4 ms·

Fence-sitters like you are who gave them this power in the first place. Free speech is not "ban who you don't like but allow what I like." It's all or nothing.

kibwen 6y ago
> It's all or nothing. This is demonstrably mistaken. Look, here's an entire Wikipedia article on limits to free speech in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... And if you're talking about the ill-defined philosopical concept of "free speech", that's also mistaken. Free speech is a subservient value in pursuit of free society; if an instance of speech would do damage to the freedoms of others (e.g. slander) then it is morally just for that speech to be forbidden. Black-and-white thinking isn't the recourse here. Free speech is a nuanced topic, and not as cut-and-dry as you have been led to believe.
- dvt 6y ago
  > Free speech is a nuanced topic, and not as cut-and-dry as you have been led to believe. It is, actually. Your edge cases are disingenuous (or maybe you've just misunderstood them). It's like saying killing someone is a nuanced topic. Sure, there's moral complexities with things like abortion, war, or euthanasia, but, generally speaking, killing someone is pretty black-and-white wrong. Free speech is the same way. Let's not mince words.
  - kibwen 6y ago
    > but, generally speaking, killing someone is pretty black-and-white wrong. Ironically, this has left me speechless. Surely you realize the inherent contradiction of arguing that something is emphatically all-or-nothing, and then turning around and moderating your position with a strategically-placed "generally speaking"? Which is it? Is it nuanced or isn't it?
    - dvt 6y ago
      By "generally speaking" I meant in like 99% of regular every-day cases. Heck, I even gave some counter-examples. It just seems you're being uncharitable because the spirit of what I was trying to say I feel was pretty straightforward.
      - kibwen 6y ago
        Look, I don't want to bust your balls in particular. We both believe that freedom of speech is generally a good thing and I'm sure you're coming from a good place. But surely you must acknowledge that I should not be free to, for example, dox you right here and now (my freedom of speech is overruled by your expectation of privacy and right to pseudonymity); likewise I should not be free to go around telling all your friends and colleagues that in your free time you prostitute yourself to lonely grandmas in nursing homes. And even if, for whatever reason, you wanted to waive these rights, that does not give you the right to decide that I should waive my own claim to those rights. The bottom line is that there are exceptions to freedom of speech, including morally-justifiable ones. We don't need to treat adherence to freedom of speech as some sort of religion that admits no heresy. It is a generally good idea to distrust anyone who tells you how (not) to exercise your speech, but that doesn't mean you can't independently derive from first principles a reasonable set of self-consistent morals around when it is proper to value other rights above it.
        perryizgr8 6y ago
        > We both believe that freedom of speech is generally a good thing I doubt it. Cases in point: > I should not be free to > I should not be free to go around telling all your friends Free speech is absolute by definition, otherwise it is not free. If you don't believe in free speech, you don't believe in free speech. Own up, don't try to weasel around with words. Say it: I do not support free speech. This is the main issue, people not speaking their mind. Just speak what you feel. Don't worry, we still have some free speech left. You can voice your disregard for the principles of freedom and liberty.
        6y ago
systemvoltage 6y ago
Please don't be rude and blameful. Also, freedom of speech cannot be all or nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- ttt0 6y ago
  Agreed, the wallstreetbets guys are bullying innocent rich people and they have to be stopped.
  - mike00632 6y ago
    That is what they are saying, isn't it... while they are promoting stocks they have a financial interest in.

kibwen 6y ago

> It's all or nothing. This is demonstrably mistaken. Look, here's an entire Wikipedia article on limits to free speech in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... And if you're talking about the ill-defined philosopical concept of "free speech", that's also mistaken. Free speech is a subservient value in pursuit of free society; if an instance of speech would do damage to the freedoms of others (e.g. slander) then it is morally just for that speech to be forbidden. Black-and-white thinking isn't the recourse here. Free speech is a nuanced topic, and not as cut-and-dry as you have been led to believe.

dvt 6y ago
> Free speech is a nuanced topic, and not as cut-and-dry as you have been led to believe. It is, actually. Your edge cases are disingenuous (or maybe you've just misunderstood them). It's like saying killing someone is a nuanced topic. Sure, there's moral complexities with things like abortion, war, or euthanasia, but, generally speaking, killing someone is pretty black-and-white wrong. Free speech is the same way. Let's not mince words.
- kibwen 6y ago
  > but, generally speaking, killing someone is pretty black-and-white wrong. Ironically, this has left me speechless. Surely you realize the inherent contradiction of arguing that something is emphatically all-or-nothing, and then turning around and moderating your position with a strategically-placed "generally speaking"? Which is it? Is it nuanced or isn't it?
  - dvt 6y ago
    By "generally speaking" I meant in like 99% of regular every-day cases. Heck, I even gave some counter-examples. It just seems you're being uncharitable because the spirit of what I was trying to say I feel was pretty straightforward.
    - kibwen 6y ago
      Look, I don't want to bust your balls in particular. We both believe that freedom of speech is generally a good thing and I'm sure you're coming from a good place. But surely you must acknowledge that I should not be free to, for example, dox you right here and now (my freedom of speech is overruled by your expectation of privacy and right to pseudonymity); likewise I should not be free to go around telling all your friends and colleagues that in your free time you prostitute yourself to lonely grandmas in nursing homes. And even if, for whatever reason, you wanted to waive these rights, that does not give you the right to decide that I should waive my own claim to those rights. The bottom line is that there are exceptions to freedom of speech, including morally-justifiable ones. We don't need to treat adherence to freedom of speech as some sort of religion that admits no heresy. It is a generally good idea to distrust anyone who tells you how (not) to exercise your speech, but that doesn't mean you can't independently derive from first principles a reasonable set of self-consistent morals around when it is proper to value other rights above it.
      - perryizgr8 6y ago
        > We both believe that freedom of speech is generally a good thing I doubt it. Cases in point: > I should not be free to > I should not be free to go around telling all your friends Free speech is absolute by definition, otherwise it is not free. If you don't believe in free speech, you don't believe in free speech. Own up, don't try to weasel around with words. Say it: I do not support free speech. This is the main issue, people not speaking their mind. Just speak what you feel. Don't worry, we still have some free speech left. You can voice your disregard for the principles of freedom and liberty.
        6y ago

systemvoltage 6y ago

Please don't be rude and blameful. Also, freedom of speech cannot be all or nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

ttt0 6y ago
Agreed, the wallstreetbets guys are bullying innocent rich people and they have to be stopped.
- mike00632 6y ago
  That is what they are saying, isn't it... while they are promoting stocks they have a financial interest in.