8 ms·

"You see, freedom of speech and expression must be absolute." This is a very ignorant take on freedom of speech and a terrible foundation for your project.

threevox 6y ago
"Ignorant" == you can't be bothered to come up with a genuine refutation
- tclancy 6y ago
  Watch: this is some white dude worrying that white dudes might be silenced. Show me all the money trying to make marginalized voices heard and then you cannot fuck off into the multiverse like whichever anime show you Stan but don’t respect.
  - LocalH 6y ago
    Stop equating strong freedom-of-speech ideals with racism. Nobody should be silenced unless they are directly inciting violence. Remember, any exceptions can be twisted around as social norms change.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - krapp 6y ago
      >Nobody should be silenced unless they are directly inciting violence. >Remember, any exceptions can be twisted around as social norms change. If no exceptions to free speech can be allowed because they could possibly be twisted, then neither can the exception for directly inciting violence. Absolute means absolute.
- AgentOrange1234 6y ago
  How about: drumming up hatred and demonizing people has a long history of terrible consequences, e.g., rwanda, nazi germany, kkk, ...
  - tone 6y ago
    You make a good point but you can't in the long term fight against this in a healthy way by stifling peoples access to information. Some people seem to hold the worldview that they know the right answers and must protect the simpletons from the wrong ones, where others would like to make all information available and trust in people to eventually form sensible solutions.
    - spanktheuser 6y ago
      It’s interesting how people like the OP single out the two cures for the diseases of hatred & oppression: censorship and cancellation. And yet lack the courage to couch their ask in plain language: Let us say anything we want but never face any consequence for doing so.
anon20190221 6y ago
I would not call it ignorant. It is extreme, yes, but not ignorant. Unfortunately, you cannot have censorship-resistance with exceptions. Even if you have the greatest moderation team, it will all break apart sooner or later.
bpodgursky 6y ago
"Thou shalt not kill" is also an absolute bedrock principle which is, of course, impossible to literally always follow. But it's still a very important guidepost around which to orient your principles. "Freedom of most OK speech is absolute" is a useless principle. Which is why we should not frame the freedom of speech as such.
- goldcd 6y ago
  You sir, are not familiar with the old testament.
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    I... am? This is actually my entire point. It's a principle broken on many occasions, but nobody walks around saying "Oh, we shouldn't even TALK about not killing — that's IGNORANT — because there are so many exceptions where it's okay to kill people." You can still guide around important principles, even if reality imposes exceptions!
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
undefined1 6y ago
“To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.” ― Frederick Douglass
- kjeetgill 6y ago
  “A witty saying proves nothing.” ― Voltaire
LocalH 6y ago
Care to elaborate? How do you protect against abuse of any exceptions in the long term? Why do you characterise absolute freedom of speech as an "ignorant" take, which could be construed as a bad-faith discussion tactic on here.
- fay59 6y ago
  With “absolute free speech”, a couple of us could find your name and address, spread credible and damaging falsehoods about you, and there’s nothing you could do to stop us. And that’s not just in some online soapbox; we could call your employer, make police reports, put ads in newspapers, put posters on utility poles, tell your neighbours, tell the businesses that serve you, etc.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    Yes. And we could do the same back to you. Presumably society would eventually get over itself and evolving into something more tolerant of personal opinions, and questioning internet-sourced information. Or, from another perspective, the only alternative is that only some people can do that. (E.g. politicians, security services, etc) I'm not sure that would be preferable.
    - fay59 6y ago
      Choosing to be at the mercy of the people with the best opsec instead of the government sure is a take. EDIT: I mean “in addition to the government”.
      - fay59 6y ago
        I’m sorry. I really meant “in addition to the government”.
almost_usual 6y ago
If you don’t believe in freedom of speech you believe in censorship. If you believe this then you must believe the US is poor at censorship given the amount of chaos in the past year. All this really means is China will guaranteed to be the next superpower, they have perfected censorship. Freedom of speech is the only thing giving the US a competitive edge at this point. Either the US becomes a mediocre censorship state or freedom of speech stays.

threevox 6y ago

"Ignorant" == you can't be bothered to come up with a genuine refutation

tclancy 6y ago
Watch: this is some white dude worrying that white dudes might be silenced. Show me all the money trying to make marginalized voices heard and then you cannot fuck off into the multiverse like whichever anime show you Stan but don’t respect.
- LocalH 6y ago
  Stop equating strong freedom-of-speech ideals with racism. Nobody should be silenced unless they are directly inciting violence. Remember, any exceptions can be twisted around as social norms change.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 6y ago
    >Nobody should be silenced unless they are directly inciting violence. >Remember, any exceptions can be twisted around as social norms change. If no exceptions to free speech can be allowed because they could possibly be twisted, then neither can the exception for directly inciting violence. Absolute means absolute.
AgentOrange1234 6y ago
How about: drumming up hatred and demonizing people has a long history of terrible consequences, e.g., rwanda, nazi germany, kkk, ...
- tone 6y ago
  You make a good point but you can't in the long term fight against this in a healthy way by stifling peoples access to information. Some people seem to hold the worldview that they know the right answers and must protect the simpletons from the wrong ones, where others would like to make all information available and trust in people to eventually form sensible solutions.
  - spanktheuser 6y ago
    It’s interesting how people like the OP single out the two cures for the diseases of hatred & oppression: censorship and cancellation. And yet lack the courage to couch their ask in plain language: Let us say anything we want but never face any consequence for doing so.

anon20190221 6y ago

I would not call it ignorant. It is extreme, yes, but not ignorant. Unfortunately, you cannot have censorship-resistance with exceptions. Even if you have the greatest moderation team, it will all break apart sooner or later.

bpodgursky 6y ago

"Thou shalt not kill" is also an absolute bedrock principle which is, of course, impossible to literally always follow. But it's still a very important guidepost around which to orient your principles. "Freedom of most OK speech is absolute" is a useless principle. Which is why we should not frame the freedom of speech as such.

goldcd 6y ago
You sir, are not familiar with the old testament.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  I... am? This is actually my entire point. It's a principle broken on many occasions, but nobody walks around saying "Oh, we shouldn't even TALK about not killing — that's IGNORANT — because there are so many exceptions where it's okay to kill people." You can still guide around important principles, even if reality imposes exceptions!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

undefined1 6y ago

“To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.” ― Frederick Douglass

kjeetgill 6y ago
“A witty saying proves nothing.” ― Voltaire

LocalH 6y ago

Care to elaborate? How do you protect against abuse of any exceptions in the long term? Why do you characterise absolute freedom of speech as an "ignorant" take, which could be construed as a bad-faith discussion tactic on here.

fay59 6y ago
With “absolute free speech”, a couple of us could find your name and address, spread credible and damaging falsehoods about you, and there’s nothing you could do to stop us. And that’s not just in some online soapbox; we could call your employer, make police reports, put ads in newspapers, put posters on utility poles, tell your neighbours, tell the businesses that serve you, etc.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  Yes. And we could do the same back to you. Presumably society would eventually get over itself and evolving into something more tolerant of personal opinions, and questioning internet-sourced information. Or, from another perspective, the only alternative is that only some people can do that. (E.g. politicians, security services, etc) I'm not sure that would be preferable.
  - fay59 6y ago
    Choosing to be at the mercy of the people with the best opsec instead of the government sure is a take. EDIT: I mean “in addition to the government”.
    - fay59 6y ago
      I’m sorry. I really meant “in addition to the government”.

almost_usual 6y ago

If you don’t believe in freedom of speech you believe in censorship. If you believe this then you must believe the US is poor at censorship given the amount of chaos in the past year. All this really means is China will guaranteed to be the next superpower, they have perfected censorship. Freedom of speech is the only thing giving the US a competitive edge at this point. Either the US becomes a mediocre censorship state or freedom of speech stays.