3 ms·

> "free speech" might be pointless because very few will dare to speak their minds... If authorities aren't going to punish someone, then some groups will. I a

by effie 5y ago

> "free speech" might be pointless because very few will dare to speak their minds... If authorities aren't going to punish someone, then some groups will. I agree freedom of speech is never absolute, and it is not equally guaranteed/protected. But the idea of free speech is not pointless, even when very few will dare to exercise it because of those realities. Those few being there, despite the grave consequences from non-government or even governmental groups, are part of what makes their speech powerful and inspiring. That's why Damore or Snowden were actually boosted by those groups' retaliation. Freedom of speech does not mean everybody can say whatever without any repercussion, or that government will help defend you. It means government won't retaliate against you, and you have to strategize how you are going to execute it.

rsj_hn 5y ago
I agree with your major points, but with some modifications: > It means government won't retaliate against you No, that's the meaning of the first amendment. Free Speech is a principle of tolerance not limited to the government. If society as a whole believes in Free speech, that society as a whole will be more tolerant, both in private and public spaces. Not absolutely tolerant, but more tolerant. The first amendment is the codification into law of this broad principle. The other thing, which is not talked about nearly as much, are the forces opposed to free speech. You have, basically, a tug of war. On the one hand, society believes that "free speech" is a valuable principle. So it does things like having a generous moderation policy on hacker news and laws like the first amendment are passed. But then you have the opposing forces, the ones who say "free speech is nice, but issue X is so important we must punish people who speak against it". That has traditionally been things like advocating violence. Now if the set of such issues fills up all of life, then you will lose free speech. So the real problem is not people exploiting free speech -- the paradox of tolerance is a purely intellectual exercise that almost never manifests in the real world. In the real world you have the principle of intolerance, that more and more aspects of ordinary life are put into the "this is violence" bucket and so used to restrict free speech, up until people claim that speech itself is violence. No society has ever come close enough to valuing free speech so much that the paradox of intolerance could possibly kick in.
- effie 5y ago
  1st amendment is explicitly restricting government, I don't think it is codifying some real situation of tolerance in society that once occured into law. There may have never been such universal tolerance in U.S., maybe there was an idea of it. Your examples are not good - HN is private website, 1st amendment was passed by a small group of elites, maybe with good intentions, but hardly because of tolerant society. I agree with you on the argument "paradox of tolerance" - it talks about an extreme situation that mostly does not happen, as a reason for general policy. This argument seems often misused as a reason to come down hard on any speech that is objectionable to some group. More sane policy would be to adopt a default of free speech, be tolerant, and only then decide on exceptions on case by case basis, like about promoting Nazism in Europe. I don't think promoting Nazism should be protected the same way other free speech is, because of the concrete example of tragic consequences we have where it lead and the cost whole world had to pay.

by effie 5y ago

rsj_hn 5y ago

I agree with your major points, but with some modifications: > It means government won't retaliate against you No, that's the meaning of the first amendment. Free Speech is a principle of tolerance not limited to the government. If society as a whole believes in Free speech, that society as a whole will be more tolerant, both in private and public spaces. Not absolutely tolerant, but more tolerant. The first amendment is the codification into law of this broad principle. The other thing, which is not talked about nearly as much, are the forces opposed to free speech. You have, basically, a tug of war. On the one hand, society believes that "free speech" is a valuable principle. So it does things like having a generous moderation policy on hacker news and laws like the first amendment are passed. But then you have the opposing forces, the ones who say "free speech is nice, but issue X is so important we must punish people who speak against it". That has traditionally been things like advocating violence. Now if the set of such issues fills up all of life, then you will lose free speech. So the real problem is not people exploiting free speech -- the paradox of tolerance is a purely intellectual exercise that almost never manifests in the real world. In the real world you have the principle of intolerance, that more and more aspects of ordinary life are put into the "this is violence" bucket and so used to restrict free speech, up until people claim that speech itself is violence. No society has ever come close enough to valuing free speech so much that the paradox of intolerance could possibly kick in.

effie 5y ago
1st amendment is explicitly restricting government, I don't think it is codifying some real situation of tolerance in society that once occured into law. There may have never been such universal tolerance in U.S., maybe there was an idea of it. Your examples are not good - HN is private website, 1st amendment was passed by a small group of elites, maybe with good intentions, but hardly because of tolerant society. I agree with you on the argument "paradox of tolerance" - it talks about an extreme situation that mostly does not happen, as a reason for general policy. This argument seems often misused as a reason to come down hard on any speech that is objectionable to some group. More sane policy would be to adopt a default of free speech, be tolerant, and only then decide on exceptions on case by case basis, like about promoting Nazism in Europe. I don't think promoting Nazism should be protected the same way other free speech is, because of the concrete example of tragic consequences we have where it lead and the cost whole world had to pay.