5 ms·

>Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". Freedom of speech is a principle--not the bare minimum allowable under the first am

>Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". Freedom of speech is a principle--not the bare minimum allowable under the first amendment. You don't agree with the principle of freedom of speech if you support shunning from debate anyone who holds an opinion you disagree with. That said, you don't have to agree with the principle of free speech. And the freedom of speech / association gives you the right to shun people. But your behavior is contrary to the principle of freedom of speech.

sanderjd 5y ago
This isn't true because shunning opinions is its own kind of speech. I think it is better captured as "freedom of association" but these are two sides of the same coin. People who see themselves as like free speech maximalists, beyond just being against the limitation of speech by government force, always seem to ignore this part.
- rhino369 5y ago
  I literally explained how its speech but against the principle of free speech--and you just cherry picked around the explanation. Hardly ignoring it. Statement and actions that are against freedom of speech are still allowed under freedom of speech. That's not some GOTCHA against the freedom of speech. Young should be allowed to do what he's doing. But he should fully expect to be called a censoring blacklister.
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    I didn't cherry pick. What you're saying here just doesn't really make sense. It isn't "against freedom of speech" to exercise your own freedom of association.
    - rhino369 5y ago
      Obviously you can speak against freedom of speech. The freedom of speech would allow that speech (and nobody is saying Young should be prevented from what he is doing). But you'd still be advocating censorship. You can join a political group advocating for censorship. That's attempted censorship even if its allowed under freedom of speech. So yes, you can exercise your freedom of speech to speak against freedom of speech. There is no contradiction.
      - sanderjd 5y ago
        Yes, you can speak against freedom of speech, that just isn't what's going on here. Saying "I don't want to be associated with a company that is associated with this person" is not "speaking against free speech". Saying "this person should be kept from speaking anywhere" would be speaking against free speech, but that's not what's going on here.
xoa 5y ago
>Freedom of speech is a principle Yes, the principle that force should not be used to compel speech since no single oracle can be trusted to it. Not that all ideas and values are equal, and indeed on the contrary the entire point of freedom of speech is that they aren't. Freedom of speech is a process, a system to try to let us grope our way towards truth and better values and adapt to changing circumstances, to maintain a dynamic equilibrium that leaves open the chance we're wrong or that what makes sense now won't in the future. Culling out the crap is a huge part of what it's all about. >But your behavior is contrary to the principle of freedom of speech. Nope, yours is! A mushy "everything is the same" implicitly negates any need for protection.
- rhino369 5y ago
  Culling out crap by criticizing it--100% within the scope of freedom of speech. Culling out whatever you think is crap by organizing a boycott unless people literally ban that content is censorship.
  - xoa 5y ago
    >Culling out whatever you think is crap by organizing a boycott unless people literally ban that content is censorship. No, it's free speech. It's literally engaging in freedom of association yourself and speech to try to convince other people to exercise their freedoms of association and speech towards ideas and values one considers important. And it isn't without risk or personal cost either. Boycotts necessarily involve sacrificing some value the entity offers. If other people won't go along with it because they don't agree obviously it goes nowhere. Even if lots of people do go along with it, the entity people are trying to convince may well reject it anyway and just take the hit, or calculate they can outlast it, or argue back and convince people the other way. You're arguing that free speech shouldn't cover trying to convince anyone else of your own values, or that people shouldn't be allowed to act on said values if they are won over and wish to. That's wild stuff.
denton-scratch 5y ago
> Freedom of speech is a principle Fair enough; but it's only one principle. It doesn't override all the other principles. Some people from the land of the 1st Amendment seem to think it does. > not the bare minimum allowable under the first amendment. The 1st Amendment is not a "bare minimum" - AFAIAA it's the most maximalist free-speech legal provision in the world. Someone upthread spoke of "cancelling Spotify". Cancelling is about denying people a platform, no? How is Young denying Spotify a platform, by encouraging others to stay away from Spotify? That's called a boycott, which amounts to individuals choosing freely what to do with their time and money. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
- rhino369 5y ago
  Like I said, you don't have to agree with the principle. But you can't claim to and still try to shun people (from society as a whole[1]). It's not bare minimum with regard to its restrictions on government action. But it doesn't apply to (and is not meant to) apply to other institutions. For example, nobody would anti-discrimination principles by the 14th amendment and conclude that its therefore not discrimination for a private citizen to discriminate against minorities. [1]you can certain shun them from actual organizations that aren't meant to be open platforms for everyone. Most organizations are not open platforms, and their employers represent the organization.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > But you can't claim to and still try to shun people (from society as a whole[1]) Well, that's an interesting sentence-construction. How does person A shun person B from group X? "Shunning" isn't normally a thing that you do to someone from something. IOW, If you are shunned by society as a whole, then it is society as a whole that has shunned you. [Edit] And if Spotify is shunned by its users, it's the users that shunned it; nobody shunned the users "from" Spotify.

sanderjd 5y ago

This isn't true because shunning opinions is its own kind of speech. I think it is better captured as "freedom of association" but these are two sides of the same coin. People who see themselves as like free speech maximalists, beyond just being against the limitation of speech by government force, always seem to ignore this part.

rhino369 5y ago
I literally explained how its speech but against the principle of free speech--and you just cherry picked around the explanation. Hardly ignoring it. Statement and actions that are against freedom of speech are still allowed under freedom of speech. That's not some GOTCHA against the freedom of speech. Young should be allowed to do what he's doing. But he should fully expect to be called a censoring blacklister.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  I didn't cherry pick. What you're saying here just doesn't really make sense. It isn't "against freedom of speech" to exercise your own freedom of association.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    Obviously you can speak against freedom of speech. The freedom of speech would allow that speech (and nobody is saying Young should be prevented from what he is doing). But you'd still be advocating censorship. You can join a political group advocating for censorship. That's attempted censorship even if its allowed under freedom of speech. So yes, you can exercise your freedom of speech to speak against freedom of speech. There is no contradiction.
    - sanderjd 5y ago
      Yes, you can speak against freedom of speech, that just isn't what's going on here. Saying "I don't want to be associated with a company that is associated with this person" is not "speaking against free speech". Saying "this person should be kept from speaking anywhere" would be speaking against free speech, but that's not what's going on here.

xoa 5y ago

>Freedom of speech is a principle Yes, the principle that force should not be used to compel speech since no single oracle can be trusted to it. Not that all ideas and values are equal, and indeed on the contrary the entire point of freedom of speech is that they aren't. Freedom of speech is a process, a system to try to let us grope our way towards truth and better values and adapt to changing circumstances, to maintain a dynamic equilibrium that leaves open the chance we're wrong or that what makes sense now won't in the future. Culling out the crap is a huge part of what it's all about. >But your behavior is contrary to the principle of freedom of speech. Nope, yours is! A mushy "everything is the same" implicitly negates any need for protection.

rhino369 5y ago
Culling out crap by criticizing it--100% within the scope of freedom of speech. Culling out whatever you think is crap by organizing a boycott unless people literally ban that content is censorship.
- xoa 5y ago
  >Culling out whatever you think is crap by organizing a boycott unless people literally ban that content is censorship. No, it's free speech. It's literally engaging in freedom of association yourself and speech to try to convince other people to exercise their freedoms of association and speech towards ideas and values one considers important. And it isn't without risk or personal cost either. Boycotts necessarily involve sacrificing some value the entity offers. If other people won't go along with it because they don't agree obviously it goes nowhere. Even if lots of people do go along with it, the entity people are trying to convince may well reject it anyway and just take the hit, or calculate they can outlast it, or argue back and convince people the other way. You're arguing that free speech shouldn't cover trying to convince anyone else of your own values, or that people shouldn't be allowed to act on said values if they are won over and wish to. That's wild stuff.

denton-scratch 5y ago

> Freedom of speech is a principle Fair enough; but it's only one principle. It doesn't override all the other principles. Some people from the land of the 1st Amendment seem to think it does. > not the bare minimum allowable under the first amendment. The 1st Amendment is not a "bare minimum" - AFAIAA it's the most maximalist free-speech legal provision in the world. Someone upthread spoke of "cancelling Spotify". Cancelling is about denying people a platform, no? How is Young denying Spotify a platform, by encouraging others to stay away from Spotify? That's called a boycott, which amounts to individuals choosing freely what to do with their time and money. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

rhino369 5y ago
Like I said, you don't have to agree with the principle. But you can't claim to and still try to shun people (from society as a whole[1]). It's not bare minimum with regard to its restrictions on government action. But it doesn't apply to (and is not meant to) apply to other institutions. For example, nobody would anti-discrimination principles by the 14th amendment and conclude that its therefore not discrimination for a private citizen to discriminate against minorities. [1]you can certain shun them from actual organizations that aren't meant to be open platforms for everyone. Most organizations are not open platforms, and their employers represent the organization.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > But you can't claim to and still try to shun people (from society as a whole[1]) Well, that's an interesting sentence-construction. How does person A shun person B from group X? "Shunning" isn't normally a thing that you do to someone from something. IOW, If you are shunned by society as a whole, then it is society as a whole that has shunned you. [Edit] And if Spotify is shunned by its users, it's the users that shunned it; nobody shunned the users "from" Spotify.