4 ms·

I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. You want your speech to be free from consequences -- i.e if you were to call someone a liar / cheat, they can't change t

by msg3 5y ago

I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. You want your speech to be free from consequences -- i.e if you were to call someone a liar / cheat, they can't change their opinion of you based on what you've said? How is that compatible with their freedom of thought? To me, freedom of speech means I shouldn't worry about legal repercussions for expressing wrongthink. There is perhaps a separate discussion to be had about the sort of society we want to live in - do we want to promote open discussion, even if it can be divisive? But I don't think it's really a rights issue unless the consequences progress from social / economic to legal.

efaref 5y ago
Limiting it to legal consequences is not enough. There are also physical and psychological safety consequences that are relevant. You're not, for example, free to speak your mind if expressing wrongthink will result in a punch to the face. In the context of a workplace (being the topic of this post, after all), one such consequence is the loss of your job. Something that is very real these days, with so-called activists doxing people and trying to get them fired just because they dared to express a dissenting opinion.
- msg3 5y ago
  Punching people in the face is illegal regardless of the reason - I don't really see how that's relevant? Are you really saying that it should be impossible for someone to lose their job over what they say? If someone, for example, threatened to kill a co-worker, you don't think they should be fired? I appreciate that this is an extreme example, but when we talk about rights, don't we have to cover all examples of speech? I'd agree that social media mobs trying to get people fired is a bad thing, that it's become too easy to whip up such mobs, and that as a society we should try to be more tolerant of other views. But I don't see somebody losing a job over something they've said as a rights issue - you don't have a right to a job.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    > Punching people in the face is illegal regardless of the reason - I don't really see how that's relevant? The 'freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences' was popularized (repopularized?) and became a somewhat mainstream talking point in America around 2016-17 to justify political violence with the "punch a nazi" thing and stuff. It's the "paradox of tolerance".
    - africanboy 5y ago
      I think it was popularized in the USA by the first amendment > FREEDOM of speech is a constitutional guarantee. But that doesn't mean it is absolute or not subject to some limitations one important thing is that the burden of the proof is on the accusers. it was "repopularized" because there were literally nazis killing people in the streets, you should be aware that being a nazi it's a crime almost everywhere in the western World (except US) and that nazi usually hide themselves behind the "you should prove that hate speech against the jews is a crime" So the broader definition of freedom of speech AND the consequences is a consequence of nazis taking over the public discourse, not the contrary. Yes, it's the paradox of tolerance.
    - msg3 5y ago
      Fair enough. I'm certainly not advocating that it's ok to punch someone over something they said. The context of this thread (expressing political opinions at work) makes me think the other types of consequence are more relevant for this discussion though.
  - ForHackernews 5y ago
    > you don't have a right to a job. In non-America places (or in the few remaining unionised workplaces in America) you typically have some right to due process, and you can't just be terminated on a whim because you said something the boss didn't like.
    - msg3 5y ago
      Yes, and I think that's a good thing. But I don't see think that's incompatible with my view here - that freedom of speech doesn't mean I have the right to say anything and expect to keep my job. If I was to say something offensive, I should be accorded due process, but the result of that process may be that I'm let go.
      - ForHackernews 5y ago
        Sure, I probably largely agree with that. But there's a difference between what you're describing and what often happens in the real world where a twitter mob calls for you to be fired and your company immediately shitcans you to placate the yobs. e.g. https://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/03/donglegate-is-classic-overreaction-and-everyone-pays/ https://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/03/donglegate-is-classic-...
        msg3 5y ago
        I'd agree that a twitter mob getting someone fired is in most cases a bad thing and I can think of a bunch of reasons why it's a bad thing. But "infringing on the employees right to free speech" isn't one of them. This might seem a bit pedantic, but I do think it's important. If something is a violation of someone's rights then there doesn't need to be any further discussion - it shouldn't be allowed. I think claiming that this is a free speech issue is not only wrong, but also shuts down much needed discussion about where we set the limits of our tolerance.
        ForHackernews 5y ago
        I think we largely agree, and where we disagree is quibbling over semantics. I don't consider myself a "speech absolutist", so I wouldn't agree that assigning, say, twitter mobbing to the category of "free speech issues" shuts down further discussion.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    > Punching people in the face is illegal regardless of the reason Sure, but see all the “punch nazis” memes. Examples: https://web.archive.org/web/20210118210335/https://www.jwz.org/blog/2017/01/there-is-nothing-more-american-than-punching-nazis/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210118210335/https://www.jwz.o... https://punchingnazis.tumblr.com/ https://punchingnazis.tumblr.com/
lhnz 5y ago
Let's talk concretely about the consequence that is most fraught. Should employees be fired for expressing political positions at work that their employer disagrees with? Should all employees be told to focus on their companies mission instead? Previously progressives seemed happy for the former to happen, but now they seem annoyed that they also might have their free speech squashed. What kind of consequences are acceptable?
- msg3 5y ago
  Surely that depends on a number of things -- the nature of the employer's business, the manner in which the opinion is expressed, etc? I think businesses should generally be free to set their own terms and conditions, provided they are compatible with the nation's labour rights. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a society where people are encouraged to have frank and respectful exchanges of views, and I'd prefer to work for a business where I'm not afraid to share my views, but equally where political discussion is not a large part of workplace culture. But that's just my preference _- we're not discussing what should happen, but what rights people have, and no, I don't think you have the right to say whatever you like and keep your job. That doesn't mean your boss should fire you because he disagrees with something you said, but it does mean it should be possible, provided you are accorded due process.
- toyg 5y ago
  Uhm, I'm not following you. Historically, employees who "expressed political opinions" would typically support leftist/progressive views that their employer would disagree with; hence why laws were passed to protect their rights in this area (at least in Europe). So I don't think anybody on the left was ever "happy" that an employer could fire someone for their political position, as a general concept. What might have some support is the idea that an employer could fire someone holding positions that are incompatible with the majority of other employees. We can argue about the best way to regulate this, but it's a different and horizontal view of determining the boundaries of civil coexistence.
twic 5y ago
Freedom from speech can only mean freedom from consequences, but virtually nobody thinks all speech should be free from all consequences. For example, if the government allows its critics to speak freely, but then puts them in prison [1], is that free speech? No. So because of a consequence, speech is not free. If someone says they hate you and want to kill your family, and you avoid them as a result, is that free speech? Yes - no significant number of people would say it is not. So here, despite a consequence, speech is free. Some people connect free speech specifically with prior restraint. But prior restraint is also purely about consequences: if the government bans your book, what that actually means is that anyone distributing your book will be punished, and that's a consequence. Some people connect free speech specifically with government action. But if a tech monopoly deletes its enemies from the internet, is that free speech? I would say it is not. It's meaningless to be for or against free speech in some binary sense. What you can have is an opinion about the mapping from speech to consequences. You might think that speech should map to lighter consequences than it does at the moment across all speech, or to heavier consequences, for for some kinds of speech to be lighter and some heavier. [1] Idi Amin is reputed to have said "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech."
- krapp 5y ago
  > Freedom from speech can only mean freedom from consequences, but virtually nobody thinks all speech should be free from all consequences. Then people should stop stating the former as an argument, because "all speech should be free from all consequences" is what it means.
  - efaref 5y ago
    Exactly. People say they want freedom of speech, but really they want the ability to say whatever they want while also having the ability to punish others for saying things they don't like. Similarly, people say that some countries have freedom of speech, when in reality every country has ways of punishing people for making certain noises out of their mouths - they just differ in which noises and to what degree. The effect of this dishonesty is there is a hidden social contract on what you are, or are not, allowed to say, and everyone has to negotiate that. The article is about how people are becoming more self-censorious as a consequence of this social contract tightening up.
coldtea 5y ago
>You want your speech to be free from consequences -- i.e if you were to call someone a liar / cheat, they can't change their opinion of you based on what you've said? How is that compatible with their freedom of thought? The issue of calling someone "a liar / cheat" if they're not belongs to libel. Same way yelling fire in a crowded cinema is a public safety issue. Expression of ideas is neither, and should not have "consequences". >To me, freedom of speech means I shouldn't worry about legal repercussions for expressing wrongthink. So is it OK if a mob (not a legal or govermnet entity) stomped on you and beat you to a bloody pulp? If a church (not a legal entity) asked its members to spit on your face and abuse you on the internet? If you were immediately fired?
- krapp 5y ago
  >The issue of calling someone "a liar / cheat" if they're not belongs to libel. Same way yelling fire in a crowded cinema is a public safety issue. >Expression of ideas is neither, and should not have "consequences". Both libel and inciting imminent lawless action are expressions of ideas, that term is so vague as to be all-encompassing. And the latter example has been upheld by the Supreme Court as protected free speech.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >Both libel and inciting imminent lawless action are expressions of ideas, that term is so vague as to be all-encompassing. And yet courts all over the world are able to separate them from "expression of ideas" (here in Europe e.g. where we have and use libel laws). It's not that hard either, unless we specifically go for edge case. "X is a thief" can be libel. "The climate is in danger/is not in danger and we should or shouldn't do so and so" is an expression of an idea, and can't be libel. As long as you don't speak about someone in particular (a person or set of named persons, as opposed to ideas and abstract groups), and don't accuse them of being something criminal or derogatory (especially something they're not) you should be able to express any idea you like, how about that?
    - msg3 5y ago
belorn 5y ago
Freedom of speech should have the same protection as freedom of religion, and there really shouldn't be a difference between if someone speech is referencing views from an old book/science fiction author, life experience good and bad, or anything else that is a reflection of the personal identify of an individual. The European humans right is a good example of this. EU has countries with widely different religions, widely different politics, geographic regions and cultures. If you want freedom of speech in such a diverse area you can't allow discrimination for expressing wrongthink, because any speech is a wrongthink somewhere except for views about kittens and ice cream. The only major hard lines are explicit and direct threat of violence targeting person or persons, fraud, and national security (the later being a topic of debate).

by msg3 5y ago

efaref 5y ago

Limiting it to legal consequences is not enough. There are also physical and psychological safety consequences that are relevant. You're not, for example, free to speak your mind if expressing wrongthink will result in a punch to the face. In the context of a workplace (being the topic of this post, after all), one such consequence is the loss of your job. Something that is very real these days, with so-called activists doxing people and trying to get them fired just because they dared to express a dissenting opinion.

msg3 5y ago
Punching people in the face is illegal regardless of the reason - I don't really see how that's relevant? Are you really saying that it should be impossible for someone to lose their job over what they say? If someone, for example, threatened to kill a co-worker, you don't think they should be fired? I appreciate that this is an extreme example, but when we talk about rights, don't we have to cover all examples of speech? I'd agree that social media mobs trying to get people fired is a bad thing, that it's become too easy to whip up such mobs, and that as a society we should try to be more tolerant of other views. But I don't see somebody losing a job over something they've said as a rights issue - you don't have a right to a job.
- ttt0 5y ago
  > Punching people in the face is illegal regardless of the reason - I don't really see how that's relevant? The 'freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences' was popularized (repopularized?) and became a somewhat mainstream talking point in America around 2016-17 to justify political violence with the "punch a nazi" thing and stuff. It's the "paradox of tolerance".
  - africanboy 5y ago
    I think it was popularized in the USA by the first amendment > FREEDOM of speech is a constitutional guarantee. But that doesn't mean it is absolute or not subject to some limitations one important thing is that the burden of the proof is on the accusers. it was "repopularized" because there were literally nazis killing people in the streets, you should be aware that being a nazi it's a crime almost everywhere in the western World (except US) and that nazi usually hide themselves behind the "you should prove that hate speech against the jews is a crime" So the broader definition of freedom of speech AND the consequences is a consequence of nazis taking over the public discourse, not the contrary. Yes, it's the paradox of tolerance.
  - msg3 5y ago
    Fair enough. I'm certainly not advocating that it's ok to punch someone over something they said. The context of this thread (expressing political opinions at work) makes me think the other types of consequence are more relevant for this discussion though.
- ForHackernews 5y ago
  > you don't have a right to a job. In non-America places (or in the few remaining unionised workplaces in America) you typically have some right to due process, and you can't just be terminated on a whim because you said something the boss didn't like.
  - msg3 5y ago
    Yes, and I think that's a good thing. But I don't see think that's incompatible with my view here - that freedom of speech doesn't mean I have the right to say anything and expect to keep my job. If I was to say something offensive, I should be accorded due process, but the result of that process may be that I'm let go.
    - ForHackernews 5y ago
      Sure, I probably largely agree with that. But there's a difference between what you're describing and what often happens in the real world where a twitter mob calls for you to be fired and your company immediately shitcans you to placate the yobs. e.g. https://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/03/donglegate-is-classic-overreaction-and-everyone-pays/ https://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/03/donglegate-is-classic-...
      - msg3 5y ago
        I'd agree that a twitter mob getting someone fired is in most cases a bad thing and I can think of a bunch of reasons why it's a bad thing. But "infringing on the employees right to free speech" isn't one of them. This might seem a bit pedantic, but I do think it's important. If something is a violation of someone's rights then there doesn't need to be any further discussion - it shouldn't be allowed. I think claiming that this is a free speech issue is not only wrong, but also shuts down much needed discussion about where we set the limits of our tolerance.
        ForHackernews 5y ago
        I think we largely agree, and where we disagree is quibbling over semantics. I don't consider myself a "speech absolutist", so I wouldn't agree that assigning, say, twitter mobbing to the category of "free speech issues" shuts down further discussion.
- teddyh 5y ago
  > Punching people in the face is illegal regardless of the reason Sure, but see all the “punch nazis” memes. Examples: https://web.archive.org/web/20210118210335/https://www.jwz.org/blog/2017/01/there-is-nothing-more-american-than-punching-nazis/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210118210335/https://www.jwz.o... https://punchingnazis.tumblr.com/ https://punchingnazis.tumblr.com/

lhnz 5y ago

Let's talk concretely about the consequence that is most fraught. Should employees be fired for expressing political positions at work that their employer disagrees with? Should all employees be told to focus on their companies mission instead? Previously progressives seemed happy for the former to happen, but now they seem annoyed that they also might have their free speech squashed. What kind of consequences are acceptable?

msg3 5y ago
Surely that depends on a number of things -- the nature of the employer's business, the manner in which the opinion is expressed, etc? I think businesses should generally be free to set their own terms and conditions, provided they are compatible with the nation's labour rights. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a society where people are encouraged to have frank and respectful exchanges of views, and I'd prefer to work for a business where I'm not afraid to share my views, but equally where political discussion is not a large part of workplace culture. But that's just my preference _- we're not discussing what should happen, but what rights people have, and no, I don't think you have the right to say whatever you like and keep your job. That doesn't mean your boss should fire you because he disagrees with something you said, but it does mean it should be possible, provided you are accorded due process.
toyg 5y ago
Uhm, I'm not following you. Historically, employees who "expressed political opinions" would typically support leftist/progressive views that their employer would disagree with; hence why laws were passed to protect their rights in this area (at least in Europe). So I don't think anybody on the left was ever "happy" that an employer could fire someone for their political position, as a general concept. What might have some support is the idea that an employer could fire someone holding positions that are incompatible with the majority of other employees. We can argue about the best way to regulate this, but it's a different and horizontal view of determining the boundaries of civil coexistence.

twic 5y ago

Freedom from speech can only mean freedom from consequences, but virtually nobody thinks all speech should be free from all consequences. For example, if the government allows its critics to speak freely, but then puts them in prison [1], is that free speech? No. So because of a consequence, speech is not free. If someone says they hate you and want to kill your family, and you avoid them as a result, is that free speech? Yes - no significant number of people would say it is not. So here, despite a consequence, speech is free. Some people connect free speech specifically with prior restraint. But prior restraint is also purely about consequences: if the government bans your book, what that actually means is that anyone distributing your book will be punished, and that's a consequence. Some people connect free speech specifically with government action. But if a tech monopoly deletes its enemies from the internet, is that free speech? I would say it is not. It's meaningless to be for or against free speech in some binary sense. What you can have is an opinion about the mapping from speech to consequences. You might think that speech should map to lighter consequences than it does at the moment across all speech, or to heavier consequences, for for some kinds of speech to be lighter and some heavier. [1] Idi Amin is reputed to have said "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech."

krapp 5y ago
> Freedom from speech can only mean freedom from consequences, but virtually nobody thinks all speech should be free from all consequences. Then people should stop stating the former as an argument, because "all speech should be free from all consequences" is what it means.
- efaref 5y ago
  Exactly. People say they want freedom of speech, but really they want the ability to say whatever they want while also having the ability to punish others for saying things they don't like. Similarly, people say that some countries have freedom of speech, when in reality every country has ways of punishing people for making certain noises out of their mouths - they just differ in which noises and to what degree. The effect of this dishonesty is there is a hidden social contract on what you are, or are not, allowed to say, and everyone has to negotiate that. The article is about how people are becoming more self-censorious as a consequence of this social contract tightening up.

coldtea 5y ago

>You want your speech to be free from consequences -- i.e if you were to call someone a liar / cheat, they can't change their opinion of you based on what you've said? How is that compatible with their freedom of thought? The issue of calling someone "a liar / cheat" if they're not belongs to libel. Same way yelling fire in a crowded cinema is a public safety issue. Expression of ideas is neither, and should not have "consequences". >To me, freedom of speech means I shouldn't worry about legal repercussions for expressing wrongthink. So is it OK if a mob (not a legal or govermnet entity) stomped on you and beat you to a bloody pulp? If a church (not a legal entity) asked its members to spit on your face and abuse you on the internet? If you were immediately fired?

krapp 5y ago
>The issue of calling someone "a liar / cheat" if they're not belongs to libel. Same way yelling fire in a crowded cinema is a public safety issue. >Expression of ideas is neither, and should not have "consequences". Both libel and inciting imminent lawless action are expressions of ideas, that term is so vague as to be all-encompassing. And the latter example has been upheld by the Supreme Court as protected free speech.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Both libel and inciting imminent lawless action are expressions of ideas, that term is so vague as to be all-encompassing. And yet courts all over the world are able to separate them from "expression of ideas" (here in Europe e.g. where we have and use libel laws). It's not that hard either, unless we specifically go for edge case. "X is a thief" can be libel. "The climate is in danger/is not in danger and we should or shouldn't do so and so" is an expression of an idea, and can't be libel. As long as you don't speak about someone in particular (a person or set of named persons, as opposed to ideas and abstract groups), and don't accuse them of being something criminal or derogatory (especially something they're not) you should be able to express any idea you like, how about that?
  - msg3 5y ago

belorn 5y ago

Freedom of speech should have the same protection as freedom of religion, and there really shouldn't be a difference between if someone speech is referencing views from an old book/science fiction author, life experience good and bad, or anything else that is a reflection of the personal identify of an individual. The European humans right is a good example of this. EU has countries with widely different religions, widely different politics, geographic regions and cultures. If you want freedom of speech in such a diverse area you can't allow discrimination for expressing wrongthink, because any speech is a wrongthink somewhere except for views about kittens and ice cream. The only major hard lines are explicit and direct threat of violence targeting person or persons, fraud, and national security (the later being a topic of debate).