9 ms·

What is "free speech" and how did it manifest?

rusk 5y ago
I'm referring to the proliferation of hate groups, that flourished under the defense that they represented "free speech". I don't think it's quite what Swartz had in mind, though even if he felt it defensible at the time (as I would have) his feelings on the matter may have become more nuanced (as have mine) since then.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Mine have fortified because people declared reasonable statements as hate left and right. There really is no place for nuance and it doesn't net you anything. Places that forbid it aren't free from offense or conflict and are often quite fundamentalist. Hate speech rules simply do not work at all.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Do you think this hate groups just disappear when you censor them? I think it's the opposite and you reinforce their behaviors and thinking.
  - rusk 5y ago
    I think that if you feed and water them they proliferate. You're going to have people with strongly held views, and theirs nothing you can do about that, but you can limit their ability to sway the weak minded however.
    - SuperQue 5y ago
      It's not just that. It's that hate and lies have the same weight as any other opinion. Paradox of tolerance.
      - CountDrewku 5y ago
        Please provide an example. I find it more likely that most of what you're labeling as hate is just a difference in opinion.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      I don't agree at all. I think you can see this is in action with the reaction to COVID in the last couple of years. They've censored anyone who questioned measures to the point where they created massive swaths of the public who don't even believe the disease is real and mistrust the vaccine. Just because you're not seeing these people on your daily social media doesn't mean they're not gathering elsewhere. It's mostly likely a place that doesn't have any alternative views as well. How do you explain large hate groups that existed long before the internet was invented? White supremacy is barely even a threat now, it's such a small minority of people compared to what it was in the past.
- dionidium 5y ago
  > I'm referring to the proliferation of hate groups, that flourished under the defense that they represented "free speech" I don't think it's quite what Swartz had in mind, though even if he felt it defensible at the time (as I would have) his feelings on the matter may have become more nuanced (as have mine) since then. Setting aside the question of whether this has actually happened like you say it has, the much broader critique I'd offer is that nobody who was defending free speech from the left in the 1970s [0] would be surprised that hate groups are allowed to operate under the cover of those protections. It used to be taken as a given on the left that free speech is so important that it is worth defending the right to the worst kinds of speech. I see this a lot, recently -- this sentiment that yeah free speech is important, but you have to consider that nobody expected it to be used like this -- and that's wrong. Your liberal predecessors did know that it would be used like this and they explicitly and clear-headedly defended it, anyway. [0] The ACLU defended literal Nazis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
  - watwut 5y ago
    The issue is the sentiment that many free speech advocates are significantly less concerned where freedom of speech or expression at risk is being left wing. When it is right wing suppressing speech or freedom, all is cool. When someone protests them, suddenly the protest itself is threat to free speech. The insuation is that free speech is less likely to be invoked to protect left or extreme left speech.
  - rusk 5y ago
    > whether this has actually happened like you say it has This is a fairly contrarian line to take. How would you say that it hasn't? > you have to consider that nobody expected it to be used like this To me this seems a little bit of a naive take. Nobody is arguing that free speech should be curtailed - at least not in any legal sense. But as a principle it does compete against various other ones, such as decency and respect, not to mention security and business concerns. It's the people arguing that free-speech as a right is absolute and overrides all else, and whatsmore outside of a purely legal setting (i.e. not just that the state can't prosecute you, but that it gives you the right to insult, and belittle people) that are missing the point. Voltaire offered to defend the right of his opponents to express their thoughts, but did not volunteer to give them a platform, or even to listen. > The ACLU defended literal Nazis I don't see a conflict here. The state should be blind, after all it's important for democracy that Nazis and other dodgy straw men should see their side of the story aired, and thus buy in overall. It doesn't mean that society as a whole can't make judgements on the value of Nazism.
- garbagetime 5y ago
  Supporting freedom of speech means supporting people's freedom to say precisely those things you find most reprehensible. I think Aaron Swartz was principled enough to recognize that, so the allowance of any "hate groups" which might exist was, I hope, something he had in mind. Freedom of speech is something that is good in and of itself. A situation in which the government ruled out some ideas from being discussed or developed is one I would find very unpleasant.
  - rusk 5y ago
    > A situation in which the government ruled out some ideas and yet we have libel laws, anti hate speech provisions, corporate secrecy laws and so on and so forth all of which prohibit me from saying things just because I feel like it. But I don't think that's even the discussion any more. The discussion is whether you should be obligated to provide these reprehensible views with a platform, and to what degree it should be possible for us to tune them out altogether, as a matter of personal preference. Reddit made a choice, perhaps commercially driven to apply a certain modicum of taste and decency to their platform, to complaints from "free speech advocates". Just what these people stand for, and to what degree it should be defended, is different from what voltaire was talking about.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      The demand is that platform remove certain content and certain opinions. You are not allowed to have a wrong opinion on vaccinations currently for allegedly safety reasons. You have warped that claim, since you want to remove content. There are platforms where everything goes and they are under attack.
    - garbagetime 5y ago
      > and yet we have libel laws, anti hate speech provisions, corporate secrecy laws and so on and so forth all of which prohibit me from saying things just because I feel like it. Not sure what you meant by this paragraph. > But I don't think that's even the discussion any more. The discussion is whether you should be obligated to provide these reprehensible views with a platform, and to what degree it should be possible for us to tune them out altogether, as a matter of personal preference. I think both discussions are extremely important at this point in time. Personally, I don't think companies should be obligated to provide a platform for people with all kinds of ideas, but I think that they should nonetheless do so (because I think freedom of speech is a good thing). I am in favour of freedom of speech on social media, but not in favour of this being mandated by law (because it isn't contradictory to freedom of speech to have some spaces in which freedom of speech is not allowed). >Reddit made a choice, perhaps commercially driven to apply a certain modicum of taste and decency to their platform, to complaints from "free speech advocates". Just what these people stand for, and to what degree it should be defended, is different from what voltaire was talking about. I'm not sure what Voltaire was talking about, because I have not read Voltaire. But if one believes that freedom of speech is valuable in and of itself, or that it is valuable because it leads to the discovery of great truths, then one ought to be in favour of freedom of speech on Reddit.
- kragen 5y ago
  One of Aaron's reasons in 02012 for opposing the centralization of the web in services like Twitter (and, yes, Reddit) was precisely that people would get knocked offline with the excuse of "hate speech" http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/sfwants http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/sfwants: Imagine Tim had built the Web the same way folks built Twitter. All our web pages would be would be hosted by a single company, accessed through an API that they defined and could change at whim. Web applications would be far weaker than they are today (since it would be hard to store anything interesting on TimCo’s servers) and powerful corporations would constantly be knocking people offline permanently for various terms-of-service violations (no trademark infringement! no hate speech!).
  - rusk 5y ago
    This is an argument against centralisation, not against the bounds of free speech.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      But the example given is quite literal. He described the inevitable development now being sold as "progress" or "maturity" when business takes a central position. This isn't rocket science. It is an argument about who set the bound of acceptable speech if you are more precise.
    - kragen 5y ago
      The premise of that argument against centralization is that silencing people for "hate speech" is a bad thing, rusk. If he'd thought it was good to silence people for "hate speech", or expected his readers to, then it would be an argument in favor of centralization, not against it.
      - rusk 5y ago
        My point Kragen was kind of the inverse of that. Not so much that the argument for censorship was strengthened but moreso what the human condition did with those provileges.
dymk 5y ago
Mostly sea lions.

rusk 5y ago

I'm referring to the proliferation of hate groups, that flourished under the defense that they represented "free speech". I don't think it's quite what Swartz had in mind, though even if he felt it defensible at the time (as I would have) his feelings on the matter may have become more nuanced (as have mine) since then.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Mine have fortified because people declared reasonable statements as hate left and right. There really is no place for nuance and it doesn't net you anything. Places that forbid it aren't free from offense or conflict and are often quite fundamentalist. Hate speech rules simply do not work at all.
CountDrewku 5y ago
Do you think this hate groups just disappear when you censor them? I think it's the opposite and you reinforce their behaviors and thinking.
- rusk 5y ago
  I think that if you feed and water them they proliferate. You're going to have people with strongly held views, and theirs nothing you can do about that, but you can limit their ability to sway the weak minded however.
  - SuperQue 5y ago
    It's not just that. It's that hate and lies have the same weight as any other opinion. Paradox of tolerance.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      Please provide an example. I find it more likely that most of what you're labeling as hate is just a difference in opinion.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    I don't agree at all. I think you can see this is in action with the reaction to COVID in the last couple of years. They've censored anyone who questioned measures to the point where they created massive swaths of the public who don't even believe the disease is real and mistrust the vaccine. Just because you're not seeing these people on your daily social media doesn't mean they're not gathering elsewhere. It's mostly likely a place that doesn't have any alternative views as well. How do you explain large hate groups that existed long before the internet was invented? White supremacy is barely even a threat now, it's such a small minority of people compared to what it was in the past.
dionidium 5y ago
> I'm referring to the proliferation of hate groups, that flourished under the defense that they represented "free speech" I don't think it's quite what Swartz had in mind, though even if he felt it defensible at the time (as I would have) his feelings on the matter may have become more nuanced (as have mine) since then. Setting aside the question of whether this has actually happened like you say it has, the much broader critique I'd offer is that nobody who was defending free speech from the left in the 1970s [0] would be surprised that hate groups are allowed to operate under the cover of those protections. It used to be taken as a given on the left that free speech is so important that it is worth defending the right to the worst kinds of speech. I see this a lot, recently -- this sentiment that yeah free speech is important, but you have to consider that nobody expected it to be used like this -- and that's wrong. Your liberal predecessors did know that it would be used like this and they explicitly and clear-headedly defended it, anyway. [0] The ACLU defended literal Nazis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
- watwut 5y ago
  The issue is the sentiment that many free speech advocates are significantly less concerned where freedom of speech or expression at risk is being left wing. When it is right wing suppressing speech or freedom, all is cool. When someone protests them, suddenly the protest itself is threat to free speech. The insuation is that free speech is less likely to be invoked to protect left or extreme left speech.
- rusk 5y ago
  > whether this has actually happened like you say it has This is a fairly contrarian line to take. How would you say that it hasn't? > you have to consider that nobody expected it to be used like this To me this seems a little bit of a naive take. Nobody is arguing that free speech should be curtailed - at least not in any legal sense. But as a principle it does compete against various other ones, such as decency and respect, not to mention security and business concerns. It's the people arguing that free-speech as a right is absolute and overrides all else, and whatsmore outside of a purely legal setting (i.e. not just that the state can't prosecute you, but that it gives you the right to insult, and belittle people) that are missing the point. Voltaire offered to defend the right of his opponents to express their thoughts, but did not volunteer to give them a platform, or even to listen. > The ACLU defended literal Nazis I don't see a conflict here. The state should be blind, after all it's important for democracy that Nazis and other dodgy straw men should see their side of the story aired, and thus buy in overall. It doesn't mean that society as a whole can't make judgements on the value of Nazism.
garbagetime 5y ago
Supporting freedom of speech means supporting people's freedom to say precisely those things you find most reprehensible. I think Aaron Swartz was principled enough to recognize that, so the allowance of any "hate groups" which might exist was, I hope, something he had in mind. Freedom of speech is something that is good in and of itself. A situation in which the government ruled out some ideas from being discussed or developed is one I would find very unpleasant.
- rusk 5y ago
  > A situation in which the government ruled out some ideas and yet we have libel laws, anti hate speech provisions, corporate secrecy laws and so on and so forth all of which prohibit me from saying things just because I feel like it. But I don't think that's even the discussion any more. The discussion is whether you should be obligated to provide these reprehensible views with a platform, and to what degree it should be possible for us to tune them out altogether, as a matter of personal preference. Reddit made a choice, perhaps commercially driven to apply a certain modicum of taste and decency to their platform, to complaints from "free speech advocates". Just what these people stand for, and to what degree it should be defended, is different from what voltaire was talking about.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    The demand is that platform remove certain content and certain opinions. You are not allowed to have a wrong opinion on vaccinations currently for allegedly safety reasons. You have warped that claim, since you want to remove content. There are platforms where everything goes and they are under attack.
  - garbagetime 5y ago
    > and yet we have libel laws, anti hate speech provisions, corporate secrecy laws and so on and so forth all of which prohibit me from saying things just because I feel like it. Not sure what you meant by this paragraph. > But I don't think that's even the discussion any more. The discussion is whether you should be obligated to provide these reprehensible views with a platform, and to what degree it should be possible for us to tune them out altogether, as a matter of personal preference. I think both discussions are extremely important at this point in time. Personally, I don't think companies should be obligated to provide a platform for people with all kinds of ideas, but I think that they should nonetheless do so (because I think freedom of speech is a good thing). I am in favour of freedom of speech on social media, but not in favour of this being mandated by law (because it isn't contradictory to freedom of speech to have some spaces in which freedom of speech is not allowed). >Reddit made a choice, perhaps commercially driven to apply a certain modicum of taste and decency to their platform, to complaints from "free speech advocates". Just what these people stand for, and to what degree it should be defended, is different from what voltaire was talking about. I'm not sure what Voltaire was talking about, because I have not read Voltaire. But if one believes that freedom of speech is valuable in and of itself, or that it is valuable because it leads to the discovery of great truths, then one ought to be in favour of freedom of speech on Reddit.
kragen 5y ago
One of Aaron's reasons in 02012 for opposing the centralization of the web in services like Twitter (and, yes, Reddit) was precisely that people would get knocked offline with the excuse of "hate speech" http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/sfwants http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/sfwants: Imagine Tim had built the Web the same way folks built Twitter. All our web pages would be would be hosted by a single company, accessed through an API that they defined and could change at whim. Web applications would be far weaker than they are today (since it would be hard to store anything interesting on TimCo’s servers) and powerful corporations would constantly be knocking people offline permanently for various terms-of-service violations (no trademark infringement! no hate speech!).
- rusk 5y ago
  This is an argument against centralisation, not against the bounds of free speech.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    But the example given is quite literal. He described the inevitable development now being sold as "progress" or "maturity" when business takes a central position. This isn't rocket science. It is an argument about who set the bound of acceptable speech if you are more precise.
  - kragen 5y ago
    The premise of that argument against centralization is that silencing people for "hate speech" is a bad thing, rusk. If he'd thought it was good to silence people for "hate speech", or expected his readers to, then it would be an argument in favor of centralization, not against it.
    - rusk 5y ago
      My point Kragen was kind of the inverse of that. Not so much that the argument for censorship was strengthened but moreso what the human condition did with those provileges.

dymk 5y ago

Mostly sea lions.