or fake accounts to also be damaging? Why can a country like Saudi Arabia or Israel both whitewash its crimes on Twitter/Facebook and suppress its enemies? Why can corporations and rich political campaigns specialize ads to prey on fears in an individualized manner to advance its agenda? Such opinions will trigger endless debates when the damage on the ground is real and ongoing. Post-reality is truly the terrible state of this world.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  > We accept that a person can’t cry out “fire” in a theatre to induce a panic. do we actually? Wasn't that overuled, or thrown out, or otherwise dismissed?
- smitty1e 6y ago
  Back to the point of the quotation: "Outsourcing tyranny does not mitigate the tyranny."
watwut 6y ago
> which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so Without that, they are not immune from liability for what someone else wrote. That means, they would censor more, because they would be liable full stop. Private companies are allowed to censor on their servers by default, section 230 does not allow them to censor more then before.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  > Without that, they are not immune from liability for what someone else wrote. That means, they would censor more, because they would be liable full stop. > Private companies are allowed to censor on their servers by default, section 230 does not allow them to censor more then before. In the absence of 230, platforms would either vigorously censor everything, or would moderate nothing except for outright illegal content (e.g. child pornography). §230 gave more flexibility to allow some "community standards" without subjecting the platform to liability as a publisher.
madeofpalk 6y ago
Isnt the government dictating the of speech of private companies/people a bigger violation? 230 has nothing to do with censorship/moderation. If anything, it permits more types of content by absolving platforms from the responsibility. Should 230 remove the right for companies/individuals/platforms to have a say in the content they publish? Should platforms not be able to make decisions about how they moderate their own platforms?
- honest_guy 6y ago
  230 is a legal protection afforded to platforms which host user-generated content. It absolves them of legal liability for the content posted by their users, providing they moderate illegal content properly. > Should 230 remove the right for companies/individuals/platforms to have a say in the content they publish? If they wish to be afforded the legal protections offered by 230, yes. It is a choice - not an obligation. A trade-off. > Should platforms not be able to make decisions about how they moderate their own platforms? They should be able to, but, again, accepting the responsibility of being a platform rather than a publisher means that there should be limits to what can be considered inappropriate. There is certainly no easy answer for where that line is drawn, but it does need to be drawn. A heavy-handed moderation policy can effectively become publishing requirements.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    I just don't understand how this is a sensible policy desicion apart from "I don't like how these platforms moderate, and i want them to be punished"
    - edbob 6y ago
      Whenever one group accumulates too much power, that power is inevitably abused. The point of the policy is to limit the extent to which companies can control information.
    - honest_guy 6y ago
      That interpretation is backwards. The "default state" of these websites would be getting sued into oblivion. 230 protected them from that, providing they act as neutral platforms. As they have continually expanded the list of content which is not allowed, whether or not they are acting as a neutral platform is being called into question.
Ardren 6y ago
I read the Tech Dirt article [1] and I don't understand how 230 has anything to do with: "permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech". Isn't all about enabling tech companies to actually publish speech without being sued? 1: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
nabla9 6y ago
Companies and individuals have always been free to censor constitutionally protested speech (unless they are common carrier or there is some other special exception). Section 230 protects companies from liability in the case they censor and fail to censor unprotected speech.

greatgirl 6y ago

Something i rarely see come up: misinformation is itself an assault on free speech. You are confusing the minds of people who have a right to the truth and therefore the freedom to express themselves. If someone believes a lie that was told to them, their thoughts aren't really their own. They were manufactured by a people whose goal was to gain something out of their ignorance. By contrast, if you were told the truth, you actually have the axiomatic foundations necessary to produce unique thought. Your right to spread misinformation cannot be justified on the grounds of free speech.

ducktective 6y ago
And who is the grand judge on what is misinformation? Yeah, that is the whole point...
- greatgirl 6y ago
  Reason. Reason is the judge
  - stretchcat 6y ago
    Who is reason?
    - greatgirl 6y ago
      It's not a person, it's philosophy, logic, science, etc.
      - stretchcat 6y ago
        And the people who will be the impartial applicators of reason? Who will these judges of misinformation be?
      - nailer 6y ago
        Who determines reason?

claudiawerner 6y ago

See also another excellent article from this encyclopedia on the topic of porn and censorship, written by Caroline West: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pornography-censorship/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pornography-censorship/

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

Something that I find interesting is that in the Netherlands no one talks about “freedom of speech”, rather, what is spoken of is “freedom to express opinions” — this different phrasing putting the focus not on the broad “speech” but the more narrow “opinion” seems to color the discourse differently. For instance, the fire in a crowded theatre-argument has no meaning in that reference, for it is not an opinion; whether there be fire is a fact. Pornography could also not be made legal by it, as it expresses no opinion. In reality however, the Dutch constitution does not guarantee freedom to expression opinions unknown to much of the population, it merely prohibits the government from enacting præventive censorship with the exception of commercial advertisements and broadcasts aimed at minors — it is allowed to censor post factum.

ruph123 6y ago
Same in Germany. E.g. you cannot publicly state that the Holocaust was an invention because that it happened is a fact. So it cannot be an opinion. Although differentiating between the two is not always easy and often left for the courts to decide (like in the above example [1]). And of course it leaves room for using clever language to hide statement behind an opinion. Still it seems like a good middle ground. [1]: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2018/06/rk20180622_1bvr067318en.html https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid...
- eznzt 6y ago
  History is written by the victors. The fact that the winning side can say "this is what happened, and any discussion about it shall land you in jail" should raise a few eyebrows.
  - cesaref 6y ago
    Except that you are
  - spuz 6y ago
    Perhaps, but using Germany's ban on holocaust denial is not a good example to prove the point. Ideally you'd find an example of a government of an otherwise free society actually rewriting history to hide actual real facts.

jack_riminton 6y ago

One aspect I don't think was covered is the subject of accessibility. In other words how easy is it to get a large audience for what is being said? Today hate speech can piped into eyes and ears by our mobile phones, turbocharged by algorithms which are funded by billions in advertising dollars. Back in John Stuart-Mill's day the most anyone could achieve would be to write a book or a newspaper article, which are quite easy to ignore. I think the same equivalence can be said of the right to bear arms. Back in the day the rule was predicated on muskets, not belt-fed assault rifles

curo 6y ago
"I know we asserted a principled stance against smoking, but we now live above a tobacconist!" You could also say that when rumors did spread back in Mill's day (or before), they were harder to correct as quickly. As an example Cervantes spends a whole chapter in Don Quixote Part II arguing against the inauthenticity of a false sequel. Times have changed, but the bar must remain high to dismiss centuries of political synthesis and struggle, based on a few new conditions.
baryphonic 6y ago
> Today hate speech can piped into eyes and ears by our mobile phones, turbocharged by algorithms which are funded by billions in advertising dollars. > > Back in John Stuart-Mill's day the most anyone could achieve would be to write a book or a newspaper article, which are quite easy to ignore. Turning off Twitter and Facebook are quite easy to do, apart from their addictive designs. (I permanently disconnected from Facebook two years ago, and today only occasionally check Twitter a few times a month.) There are a few things I miss out on not being on Facebook (mostly some groups that would be helpful for my actual, real-life networks); I miss absolutely nothing by being off of Twitter (and HN is like a quality filter for the tech industry Twitter crap). So, indeed, even if someone could define an objective criteria for "hate speech," everyone is still offended by their own consent.
- jack_riminton 6y ago
  "Apart from their addictive designs" is the key phrase here. Purdue only created OxyContin for legitimate pain management but they knew full well the level of abuse because of their profits I'd rather live in a society where the creators of these things take some responsibility for effects of whatever they've created, whether intentional or not

kebman 6y ago

“And if we agree with John Stuart Mill (1978) that speech should be protected because it leads to the truth, there seems no reason to protect the speech of anti-vaccers or creationists.” This sentence assumes that the state, however it is made up, or perhaps the scientific elite or even clergy, is the final arbiter of truth. If we bring ourselves back a few hundred years, the latter part of the sentence could instead have been written like this: “there seems no reason to protect the speech of round-earthers and atheists.” I think this illustrates quite well the difficulty of regulating speech, at least from the standpoint that it should protect “truth,” because immediately the qestion of “who's truth?” arises.

jonathanstrange 6y ago
> is the final arbiter of truth That's a strawman argument. Judges are are not final arbiters of truth either, yet they can take away certain constitutional protections from people. It is perfectly possible to have non-final and fallible arbiters of truth - or something more modest like the interpretation of laws - to decide on such matters, as long as there is enough democratic division of power, due process, and appeals mechanisms.
- kebman 6y ago
  This matters very little to the one being censored. For them, that is indeed the “final stop,” as it were. As it stands the warnings and fact-checkers on places like Facebook serve only as annoynances to most people, and proof to them that the system is both authoritarian and wrong. This is also why so many want to fact check the fact checkers, and so on... In the end, it has just given a cause for a lot of people to unite against.
claudiawerner 6y ago
>This sentence assumes that the state, however it is made up, or perhaps the scientific elite or even clergy, is the final arbiter of truth. Not really; it could easily be the case that when such an issue comes to trial, you can present your evidence and arguments. The issue you point out only arises in the case where undue priority is given to the scientific elite or clergy. But I think the sentence isn't implying what you think it is. It's only highlighting that the goal of seeking truth isn't sufficient to justify the principle of free speech. This is for two reasons: it's not clear that all speech does lead to truth (even in the long run), and it's not clear that all truths should be revealed. The sentence only argues against people who justify free speech on the basis of truth. It does not propose that lies or discussion to find truth should be prohibited. "Free speech is good because it leads to truth/revealing the truth is a good in all contexts" does not stand up as an argument - at least according to this refutation of Mill.

inglor_cz 6y ago

To everyone who uses the phrase "Shouting fire in a crowded theater". An important historical note. This phrase comes from a judgment in the case Schenck vs. United States [0], where the judges found that U.S had the right to punish a pacifist for spreading leaflets that induced young men to resist WWI draft. This is a pretty sordid case from today's point of view and has been partially overturned half a century later by Brandenburg vs. Ohio, which established a much more restrictive "likely to incite imminent lawless action" test for punishability of speech. I wish people were more aware of the context of this phrase when uttering it. It sounds innocent and reasonable, but so do "states rights", which were a code word for slavery. Only in case of "states rights", most people know the history of the phrase. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

29athrowaway 6y ago

Some people are worth censoring. For example, the 1st president of Stanford University, David Starr Jordan. He was one of the most prominent eugenicists in the US, and his ideas served as the basis for the eugenics programs in Nazi Germany. Would not it have been better for everyone if he never published this book? https://archive.org/details/bloodofnationstu00jorduoft/page/n9/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/bloodofnationstu00jorduoft/page/... That book is responsible for the loss of many innocent lives.

Chris2048 6y ago
I'd argue that the Nazis are responsible for the loss of lives. Knifes can be murder weapons, we don't ban all knifes. The problem with banning problematic books, is you then establish problematic books can be banned. Once the precedent is established, it creates an additional attack vector on freedom of expression - any attempt at censorship will begin with an attempt at portraying something as problematic/harmful, and liberties will be taken with all variable definitions. Consider "hate speech" is one of few exceptions to the freedom of expression, so now people redefine all kinds of things they dislike as hateful for the purpose of social control.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  Knives have many uses. A better comparison would be a ballistic knife, which has a more specific purpose. A ballistic tactical knife is not for spreading butter on bread, it is for killing people. Eugenics is achieved by sterilization, euthanasia or murder. It always involves death in one way or another. If you write books promoting eugenics you are promoting the idea some people should die.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    I assume books about war are out too? as are the bible and koran. And where do you draw the line, just death? slavery? immorality ?
    - 6y ago

einpoklum 6y ago

This piece takes as a given that speech is actively limited, and then begins to discuss when and how much. I disagree. The mechanisms for censoring and shutting people up are often problematic and unacceptable, rather than the extent of their use. Once the mechanisms are in place, it is easy for the extent of their use to expand.

claudiawerner 6y ago
> This piece takes as a given that speech is actively limited, and then begins to discuss when and how much. It begins from the most influential theorist of liberal rights of all time, J.S. Mill, and his very permissive attitude as to what should be restricted - notably, what causes harm. You'd be hard-pressed to find any theorist who argues that we should both have a state, and that no speech (such as threats, child porn, calls to immediate violence, etc.) should be restricted. Once you admit that any restriction on speech (such as the examples I just mentioned) is available, as it is in the U.S. for instance, it becomes a question of where we draw the line. It is decidedly not easy to widen the extent of those restrictions in the U.S. It takes a lot of agreement to change the constitution.
- einpoklum 6y ago
  > It begins from the most influential theorist of liberal rights of all time, J.S. Mill 1. It doesn't begin from there, it begins with the sentence I pointed out. 2. Mill, while not a nobleman, was still deeply rooted in the British upper class - a state functionary from a well-off family. This is a guy who advocated for the benevolent dictatorship of Britain over its colonists. Even if you could describe him as "permissive" (which I doubt) - that's already a philosophy for the oppressive masters. They permit, or fail-to-permit. Like I said - the _power_ to disallow speech is problematic, not just what gets permitted.
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    >1. It doesn't begin from there, it begins with the sentence I pointed out. This is because freedom of speech is fundamentally a discussion of rights and their justification. It's a "freedom", situated in a concept of society. The actual article discusses the matter from this point of view. I'm not sure where you expect an article on what is an idea originating in liberal philosophy to start. >Like I said - the _power_ to disallow speech is problematic, not just what gets permitted. This seems like you have a problem with the state itself - or the idea that the state should have powers to compel, anyway. But once you admit some state power over actions (which you may not do, that's fine) then speech easily falls within this remit too. If you think no power over individuals is permissible - whether to speak or kill - a discussion of liberal rights and freedoms is irrelevant.

anovikov 6y ago

I think the whole reason is why we are having such an issue with the freedom of speech today is that this, just as many other "fundamental" rights, were invented in a time when purely technological reasons created a certain threshold to their use. In XVIII century, realising one's right to free speech meant say, printing a pamphlet. Which means a certain level of education because it would be a shame to print on paper some piece of utter bullshit, and some money to print and distribute it. Also, there was a certain threshold of audience too because by far not everyone could read - and thus utter bullshit was unlikely to pass. And just shouting in the corner won't agitate too many people. In 1922, that changed with mass propagation of the radio - and Mussolini reaped all benefits of it - it is entirely unsurprising that totalitarianism was first born in Italy which wasn't such a prepared ground for it as defeated and destroyed Germany or Russia - it happened simply because commercial radio, being invented by Guglielmo Marconi, first became a thing there. Now, Facebook and Twitter let bullshit make another bold step. Same thing can be said about right of free movement: when it took a lot of time and money to travel on a sailing boat, it was OK - now it is entirely different thing - so right of free movement no longer exists. I'll go on to say that probably, all human rights are subject to that rule: they are a benefit for everyone only as long as few are practically able to exercise them.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

I think our current issues around free speech on the internet are not caused by free speech but by free megaphones. It’s the free amplification of speech that is most problematic. Media companies should step up and only amplify opinions they agree with, or only those they think are worth discussing, instead of amplifying opinions even if they think they are terrible or harmful. Stop trying to be “free speech” platforms. You aren’t, and the attempt is making society a worse place.

moneytide1 6y ago

"Almost everyone thinks by talking. They don't even know what they think until they speak. So often, you'll let people speak and they become aware of some internal contradictions or maybe they shock themselves... they hear what they have to say and it's being revealed to themselves. That is often enough to change them. But even if it isn't... you want that out in the air so that people can hear it. Do you want to drive people that hate underground? We know what happens psychologically when you do that - anything you drive underground thrives. It partly thrives because it isn't allowed to express itself and then it festers and turns into hatred that far exceeds the original. The idea that you make society safe by not letting horrible people say terrible things is not a good proposition - you want those people out in the open where they can say what they have to say. First of all, so they can see what they're like. Second of all so they can see how people respond, because you don't even know what you should think, in some sense, until you watch how people respond." -Jordan Peterson [1] The recent Digital Censorship Campaign(s) are attempts to manicure the modern social landscape, in order to identify & quell dissent impeding the more favorable cohesion that would define a progressive society. Consider that the recent commander-in-chief curriculum vitae includes "reality TV" - this qualifies as an acting shaman we can deploy (kingmaker initiative) as part of a four year plan to draw corresponding minds out of the expansive woodwork (given permission to imitate what they are strategically being fed on their handheld screens). Behind closed doors, this operative enjoys symphonies and philosophical musings, but on camera the real work is being done. The resulting "following" is what we are all meant to see - the ones Among Us willing to betray cordial/calm/civilized mannerisms in favor of the Will of an Absolute Demigod (direct contradiction to hive-mind democracy & consensus). We do not seek to reciprocate the harm enacted towards us. We desire corrective measures that can reintroduce the affected into a welcoming community. Socrates thought that writing would ruin memory, because externalized symbols are only reminders and cannot represent the human. The traction of these tyrannical transgressions would not be gained if verbal dialogue in-the-flesh was still the standard of interaction. [1] https://youtu.be/CD67Qs7WGL4?t=97 https://youtu.be/CD67Qs7WGL4?t=97