5 ms·

Society is expressing its collective free speech when it "cancels" someone, for whatever reason. When you support "free speech", you support all of it or none

Society is expressing its collective free speech when it "cancels" someone, for whatever reason. When you support "free speech", you support all of it or none of it.

sjg007 5y ago
>When you support "free speech", you support all of it or none of it. Free speech is not tautological.
endominus 5y ago
It's these types of absolutist statements that drive people away from activist causes. Even a staunch proponent of free speech might have some types of speech they object to; - Advertising dangerous and addictive substances, particularly to children [0] - Lying about the contents or efficacy of a commercial product, especially medicine or food [1] - Publishing private details about someone in an effort to inflict real world harm [2] - Publishing private work against the will of its creator, as might have happened with Sir Terry Pratchett's unfinished books after his death. [3] (I distinctly remember a commenter I had an argument with stating that after his death, his wishes in that regard were irrelevant compared to the living's desire to actually read said work. Fortunately, such callousness is not the norm) Collective free speech is an interesting idea, in any case. I'm always wary of the term "collective." It brings to mind collective justice. It's not unthinkably terrible, after all, to throw a single stone at a sinner. And if my neighbor has the right to, so do I. And his neighbor, and her neighbor, and soon enough the sinner is stoned to death and none of us are responsible. All each of us did was throw a single stone, after all. It's a strange dissonance to state that censorship is free speech. But that's what people seem to often mean when they talk about cancelling or deplatforming people. [0]: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/rules-regulations-and-guidance/family-smoking-prevention-and-tobacco-control-act-overview https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/rules-regulations-and-g... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-baby-milk-scandal-food-industry-standards https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-baby... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing [3]: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/30/terry-pratchett-unfinished-novels-destroyed-streamroller https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/30/terry-pratchet...
- paulgb 5y ago
  You have good one-sentence summaries of things that are reasonable exceptions/limitations to free speech. I’m struggling to come up with one that would prevent cancel culture without sounding like an unreasonable exception. For example, “saying someone should be fired based on a bad joke they made on the internet” doesn’t sound like it should be illegal, even though that being spoken en masse is tantamount to cancel culture.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  I didn't say, "All speech should be free or none of it should be free", I said, "Both the repugnant ideas and the rejection of the repugnant ideas are expressions of free speech, and you either support both or none." Of course there's speech that should be limited. I'm just saying if you support repugnant speech, you either also support rejections of repugnant speech or you don't support free speech at all.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > I'm just saying if you support repugnant speech, you either also support rejections of repugnant speech or you don't support free speech at all. No, thats stupid. It is absolutely possible to both support free speech, and oppose "rejection" of repubnant speech, if by "rejection" we mean that I would oppose sending death threats to their friends and family, and oppose the "rejection" action of attempting to assault the repugnant free speech sayer. It is very silly to say that a free speech supporter has somehow underminded their ability to support the concept of free speech significantly, because they opposed assaulting, or sending death threats to the friends and family of a person who makes repugnant speech.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      What's stupid is not realizing that both are forms of free speech. You can "oppose" it, but trying to prevent it is an attack on the freedom of speech. Either you support free speech, and the right of the "angry mob" to be angry, or you don't support free speech. But the fact that you can't distinguish between the expression of an angry idea and a death threat disqualifies you from this conversation, though. Obviously that's different, and you know that isn't what anyone reasonable is suggesting.
proc0 5y ago
So... silencing people is practicing free speech? I thought it was letting people talk.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  Telling someone to shut up is not the same thing as telling someone to shut up while holding a gun. People need to stop conflating these two things. People are free to express negative reactions to speech. That in itself is a pretty important part of free speech.
tdehnel 5y ago
Your wording is a bit of a sly semantic trick. By attempting to equivocate stopping speech with free speech, it sort of dodges the whole purpose of free speech in the first place, which is to ensure that unpopular ideas are tolerated in a free society. Free speech isn't just an abstract principle. It exists to ensure that tyranny of government or the masses is not able to stifle the creation of the new knowledge that progress depends on.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  The improvement of knowledge is a useful side effect of free speech, but it's not the main justification. Free speech exists because it's wrong to harm someone because of what they say.
  - tdehnel 5y ago
    Firstly your belief is knowledge that was created at some point and it spread because people had the right to say it. Second, a just society is dependent on there being a society at all. The only way humans will solve the problems that threaten our existence is by creating new knowledge. In this way the progress created by free speech is foundational to all else.
    - SantalBlush 5y ago
      It appears that you're conflating the notion of free speech with any speech whatsoever, and implying that if free speech rights weren't enforced, then we would have no speech and thus would have no society and no knowledge. This is demonstrably false according to plenty of historical evidence. It's simply nonsense.
      - tdehnel 5y ago
        You got the wrong idea. I’m saying when we limit speech we risk limiting progress, not eliminating progress all together. The key is that we have no idea how we are limiting progress because the progress has yet to happen. But it will, as long as we tolerate new ideas and criticism (and not just the “right kind” of new ideas). We should always err on the side of more freedom rather than less, except in cases where there are imminent and likely illegal consequences.
chrismcb 5y ago
You can support free speech and still ask people not to say things. I think cancel culture is bad. And people should stop trying to get people fired for saying something (especially if it was said ages ago) I'm not going to force you to stop. Just consider what you are doing. You are basically wishing the person would die (or before a ward of the state) is that the proper consequence of speech? As a society we have agreed that somethings shouldn't be said. Like the n word. You aren't forced to not say it. By the same token we can agree that cancel culture is bad and chills speech. We, as a free society, should strive to keep speech free. Not look for ways to shut it down. I may not like what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it, had become I don't like what you say so I will do everything in my power to prevent you from saying it
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  The problem you keep running into is that if we, as a society, value free speech, then we, as a society, also value the angry mob, because they are also exhibiting free speech! You can't just ignore the angry mob's rights, just because you don't like what they're saying. If you like free speech and dislike cancel culture, the people to be angry at are the decision makers who kowtow to the mob's demands, not the mob itself (since they're just exercising their free speech, which you claim to support), but even then, aren't those decision makers just expressing themselves, too?
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
    I'm in complete agreement that workers' rights should be stronger and protect them from quisling employers. But there is also something to be said about the technological mechanisms that allow the mass-mob to form. For example in the case of people who have a few hundred followers and end up with hundreds of thousands of people talking about them, there is a hateful amplification that should not be enabled.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      > I'm in complete agreement that workers' rights should be stronger and protect them from quisling employers. But there is also something to be said about the technological mechanisms that allow the mass-mob to form. Agreed entirely, but it’s interesting to note that 99% of the public discourse here on HN and also elsewhere focuses on the technical mechanisms and almost none of the discussion is about workers rights. As the parent points out, the free speech position against cancel culture is internally inconsistent. That’s why these discussions have no solutions; because the paradox of increasing free speech by restricting free speech is never resolved. Which is why I think we need to move past the idea of the mob. The mob has no power if your employer can’t fire you capriciously and ruin your life. That power exists irrespective of cancel culture, and needs to be curbed. Doing so would also serve to restrict corporate power considerably, which is why I believe this area of discussion goes unaddressed (it’s that there are a lot of people who are both anti cancel culture but pro corporate power.)
chemmail 5y ago
Sounds good. Until it is used against you.
refurb 5y ago
“When I shout you into silence that’s just me expressing my support of free speech” A fantastic hot take from HN

Society is expressing its collective free speech when it "cancels" someone, for whatever reason. When you support "free speech", you support all of it or none of it.

sjg007 5y ago

>When you support "free speech", you support all of it or none of it. Free speech is not tautological.

endominus 5y ago

It's these types of absolutist statements that drive people away from activist causes. Even a staunch proponent of free speech might have some types of speech they object to; - Advertising dangerous and addictive substances, particularly to children [0] - Lying about the contents or efficacy of a commercial product, especially medicine or food [1] - Publishing private details about someone in an effort to inflict real world harm [2] - Publishing private work against the will of its creator, as might have happened with Sir Terry Pratchett's unfinished books after his death. [3] (I distinctly remember a commenter I had an argument with stating that after his death, his wishes in that regard were irrelevant compared to the living's desire to actually read said work. Fortunately, such callousness is not the norm) Collective free speech is an interesting idea, in any case. I'm always wary of the term "collective." It brings to mind collective justice. It's not unthinkably terrible, after all, to throw a single stone at a sinner. And if my neighbor has the right to, so do I. And his neighbor, and her neighbor, and soon enough the sinner is stoned to death and none of us are responsible. All each of us did was throw a single stone, after all. It's a strange dissonance to state that censorship is free speech. But that's what people seem to often mean when they talk about cancelling or deplatforming people. [0]: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/rules-regulations-and-guidance/family-smoking-prevention-and-tobacco-control-act-overview https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/rules-regulations-and-g... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-baby-milk-scandal-food-industry-standards https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-baby... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing [3]: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/30/terry-pratchett-unfinished-novels-destroyed-streamroller https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/30/terry-pratchet...

paulgb 5y ago
You have good one-sentence summaries of things that are reasonable exceptions/limitations to free speech. I’m struggling to come up with one that would prevent cancel culture without sounding like an unreasonable exception. For example, “saying someone should be fired based on a bad joke they made on the internet” doesn’t sound like it should be illegal, even though that being spoken en masse is tantamount to cancel culture.
TameAntelope 5y ago
I didn't say, "All speech should be free or none of it should be free", I said, "Both the repugnant ideas and the rejection of the repugnant ideas are expressions of free speech, and you either support both or none." Of course there's speech that should be limited. I'm just saying if you support repugnant speech, you either also support rejections of repugnant speech or you don't support free speech at all.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > I'm just saying if you support repugnant speech, you either also support rejections of repugnant speech or you don't support free speech at all. No, thats stupid. It is absolutely possible to both support free speech, and oppose "rejection" of repubnant speech, if by "rejection" we mean that I would oppose sending death threats to their friends and family, and oppose the "rejection" action of attempting to assault the repugnant free speech sayer. It is very silly to say that a free speech supporter has somehow underminded their ability to support the concept of free speech significantly, because they opposed assaulting, or sending death threats to the friends and family of a person who makes repugnant speech.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    What's stupid is not realizing that both are forms of free speech. You can "oppose" it, but trying to prevent it is an attack on the freedom of speech. Either you support free speech, and the right of the "angry mob" to be angry, or you don't support free speech. But the fact that you can't distinguish between the expression of an angry idea and a death threat disqualifies you from this conversation, though. Obviously that's different, and you know that isn't what anyone reasonable is suggesting.

proc0 5y ago

So... silencing people is practicing free speech? I thought it was letting people talk.

SantalBlush 5y ago
Telling someone to shut up is not the same thing as telling someone to shut up while holding a gun. People need to stop conflating these two things. People are free to express negative reactions to speech. That in itself is a pretty important part of free speech.

tdehnel 5y ago

Your wording is a bit of a sly semantic trick. By attempting to equivocate stopping speech with free speech, it sort of dodges the whole purpose of free speech in the first place, which is to ensure that unpopular ideas are tolerated in a free society. Free speech isn't just an abstract principle. It exists to ensure that tyranny of government or the masses is not able to stifle the creation of the new knowledge that progress depends on.

SantalBlush 5y ago
The improvement of knowledge is a useful side effect of free speech, but it's not the main justification. Free speech exists because it's wrong to harm someone because of what they say.
- tdehnel 5y ago
  Firstly your belief is knowledge that was created at some point and it spread because people had the right to say it. Second, a just society is dependent on there being a society at all. The only way humans will solve the problems that threaten our existence is by creating new knowledge. In this way the progress created by free speech is foundational to all else.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    It appears that you're conflating the notion of free speech with any speech whatsoever, and implying that if free speech rights weren't enforced, then we would have no speech and thus would have no society and no knowledge. This is demonstrably false according to plenty of historical evidence. It's simply nonsense.
    - tdehnel 5y ago
      You got the wrong idea. I’m saying when we limit speech we risk limiting progress, not eliminating progress all together. The key is that we have no idea how we are limiting progress because the progress has yet to happen. But it will, as long as we tolerate new ideas and criticism (and not just the “right kind” of new ideas). We should always err on the side of more freedom rather than less, except in cases where there are imminent and likely illegal consequences.

chrismcb 5y ago

You can support free speech and still ask people not to say things. I think cancel culture is bad. And people should stop trying to get people fired for saying something (especially if it was said ages ago) I'm not going to force you to stop. Just consider what you are doing. You are basically wishing the person would die (or before a ward of the state) is that the proper consequence of speech? As a society we have agreed that somethings shouldn't be said. Like the n word. You aren't forced to not say it. By the same token we can agree that cancel culture is bad and chills speech. We, as a free society, should strive to keep speech free. Not look for ways to shut it down. I may not like what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it, had become I don't like what you say so I will do everything in my power to prevent you from saying it

TameAntelope 5y ago
The problem you keep running into is that if we, as a society, value free speech, then we, as a society, also value the angry mob, because they are also exhibiting free speech! You can't just ignore the angry mob's rights, just because you don't like what they're saying. If you like free speech and dislike cancel culture, the people to be angry at are the decision makers who kowtow to the mob's demands, not the mob itself (since they're just exercising their free speech, which you claim to support), but even then, aren't those decision makers just expressing themselves, too?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
  I'm in complete agreement that workers' rights should be stronger and protect them from quisling employers. But there is also something to be said about the technological mechanisms that allow the mass-mob to form. For example in the case of people who have a few hundred followers and end up with hundreds of thousands of people talking about them, there is a hateful amplification that should not be enabled.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > I'm in complete agreement that workers' rights should be stronger and protect them from quisling employers. But there is also something to be said about the technological mechanisms that allow the mass-mob to form. Agreed entirely, but it’s interesting to note that 99% of the public discourse here on HN and also elsewhere focuses on the technical mechanisms and almost none of the discussion is about workers rights. As the parent points out, the free speech position against cancel culture is internally inconsistent. That’s why these discussions have no solutions; because the paradox of increasing free speech by restricting free speech is never resolved. Which is why I think we need to move past the idea of the mob. The mob has no power if your employer can’t fire you capriciously and ruin your life. That power exists irrespective of cancel culture, and needs to be curbed. Doing so would also serve to restrict corporate power considerably, which is why I believe this area of discussion goes unaddressed (it’s that there are a lot of people who are both anti cancel culture but pro corporate power.)

chemmail 5y ago

Sounds good. Until it is used against you.

refurb 5y ago

“When I shout you into silence that’s just me expressing my support of free speech” A fantastic hot take from HN