5 ms·

It's funny to me because Free Speech is one of those topics on its own that doesn't permit nuance in my experience - either you're for it or you're a dictator/s

It's funny to me because Free Speech is one of those topics on its own that doesn't permit nuance in my experience - either you're for it or you're a dictator/sheep/lapdog/etc. In reality though, laws have been limiting speech for hundreds of years, and those laws and judgements are enforced by the government. The idea that it is sacrosanct and is (and should "continue" to be) unabated is already not what happens. The usual example is about shouting bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded movie theatre but those are more about mischief than any freedom to say a thing (you aren't punished for the words alone). However, Libel and Slander laws exist and have for a long long time and are limits on free speech. I'm not in favor of draconian laws designed to chill debate but it's important to recognize that limits already exist and how we navigate where to draw the line is the key I think.

spamizbad 5y ago
Nobody complained when social media sites shut down ISIL videos or Taliban content. And why would they? Those are bad ideas from bad people! But anti-vaccine content? Why, that could be your neighbor! And your neighbor doesn't deserve to be censored (unlike the evil people who definitely needed to be)
- evv555 5y ago
  That's a very selective interpretation on events. ISIS propaganda spread like wildfire through Twitter. The administration did nothing and the media barely made a peep about the root cause until the horses had already left the barn. None of these "concerned" stakeholders gave a shit about the socially corrosive nature of social media and they still don't beyond their own interests.
  - rchaud 5y ago
    Where's your proof that the administration did nothing? Shutting down terrorism content is about the easiest political slam dunk imaginable. I have never seen ISIS propaganda. Plenty of "Fauci went to school with Bill Gates and was CEO of Moderna" memes, though.
    - evv555 5y ago
      >Where's your proof that the administration did nothing? Shutting down terrorism content is about the easiest political slam dunk imaginable. Before they were terrorists they were "insurgents" of the "Arab Spring". Something that the administration and Twitter/SM were more than willing to lean into before they lost control of the situation. >I have never seen ISIS propaganda. Plenty of "Fauci went to school with Bill Gates and was CEO of Moderna" memes, though. That's more a function of your age and filter bubble not whether there was ISIS propaganda which is well documented.
      - rchaud 5y ago
        What remains undocumented however is your claim that no action was taken.
        evv555 5y ago
        This is a very strange approach to discourse. What action do you think was taken and where's the documentation? The administration was openly showing support for the Arab Spring mobs and even built up a military coalition in its support. Lack of knowledge on current events isn't the same as taking a skeptical stance.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        I mean, this isn't really true: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1370/close-parts-internet-where-isis/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpomete... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-plans-shake-up-in-propaganda-war-against-the-islamic-state/2016/01/08/d482255c-b585-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/technology-once-used-to-combat-isis-propaganda-is-enlisted-by-democratic-group-to-counter-trumps-coronavirus-messaging/2020/05/01/6bed5f70-8a5b-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/technology-once-used... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07/hillary-clinton-wants-tech-companies-to-help-disrupt-isis-what-does-that-even-mean/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07... ... Social media companies actually had a hugely successful anti-ISIS recruiting and propoganda campaign. This was something that everyone wanted a bit of credit for, but was ultimately totally uncontroversial because terrorists bad and no one complains when companies deplatform them.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >Nobody complained when social media sites shut down ISIL videos or Taliban content. People did. You didn't hear about it because they were brushed aside as free speech extremists and wacko libertarians.
  - LudvigVanHassen 5y ago
    Or they were kids and too young to comment or understand the situation. I would have protested then if I were an adult with my life understanding now.
- ioslipstream 5y ago
  Imagine if they used their powers to shut down something that's actually harmful, like, I don't know, sex trafficking. If they put as much energy into stifling human trafficking as they did dissenting covid opinions, we might make a dent in it.
- throwawayjeje 5y ago
  I didn't cheer. I don't cheer unless the videos are snuff (a beheading) or pornographic (not in ISIS' case). For the later I wouldn't even erase such content from the internet. All I demand is a proper age verification system for viewers and the actors. More guarantees that the actresses aren't, in fact, being abused by their situation would be nice - what can I say, I dare to dream.
  - judahmeek 5y ago
    So you agree that there should be restrictions on speech that negatively impacts public health then. You just disagree on where the line should be drawn.
- mariodiana 5y ago
  Those were essentially recruitment videos for enemies we were literally at war with. If we are literally at war with individuals skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccines, we should say so.
abecedarius 5y ago
> either you're for it or you're a dictator/sheep/lapdog/etc. This is the nature of the things we come to see as rights. Why is an X a 'right' and not just a nice idea? Because of a history of political entrepreneurs pushing, pushing, pushing against it -- it's just a reasonable tradeoff for this case, can't you see? A right is a Schelling fence beyond which the 'reasonable' tradeoffs must face a much stronger presumption against them. Of course the world is complicated. One of the most salient complications is the ubiquity through history of clever people with justifications why they need power over others. When in this context you bring up the indisputable fact that no human question is 100% clear, the effect is to weaken the fence.
xwowsersx 5y ago
This is true, there are no absolute rights. However, the examples you cite have no resemblance to the stifling of careful discussion which might, in some way, question the wisdom of universal vaccination or inquire about the long-term effects, etc. That kind of speech is qualitatively different from incitement to violence and other clear and present danger cases. So I'm not sure how pointing out that in some abstract sense rights are never absolute has any bearing on this discussion. The chilling of speech in the public square that we are currently witnessing has no clear limits and the logic used to justify it ends up making this tantamount to setting up some kind of a wrongspeak standard. In a free society, individuals must be uninhibited in their investigation of the wisdom of public health policy. Equating this to the "yeling fire in a crowded theater" case is silly.
Negitivefrags 5y ago
You could use this exact argument form to argue that there are limits to your “right to life” as well. After all, there are laws that have existed to limit that right for hundreds of years. The death penalty. My point is that just because there have been laws in the past, that changes nothing about if something should be a right or not.
chroem- 5y ago
> In reality though, laws have been limiting speech for hundreds of years, and those laws and judgements are enforced by the government. The idea that it is sacrosanct and is (and should "continue" to be) unabated is already not what happens. The usual example is about shouting bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded movie theatre but those are more about mischief than any freedom to say a thing (you aren't punished for the words alone). However, Libel and Slander laws exist and have for a long long time and are limits on free speech. Why is it that I have never heard these laws cited outside the context of justifying additional restrictions on freedom of speech, and especially restrictions on political speech? Without digging for an example, when is the last time you personally encountered someone who was prosecuted for saying a naughty word in a movie theater or saying mean things about someone online?
- Frondo 5y ago
  Well, a few days ago we had this article on HN... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28682582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28682582 (Tesla suing people for defamation over social media posts)
raxxorrax 5y ago
Academics have warned that their faculties get more ideological and contrarian views are suppressed, people begin to self-censor. There is certainly a very real threat to freedom of expression, opinion, speech or whatever you want to call it. I think in exchange we should recognize this a well. That is of course also fundamentally contrary to your lapdog characterization.

spamizbad 5y ago

Nobody complained when social media sites shut down ISIL videos or Taliban content. And why would they? Those are bad ideas from bad people! But anti-vaccine content? Why, that could be your neighbor! And your neighbor doesn't deserve to be censored (unlike the evil people who definitely needed to be)

evv555 5y ago
That's a very selective interpretation on events. ISIS propaganda spread like wildfire through Twitter. The administration did nothing and the media barely made a peep about the root cause until the horses had already left the barn. None of these "concerned" stakeholders gave a shit about the socially corrosive nature of social media and they still don't beyond their own interests.
- rchaud 5y ago
  Where's your proof that the administration did nothing? Shutting down terrorism content is about the easiest political slam dunk imaginable. I have never seen ISIS propaganda. Plenty of "Fauci went to school with Bill Gates and was CEO of Moderna" memes, though.
  - evv555 5y ago
    >Where's your proof that the administration did nothing? Shutting down terrorism content is about the easiest political slam dunk imaginable. Before they were terrorists they were "insurgents" of the "Arab Spring". Something that the administration and Twitter/SM were more than willing to lean into before they lost control of the situation. >I have never seen ISIS propaganda. Plenty of "Fauci went to school with Bill Gates and was CEO of Moderna" memes, though. That's more a function of your age and filter bubble not whether there was ISIS propaganda which is well documented.
    - rchaud 5y ago
      What remains undocumented however is your claim that no action was taken.
      - evv555 5y ago
        This is a very strange approach to discourse. What action do you think was taken and where's the documentation? The administration was openly showing support for the Arab Spring mobs and even built up a military coalition in its support. Lack of knowledge on current events isn't the same as taking a skeptical stance.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        I mean, this isn't really true: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1370/close-parts-internet-where-isis/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpomete... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-plans-shake-up-in-propaganda-war-against-the-islamic-state/2016/01/08/d482255c-b585-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/technology-once-used-to-combat-isis-propaganda-is-enlisted-by-democratic-group-to-counter-trumps-coronavirus-messaging/2020/05/01/6bed5f70-8a5b-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/technology-once-used... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07/hillary-clinton-wants-tech-companies-to-help-disrupt-isis-what-does-that-even-mean/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07... ... Social media companies actually had a hugely successful anti-ISIS recruiting and propoganda campaign. This was something that everyone wanted a bit of credit for, but was ultimately totally uncontroversial because terrorists bad and no one complains when companies deplatform them.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>Nobody complained when social media sites shut down ISIL videos or Taliban content. People did. You didn't hear about it because they were brushed aside as free speech extremists and wacko libertarians.
- LudvigVanHassen 5y ago
  Or they were kids and too young to comment or understand the situation. I would have protested then if I were an adult with my life understanding now.
ioslipstream 5y ago
Imagine if they used their powers to shut down something that's actually harmful, like, I don't know, sex trafficking. If they put as much energy into stifling human trafficking as they did dissenting covid opinions, we might make a dent in it.
throwawayjeje 5y ago
I didn't cheer. I don't cheer unless the videos are snuff (a beheading) or pornographic (not in ISIS' case). For the later I wouldn't even erase such content from the internet. All I demand is a proper age verification system for viewers and the actors. More guarantees that the actresses aren't, in fact, being abused by their situation would be nice - what can I say, I dare to dream.
- judahmeek 5y ago
  So you agree that there should be restrictions on speech that negatively impacts public health then. You just disagree on where the line should be drawn.
mariodiana 5y ago
Those were essentially recruitment videos for enemies we were literally at war with. If we are literally at war with individuals skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccines, we should say so.

abecedarius 5y ago

> either you're for it or you're a dictator/sheep/lapdog/etc. This is the nature of the things we come to see as rights. Why is an X a 'right' and not just a nice idea? Because of a history of political entrepreneurs pushing, pushing, pushing against it -- it's just a reasonable tradeoff for this case, can't you see? A right is a Schelling fence beyond which the 'reasonable' tradeoffs must face a much stronger presumption against them. Of course the world is complicated. One of the most salient complications is the ubiquity through history of clever people with justifications why they need power over others. When in this context you bring up the indisputable fact that no human question is 100% clear, the effect is to weaken the fence.

xwowsersx 5y ago

This is true, there are no absolute rights. However, the examples you cite have no resemblance to the stifling of careful discussion which might, in some way, question the wisdom of universal vaccination or inquire about the long-term effects, etc. That kind of speech is qualitatively different from incitement to violence and other clear and present danger cases. So I'm not sure how pointing out that in some abstract sense rights are never absolute has any bearing on this discussion. The chilling of speech in the public square that we are currently witnessing has no clear limits and the logic used to justify it ends up making this tantamount to setting up some kind of a wrongspeak standard. In a free society, individuals must be uninhibited in their investigation of the wisdom of public health policy. Equating this to the "yeling fire in a crowded theater" case is silly.

Negitivefrags 5y ago

You could use this exact argument form to argue that there are limits to your “right to life” as well. After all, there are laws that have existed to limit that right for hundreds of years. The death penalty. My point is that just because there have been laws in the past, that changes nothing about if something should be a right or not.

chroem- 5y ago

> In reality though, laws have been limiting speech for hundreds of years, and those laws and judgements are enforced by the government. The idea that it is sacrosanct and is (and should "continue" to be) unabated is already not what happens. The usual example is about shouting bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded movie theatre but those are more about mischief than any freedom to say a thing (you aren't punished for the words alone). However, Libel and Slander laws exist and have for a long long time and are limits on free speech. Why is it that I have never heard these laws cited outside the context of justifying additional restrictions on freedom of speech, and especially restrictions on political speech? Without digging for an example, when is the last time you personally encountered someone who was prosecuted for saying a naughty word in a movie theater or saying mean things about someone online?

Frondo 5y ago
Well, a few days ago we had this article on HN... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28682582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28682582 (Tesla suing people for defamation over social media posts)

raxxorrax 5y ago

Academics have warned that their faculties get more ideological and contrarian views are suppressed, people begin to self-censor. There is certainly a very real threat to freedom of expression, opinion, speech or whatever you want to call it. I think in exchange we should recognize this a well. That is of course also fundamentally contrary to your lapdog characterization.