8 ms·

why do so many people confusedly assume free speech means forcing printers to print neo-nazi propaganda. Whatever happened to freedom of association? Some busin

by mint2 6y ago

why do so many people confusedly assume free speech means forcing printers to print neo-nazi propaganda. Whatever happened to freedom of association? Some businesses and people don’t want to associate with neonazis and don’t want to be known as the company that helps neonazis. Why do people who espouse free speech want to take away freedom to choose who one associates with?

InvertedRhodium 6y ago
'Free speech' means nothing at all in the private sector - but 'supporting free speech' most definitely does. If a company opts to not support free speech (which is an ideal that I believe most Americans would say should be supported) by enacting censorship rules beyond what is illegal, they shouldn't be surprised when people that believe in that ideal look on them less favorably.
- Delmania 6y ago
  By supporting free speech I support the right for us to say what we will without fear of retribution from the government. By supporting freedom of association I support that company’s can ban you for saying things they don’t agree with. Aren’t Gab and Parker right wing libertarian free market success stories? People found Twitter didn’t agree with their views so they founded a competitor.
  - InvertedRhodium 6y ago
    > By supporting freedom of association I support that company’s can ban you for saying things they don’t agree with The US already limit companies "Right of Association" by virtue of things like Providers of Last Resort (that's the extent of my knowledge on this topic in the context of America) so it's not an alien concept. Do you feel that the electricity company should be able to cut off your power supply because you made a blog post they don't agree with? How about your mobile phone provider? And if not, why are online services treated any differently?
    - nicoffeine 6y ago
      If you're planning on a violent assault on others, all those protections disappear. Free speech has well established limitations that are pretty easy to understand.
      - InvertedRhodium 6y ago
        I don't believe anything I've said contradicts that position.
        nicoffeine 6y ago
        You keep trying to associate Parler and Gab as supporters of free speech. Parler was shut down because it refused to moderate content that incited violence. Gab's browser extension Dissenter was removed from Google and Firefox for the same reason: unmoderated content that often featured calls to violence. These platforms are being used by white nationalists and other extremists to normalize their hateful ideology and encourage violence against anyone with different gender orientations, nationality, ethnicity, or religious beliefs. Gab and Parler have zero interest in free speech as a human right. They want unlimited free speech for acceptable groups (mostly white straight Christians) and no rights for anyone else. Users on those platforms have posted their intent to hurt and kill others, that content was never moderated, and those users carried out acts of violence. Companies who don't want to be associated with that have disconnected their services ahead of the inevitable legal action to shut the services down. Literally no one in the US has had their electricity or phone cut off because of a "disagreeable blog post." It's a ridiculous example to bring up in the sea of information about what's going on in those forums.
    - mint2 6y ago
      I presented an example along those lines, but more apt. I noticed you didn’t explain why you thought it was less applicable. And yes, the internet service provider should not be able to monitor your communication and selectively block it. But why do should people be forced to associate with neonazis against their will? Expressing neonazi and white nationalist propaganda does not make one a a protected class so businesses are free to refuse to provide them service. Does McDonald’s have the right to refuse service to cater a klan rally?
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    People have felt so unheard they've taken to the streets in violence. We've seen riots all through the last year up to and including the incident on Jan 6. When people feel unheard it reliably leads to violence. That is why, when it comes to my eyes and dollars, I support platforms that support free speech. In different times I might lean towards freedom of association.
- throwaway189262 6y ago
  Any internet platform that didnt moderate would be overwhelmed with spam, porn, scams, hate, etc. Censorship and moderation are the same, a set of rules you must follow to participate. Gab is has huge problems with porn spam because of free speech policies. Imagine if email providers were not allowed to filter. Your email would be totally unusable. Enacting no filters beyond what's illegal would make most of the internet unusable. Like imagine if HN had no moderation? It would lose its original purpose. So what do you mean support free speech exactly? Allow people to freely post porn, scams, lies, death threats?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
lom888 6y ago
The argument I've heard from friends on the left opposed to free speech is that barely-moderated forums inevitably turn into "white supremacist" sites.
- pii 6y ago
  "friends on the left opposed to free speech" is your willful misunderstanding of the issue
  - lom888 6y ago
    These friends overtly say that free speech should be limited, in those exact terms. Not some speech, "free speech". Please let me know how you perceive me to be misunderstanding them willfully.
    - pstuart 6y ago
      So free speech should include incitement of violence? Slander and libel?
    - pii 6y ago
      I think you might want to listen to them more closely, I can't answer on their behalf. If, by chance, they're anything like me, then I agree that there's giant categories of prohibited speech that should remain so. Lying about medicine, slander, libel, incitement to violence to name a few.
      - lom888 6y ago
        They want the first amendment repealed as they say it protects racists, homophobes and transphobes. They say that liberal free speech laws led to Trump and free speech should be curtailed for that reason. They openly say that they are opposed to free speech. I am trying to present their views as neutrally as I can, but this is what they say and support.
        6y ago
Turing_Machine 6y ago
Hmm... so in your opinion, back in the days of the Hollywood blacklist, when Louis B. Mayer decided that he wasn't going to buy any more screenplays from communists (or anyone who even had friends who were communists), that was perfectly okay? "Freedom of association", right? The truly bizarre thing about the "woke" movement is that they seem to have absolutely no conception that the stuff they're doing to others can just as easily be done to them.
- Turing_Machine 6y ago
  Touched a nerve, didn't it? You might be surprised at how fast this kind of thing can turn around.
  - Turing_Machine 6y ago
    Recommended reading: https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial-ebook/dp/B003TO5838/ https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Pere... Edit: more recommended reading: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/conformism.html http://www.paulgraham.com/conformism.html
    - mint2 6y ago
      I’m not sure how you’re interpreting these, but if you are against businesses deplatforming those who express neonazi, and white nationalist propaganda I don’t think Paul Graham’s message supports you. I doubt Paul graham equates neonazi propaganda with his examples of past situations where you could believe something that was later thought of as very wrong: “ how can you be sure you wouldn't also have believed everything you were supposed to if you had grown up among the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South, or in Germany in the 1930s” Are you saying that in 30 years that society will collectively think neonazi beliefs are correct and thus we were crazy to ostracize them? And you are saying that is why we should stop censoring them? Because in a future state we might live in a dystopia we should stop censoring the people trying to create the dystopia? And also that censoring neonazis is akin to those example like being anti slavery in the antebellum south? Is this your take away? Those arguments sound rather farcical and Paul himself actually explains why that is. Paul says this: “Of course, we're not just looking for things we can't say. We're looking for things we can't say that are true, or at least have enough chance of being true that the question should remain open.“ There is no doubt about neonazi propaganda. Whether or not it is true is not an open question. White supremacist propaganda maybe being right is not an open question.
throwaway33432 6y ago
freedom of association isn't really a thing anymore; if one were to promote that maxim, a large portion of the civil rights laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. just become unenforceable. see stuff akin to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  The idea of public accommodation is ultimately based on the notion that commercial appeals (such as a store window and an open door) constitute an 'invitation to treat' (do business) and that these should not be withheld from anyone on the basis of their unalterable personal characteristics.
  - Ancapistani 6y ago
    > these should not be withheld from anyone on the basis of their unalterable personal characteristics Where does this boundary lie? Is political party unalterable? Ideology? Religion?
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      That depends who you ask. I don't think religion is unalterable, for example, but in the USA it holds a privileged legal position for historical reasons - although courts have concluded that merely claiming religious status is insufficient, eg https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1141.pdf https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1141.pdf In general the Us recognizes race/ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation (to some degree) and religion as 'suspect classes' deserving of protection. But it's a thorny subject and understanding all the different perspectives is going to require a lot of reading.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

by mint2 6y ago

InvertedRhodium 6y ago

'Free speech' means nothing at all in the private sector - but 'supporting free speech' most definitely does. If a company opts to not support free speech (which is an ideal that I believe most Americans would say should be supported) by enacting censorship rules beyond what is illegal, they shouldn't be surprised when people that believe in that ideal look on them less favorably.

Delmania 6y ago
By supporting free speech I support the right for us to say what we will without fear of retribution from the government. By supporting freedom of association I support that company’s can ban you for saying things they don’t agree with. Aren’t Gab and Parker right wing libertarian free market success stories? People found Twitter didn’t agree with their views so they founded a competitor.
- InvertedRhodium 6y ago
  > By supporting freedom of association I support that company’s can ban you for saying things they don’t agree with The US already limit companies "Right of Association" by virtue of things like Providers of Last Resort (that's the extent of my knowledge on this topic in the context of America) so it's not an alien concept. Do you feel that the electricity company should be able to cut off your power supply because you made a blog post they don't agree with? How about your mobile phone provider? And if not, why are online services treated any differently?
  - nicoffeine 6y ago
    If you're planning on a violent assault on others, all those protections disappear. Free speech has well established limitations that are pretty easy to understand.
    - InvertedRhodium 6y ago
      I don't believe anything I've said contradicts that position.
      - nicoffeine 6y ago
        You keep trying to associate Parler and Gab as supporters of free speech. Parler was shut down because it refused to moderate content that incited violence. Gab's browser extension Dissenter was removed from Google and Firefox for the same reason: unmoderated content that often featured calls to violence. These platforms are being used by white nationalists and other extremists to normalize their hateful ideology and encourage violence against anyone with different gender orientations, nationality, ethnicity, or religious beliefs. Gab and Parler have zero interest in free speech as a human right. They want unlimited free speech for acceptable groups (mostly white straight Christians) and no rights for anyone else. Users on those platforms have posted their intent to hurt and kill others, that content was never moderated, and those users carried out acts of violence. Companies who don't want to be associated with that have disconnected their services ahead of the inevitable legal action to shut the services down. Literally no one in the US has had their electricity or phone cut off because of a "disagreeable blog post." It's a ridiculous example to bring up in the sea of information about what's going on in those forums.
  - mint2 6y ago
    I presented an example along those lines, but more apt. I noticed you didn’t explain why you thought it was less applicable. And yes, the internet service provider should not be able to monitor your communication and selectively block it. But why do should people be forced to associate with neonazis against their will? Expressing neonazi and white nationalist propaganda does not make one a a protected class so businesses are free to refuse to provide them service. Does McDonald’s have the right to refuse service to cater a klan rally?
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  People have felt so unheard they've taken to the streets in violence. We've seen riots all through the last year up to and including the incident on Jan 6. When people feel unheard it reliably leads to violence. That is why, when it comes to my eyes and dollars, I support platforms that support free speech. In different times I might lean towards freedom of association.
throwaway189262 6y ago
Any internet platform that didnt moderate would be overwhelmed with spam, porn, scams, hate, etc. Censorship and moderation are the same, a set of rules you must follow to participate. Gab is has huge problems with porn spam because of free speech policies. Imagine if email providers were not allowed to filter. Your email would be totally unusable. Enacting no filters beyond what's illegal would make most of the internet unusable. Like imagine if HN had no moderation? It would lose its original purpose. So what do you mean support free speech exactly? Allow people to freely post porn, scams, lies, death threats?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

lom888 6y ago

The argument I've heard from friends on the left opposed to free speech is that barely-moderated forums inevitably turn into "white supremacist" sites.

pii 6y ago
"friends on the left opposed to free speech" is your willful misunderstanding of the issue
- lom888 6y ago
  These friends overtly say that free speech should be limited, in those exact terms. Not some speech, "free speech". Please let me know how you perceive me to be misunderstanding them willfully.
  - pstuart 6y ago
    So free speech should include incitement of violence? Slander and libel?
  - pii 6y ago
    I think you might want to listen to them more closely, I can't answer on their behalf. If, by chance, they're anything like me, then I agree that there's giant categories of prohibited speech that should remain so. Lying about medicine, slander, libel, incitement to violence to name a few.
    - lom888 6y ago
      They want the first amendment repealed as they say it protects racists, homophobes and transphobes. They say that liberal free speech laws led to Trump and free speech should be curtailed for that reason. They openly say that they are opposed to free speech. I am trying to present their views as neutrally as I can, but this is what they say and support.
      - 6y ago

Turing_Machine 6y ago

Hmm... so in your opinion, back in the days of the Hollywood blacklist, when Louis B. Mayer decided that he wasn't going to buy any more screenplays from communists (or anyone who even had friends who were communists), that was perfectly okay? "Freedom of association", right? The truly bizarre thing about the "woke" movement is that they seem to have absolutely no conception that the stuff they're doing to others can just as easily be done to them.

Turing_Machine 6y ago
Touched a nerve, didn't it? You might be surprised at how fast this kind of thing can turn around.
- Turing_Machine 6y ago
  Recommended reading: https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial-ebook/dp/B003TO5838/ https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Pere... Edit: more recommended reading: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/conformism.html http://www.paulgraham.com/conformism.html
  - mint2 6y ago
    I’m not sure how you’re interpreting these, but if you are against businesses deplatforming those who express neonazi, and white nationalist propaganda I don’t think Paul Graham’s message supports you. I doubt Paul graham equates neonazi propaganda with his examples of past situations where you could believe something that was later thought of as very wrong: “ how can you be sure you wouldn't also have believed everything you were supposed to if you had grown up among the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South, or in Germany in the 1930s” Are you saying that in 30 years that society will collectively think neonazi beliefs are correct and thus we were crazy to ostracize them? And you are saying that is why we should stop censoring them? Because in a future state we might live in a dystopia we should stop censoring the people trying to create the dystopia? And also that censoring neonazis is akin to those example like being anti slavery in the antebellum south? Is this your take away? Those arguments sound rather farcical and Paul himself actually explains why that is. Paul says this: “Of course, we're not just looking for things we can't say. We're looking for things we can't say that are true, or at least have enough chance of being true that the question should remain open.“ There is no doubt about neonazi propaganda. Whether or not it is true is not an open question. White supremacist propaganda maybe being right is not an open question.

throwaway33432 6y ago

freedom of association isn't really a thing anymore; if one were to promote that maxim, a large portion of the civil rights laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. just become unenforceable. see stuff akin to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

anigbrowl 6y ago
The idea of public accommodation is ultimately based on the notion that commercial appeals (such as a store window and an open door) constitute an 'invitation to treat' (do business) and that these should not be withheld from anyone on the basis of their unalterable personal characteristics.
- Ancapistani 6y ago
  > these should not be withheld from anyone on the basis of their unalterable personal characteristics Where does this boundary lie? Is political party unalterable? Ideology? Religion?
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    That depends who you ask. I don't think religion is unalterable, for example, but in the USA it holds a privileged legal position for historical reasons - although courts have concluded that merely claiming religious status is insufficient, eg https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1141.pdf https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1141.pdf In general the Us recognizes race/ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation (to some degree) and religion as 'suspect classes' deserving of protection. But it's a thorny subject and understanding all the different perspectives is going to require a lot of reading.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]