5 ms·

Everyone always seems happy to carve out their own exceptions to freedom of expression. Freedom, except for racism. Freedom, except for transgenderism. Freedom

by causi 5y ago

Everyone always seems happy to carve out their own exceptions to freedom of expression. Freedom, except for racism. Freedom, except for transgenderism. Freedom, except for porn. Freedom, except for violence. Freedom, except for political dissent or mis-gendering or the promotion or criticism of a religion. As someone who falls near the middle on most issues I probably detest a larger percentage of speakers than anyone who's solidly on the Left or the Right, but I have no issue understanding that my freedom depends on their freedom. If the people I despise are not free to speak then neither am I.

sanderjd 5y ago
The privilege to broadcast thoughts to billions of people at no cost is one that we just invented in the last twenty years. It is not a right.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  Then it should be either: a) removed from everybody or b) removed from nobody.
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  In that case lets apply your principal evenly to all rights. Freedom of movement: heading somewhere we don’t agree with, ok but you aren’t allowed to use public roads since we own those. Good luck getting to the voting station. Freedom of assembly: we don’t support your protests cause, stay off public property, go hold your protest at your own house. Freedom of conscience: fine think whatever you want but if you attempt to record it in any way we’ll block you. A right without the means to act on it is nothing at all. You’re arguing for a society built like a prison. You should be ashamed.
  - BizarroLand 5y ago
    This is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because you can see a flaw with a system does not mean there is a flaw. Sometimes the flaw is with you & or your line of thought. In this case, equating "not being allowed to post far-right propaganda on every concourse of communication" is not the same as being harassed at your own home because people are allowed to protest.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    So you've nationalized Youtube, eh?
    - tg180 5y ago
      YouTube, as well as other major Internet companies, have a near-monopoly over their sectors which leaves them lacking any competitive drive to be better, do better, or for people to go elsewhere. Without realistic alternatives it is spontaneous (even if erroneous) to think about the implication of private infrastructure over public rights. But the real matter is an issue of scale. I am convinced that sooner or later governments will wake up and that the tech giants will be broken up or severely limited: the European GDPR and the Chinese crackdown on the sector are only the first signs. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/five-new-bills-aim-to-break-up-big-tech-platforms-force-them-to-play-nice/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/five-new-bills-a...
      - mcguire 5y ago
        I have no doubt that you are right. But that's a kind of censorship, too, isn't it?
        tg180 5y ago
        I don’t see how applying existing antitrust regulations would be censorship. But limiting what companies are able to do is a kind of it, sure!
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    Your examples are public places. My comment was about private entities.
BizarroLand 5y ago
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. It stands to reason then that if all speech is truly free eventually some speech will be censored. America doesn't allow people to say "Fuck" on public TV broadcasts, therefore all speech isn't free. No one is harmed by a curse word. Worst case a child will learn the word a few years earlier than when they usually do, and yet we censor that anyway. Therefore, you can't say that all speech is free speech on all channels. What you say in person may at worst get you into an altercation or ostracized, but you have the right to say it. Once your voice is amplified out of earshot you are no longer truly free to speak as you will. You can say what you want to say, yes, but the repercussions of your words amplify with every repetition. Not everyone is aware of that, and when you are on a platform where, by words, you can incite a group to violence safely from the other side of the country, you should have your speech monitored and censored if need be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago
  Go and actually read Popper and you'll find he was close to a free speak maximalist his views on when you shouldn't "tolerate" intolerance was an incredibly high bar that almost nothing ever hits.
  - BizarroLand 5y ago
    So, I should read 25 books to verify that your one sentence claim is valid? Why not back that up with some relevant quotes to support your thesis, friend? That seems a decent thing to do compared to the litany of homework you callously threw at me.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      >> Go and actually read Popper and you'll find he was close to a free speak maximalist his views on when you shouldn't "tolerate" intolerance was an incredibly high bar that almost nothing ever hits. > So, I should read 25 books to verify that your one sentence claim is valid? > Why not back that up with some relevant quotes to support your thesis, friend? That seems a decent thing to do compared to the litany of homework you callously threw at me. Your snark isn't warranted. The Wiki article you yourself cited says where Popper introduced the concept and even speaks about what his limitations were. I will let you read that again to find them, rather than providing a quote.
didibus 5y ago
Okay, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that hate speech and propaganda has been a part of almost all atrocities ever done in the past? Or put some other way, how do you reconcile that your freedom can be affected by someone's else's freedom? Like what if I use my freedom to turn others against you and have them hate you and berate you and bully you and ridicule you and refute you, and potentially have them vote for laws that take actions against you, or possibly have them commit hateful acts towards you, etc.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  I have no issue with people turning against, hating, berating, bullying, etc. me. These are simply matters of feeling and opinion. I do have a problem when other people feel entitled to escalate such conflicts by reacting to these unwelcome points of view with real, actual violence, including government censorship. Even, and perhaps especially, when these people are purporting to act in my defense.
  - didibus 5y ago
    Ok, but what are you referring too? Because I'm not sure I'm seeing any government censorship (except for maybe the voter suppression and the child protection laws as well as some of the anti-protest forces deployed by the government in recent protests like BLM). And I'm mostly seeing violence driven by hate speech, like the various shootings happening. I would be very against government censorship or interventions against constitutional rights of free speech and right to assemble and protest, and right to vote. Maybe I just don't have the data you have, but right now I'm not too sure I follow you.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Not the OP, but basically you are complaining about humans. I am not convinced that by banning certain expressions you get any security against future oppression. Stupid hateful people might get trapped by anti-hate-speech laws, but the smarter ones, precisely the ones you need to be careful about, are fairly good at avoiding them and may even use the threat of prosecution to raise sympathy from the part of population that dislikes the incumbent government. Most European countries have vibrant extremist movements (left, right, Islamic) even though their freedom of speech is much more limited than the U.S. standard.

by causi 5y ago

sanderjd 5y ago

The privilege to broadcast thoughts to billions of people at no cost is one that we just invented in the last twenty years. It is not a right.

commandlinefan 5y ago
Then it should be either: a) removed from everybody or b) removed from nobody.
throwaway316943 5y ago
In that case lets apply your principal evenly to all rights. Freedom of movement: heading somewhere we don’t agree with, ok but you aren’t allowed to use public roads since we own those. Good luck getting to the voting station. Freedom of assembly: we don’t support your protests cause, stay off public property, go hold your protest at your own house. Freedom of conscience: fine think whatever you want but if you attempt to record it in any way we’ll block you. A right without the means to act on it is nothing at all. You’re arguing for a society built like a prison. You should be ashamed.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  This is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because you can see a flaw with a system does not mean there is a flaw. Sometimes the flaw is with you & or your line of thought. In this case, equating "not being allowed to post far-right propaganda on every concourse of communication" is not the same as being harassed at your own home because people are allowed to protest.
- mcguire 5y ago
  So you've nationalized Youtube, eh?
  - tg180 5y ago
    YouTube, as well as other major Internet companies, have a near-monopoly over their sectors which leaves them lacking any competitive drive to be better, do better, or for people to go elsewhere. Without realistic alternatives it is spontaneous (even if erroneous) to think about the implication of private infrastructure over public rights. But the real matter is an issue of scale. I am convinced that sooner or later governments will wake up and that the tech giants will be broken up or severely limited: the European GDPR and the Chinese crackdown on the sector are only the first signs. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/five-new-bills-aim-to-break-up-big-tech-platforms-force-them-to-play-nice/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/five-new-bills-a...
    - mcguire 5y ago
      I have no doubt that you are right. But that's a kind of censorship, too, isn't it?
      - tg180 5y ago
        I don’t see how applying existing antitrust regulations would be censorship. But limiting what companies are able to do is a kind of it, sure!
- sanderjd 5y ago
  Your examples are public places. My comment was about private entities.

BizarroLand 5y ago

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. It stands to reason then that if all speech is truly free eventually some speech will be censored. America doesn't allow people to say "Fuck" on public TV broadcasts, therefore all speech isn't free. No one is harmed by a curse word. Worst case a child will learn the word a few years earlier than when they usually do, and yet we censor that anyway. Therefore, you can't say that all speech is free speech on all channels. What you say in person may at worst get you into an altercation or ostracized, but you have the right to say it. Once your voice is amplified out of earshot you are no longer truly free to speak as you will. You can say what you want to say, yes, but the repercussions of your words amplify with every repetition. Not everyone is aware of that, and when you are on a platform where, by words, you can incite a group to violence safely from the other side of the country, you should have your speech monitored and censored if need be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

tick_tock_tick 5y ago
Go and actually read Popper and you'll find he was close to a free speak maximalist his views on when you shouldn't "tolerate" intolerance was an incredibly high bar that almost nothing ever hits.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  So, I should read 25 books to verify that your one sentence claim is valid? Why not back that up with some relevant quotes to support your thesis, friend? That seems a decent thing to do compared to the litany of homework you callously threw at me.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> Go and actually read Popper and you'll find he was close to a free speak maximalist his views on when you shouldn't "tolerate" intolerance was an incredibly high bar that almost nothing ever hits. > So, I should read 25 books to verify that your one sentence claim is valid? > Why not back that up with some relevant quotes to support your thesis, friend? That seems a decent thing to do compared to the litany of homework you callously threw at me. Your snark isn't warranted. The Wiki article you yourself cited says where Popper introduced the concept and even speaks about what his limitations were. I will let you read that again to find them, rather than providing a quote.

didibus 5y ago

Okay, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that hate speech and propaganda has been a part of almost all atrocities ever done in the past? Or put some other way, how do you reconcile that your freedom can be affected by someone's else's freedom? Like what if I use my freedom to turn others against you and have them hate you and berate you and bully you and ridicule you and refute you, and potentially have them vote for laws that take actions against you, or possibly have them commit hateful acts towards you, etc.

zozbot234 5y ago
I have no issue with people turning against, hating, berating, bullying, etc. me. These are simply matters of feeling and opinion. I do have a problem when other people feel entitled to escalate such conflicts by reacting to these unwelcome points of view with real, actual violence, including government censorship. Even, and perhaps especially, when these people are purporting to act in my defense.
- didibus 5y ago
  Ok, but what are you referring too? Because I'm not sure I'm seeing any government censorship (except for maybe the voter suppression and the child protection laws as well as some of the anti-protest forces deployed by the government in recent protests like BLM). And I'm mostly seeing violence driven by hate speech, like the various shootings happening. I would be very against government censorship or interventions against constitutional rights of free speech and right to assemble and protest, and right to vote. Maybe I just don't have the data you have, but right now I'm not too sure I follow you.
inglor_cz 5y ago
Not the OP, but basically you are complaining about humans. I am not convinced that by banning certain expressions you get any security against future oppression. Stupid hateful people might get trapped by anti-hate-speech laws, but the smarter ones, precisely the ones you need to be careful about, are fairly good at avoiding them and may even use the threat of prosecution to raise sympathy from the part of population that dislikes the incumbent government. Most European countries have vibrant extremist movements (left, right, Islamic) even though their freedom of speech is much more limited than the U.S. standard.