4 ms·

Enemies? Sam has a lot of power. We've seen over the last few decades how speech influences a lot of Sams and completely changes society. Society is the sum

by YZF 5y ago

Enemies? Sam has a lot of power. We've seen over the last few decades how speech influences a lot of Sams and completely changes society. Society is the sum of all Sams and Sams have a lot of power. Sam from around the block is the Sam that used to report or burn the witches in the 1500's. Now LGBTQ isn't necessarily the dearest topic to my heart, but freedom is and this is just one aspect of it. Racism and bigotry are all over the place. What do we do about it? I would argue that those mindsets are not that dissimilar then those causing issues with governments and corporations.

ameminator 5y ago
If you believe in freedom of expression and of speech, it doesn't matter how much power Sam has, even if you disagree with what he says. I don't like or agree with white supremacists, but I consider the ACLU defense of their speech a monument to our civilization's respect of human rights.
- boppo1 5y ago
  > ACLU defense of their speech a monument to our civilization's respect of human rights. Is there an argument from a landmark case or are you speaking gsnerally?
  - ameminator 5y ago
    Here is the specific case I am referencing: https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk...
    - boppo1 5y ago
      Neat, thanks
- YZF 5y ago
  In the US I think hate speech is protected under freedom of speech but I disagree with that. Hate speech leads to violence. This isn't about disagreeing with what Sam says. In a perfect world people decouple "speech" from their actions/beliefs but in the real world people act on what they believe and what they believe is influenced by "speech" (sometimes more so than by things like "facts", "reality", "science", "logic".) Now some of that is mostly harmless, like the flat earth. But if your speech results in harm then you should be held responsible and speech that we know results in harm should not be protected.
  - ameminator 5y ago
    How exactly do you quantify this harm? Most of these re-definitions of "harmful" speech always seem unclear and difficult to define. Under the current legal framework (which you said you disagreed with) we already have standards and methods of quantifying that harm when speech directly incites violence. These same measures also explicitly define anything else as not harmful. The way I see it, the government has more of a duty to protect free speech than it does to prevent nebulous, poorly-defined and indirect harm. Outside of these moral implications (that no speech is fundamentally harmful, that we must have the freedom to have incorrect ideas), efforts to "prevent harmful speech" always seem to hurt society and individuals when put into practice. There is always the problem of who defines what harm is (usually it's the government) and such measures exist now explicitly to prevent the government from infringing on these rights.
    - YZF 5y ago
      Where I live this what we got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada Also see the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United... "Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3][4] Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[5] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[6]" There's plenty of laws where there is some ambiguity and the courts and juries need to interpret them. There are lots (most?) countries that do not have the same level of protection of free speech like the US has and it doesn't generally seem to "hurt society and individuals". If you compare the US to other modern democracies in the west it's not apparent that "free speech" with no limits is a win and there's no problem in those other countries in speaking out in general on any/many topics. You'll be stretched to find an example of hate laws abused as a way of restricting general freedoms.
pessimizer 5y ago
> Sam has a lot of power. We've seen over the last few decades how speech influences a lot of Sams and completely changes society. You've said this, but you haven't argued it. Sam didn't make America racist.
- YZF 5y ago
  Sure. The roots of racism and what makes/made America racist are a lot more complicated. For an individual racist that is a result of the "speech" they have been exposed to over their life time. Assuming you believe people aren't born racist.

by YZF 5y ago

ameminator 5y ago

If you believe in freedom of expression and of speech, it doesn't matter how much power Sam has, even if you disagree with what he says. I don't like or agree with white supremacists, but I consider the ACLU defense of their speech a monument to our civilization's respect of human rights.

boppo1 5y ago
> ACLU defense of their speech a monument to our civilization's respect of human rights. Is there an argument from a landmark case or are you speaking gsnerally?
- ameminator 5y ago
  Here is the specific case I am referencing: https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk...
  - boppo1 5y ago
    Neat, thanks
YZF 5y ago
In the US I think hate speech is protected under freedom of speech but I disagree with that. Hate speech leads to violence. This isn't about disagreeing with what Sam says. In a perfect world people decouple "speech" from their actions/beliefs but in the real world people act on what they believe and what they believe is influenced by "speech" (sometimes more so than by things like "facts", "reality", "science", "logic".) Now some of that is mostly harmless, like the flat earth. But if your speech results in harm then you should be held responsible and speech that we know results in harm should not be protected.
- ameminator 5y ago
  How exactly do you quantify this harm? Most of these re-definitions of "harmful" speech always seem unclear and difficult to define. Under the current legal framework (which you said you disagreed with) we already have standards and methods of quantifying that harm when speech directly incites violence. These same measures also explicitly define anything else as not harmful. The way I see it, the government has more of a duty to protect free speech than it does to prevent nebulous, poorly-defined and indirect harm. Outside of these moral implications (that no speech is fundamentally harmful, that we must have the freedom to have incorrect ideas), efforts to "prevent harmful speech" always seem to hurt society and individuals when put into practice. There is always the problem of who defines what harm is (usually it's the government) and such measures exist now explicitly to prevent the government from infringing on these rights.
  - YZF 5y ago
    Where I live this what we got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada Also see the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United... "Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3][4] Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[5] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[6]" There's plenty of laws where there is some ambiguity and the courts and juries need to interpret them. There are lots (most?) countries that do not have the same level of protection of free speech like the US has and it doesn't generally seem to "hurt society and individuals". If you compare the US to other modern democracies in the west it's not apparent that "free speech" with no limits is a win and there's no problem in those other countries in speaking out in general on any/many topics. You'll be stretched to find an example of hate laws abused as a way of restricting general freedoms.

pessimizer 5y ago

> Sam has a lot of power. We've seen over the last few decades how speech influences a lot of Sams and completely changes society. You've said this, but you haven't argued it. Sam didn't make America racist.

YZF 5y ago
Sure. The roots of racism and what makes/made America racist are a lot more complicated. For an individual racist that is a result of the "speech" they have been exposed to over their life time. Assuming you believe people aren't born racist.