8 ms·

> I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? The way it works is: "Sure I su

> I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? The way it works is: "Sure I support free speech, but saying X is not free speech and saying it should be against the law because its offensive and might incite violence or something." If you object, they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dev-3892 4y ago
that's interesting, 'saying X should be against the law' is precisely not what I'm hearing. instead I'm hearing 'there shouldn't be a law that requires a private entity to broadcast X' and 'you really shouldn't say X, and I would strongly suggest that you do not say X' and 'if you say X, there may not be legal consequences, but legal consequences are not the only kind of consequences' so i don't agree that 'the way it works is ... saying it should be against the law' I disagree, and in no way am i trotting out Popper quotes. I am questioning your willingness to actually listen to people.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  Oops, it appears your comment has been marked as wrong speech by the hn free speech society.
  - dev-3892 4y ago
    oh no... anyway
- renlo 4y ago
  Yea! Why should phone companies be forced to carry conversations they don’t want you to have over their networks? Why should ISPs be forced to serve content they don’t want you to see? If you want to call the competitor of ATT to switch your service, well you need to do it using a competitor’s line, and, if you want to view competing plans over Comcast’s internet, well you need to do that at the library or on someone else’s network! Obvious \s, the issue is that these “broadcast companies” are used by everyone, and should be treated as a utility.
  - MiguelX413 4y ago
    This but unironically and unsarcastically, the problem is the centralization of infrastructure itself.
    - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
      Centralization of infrastructure that benefits from the economies of scale shouldn’t be a problem.
      - MiguelX413 4y ago
        Centralization is THE problem.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > that's interesting, 'saying X should be against the law' is precisely not what I'm hearing. You've never heard anybody in the US advocating for laws against hate speech? I mean 'hate speech' which isn't inciting imminent lawless action, the present standard set by Bradenburg v. Ohio. Something like "ethnic group X are bringing crime to our community"; this sort of statement is called hate speech, but is legal in America. I have met a fair few people in America who believe that all hate speech such as that is intrinsically an incitement of violence, rejecting the imminent lawless action standard. They reason that any statement which could inspire negative feelings towards another, particularly a marginalized group, might also indirectly inspire people to commit acts of violence and should therefore be illegal.
  - As_You_Wish 4y ago
    I always notice that "hate speech" is how people want it defined. For example, I personally think "toxic masculinity," "mansplaining," "patriarchy," showing men as stupid foolish and incapable in movies and tv shows, and all the rest of the anti-male bashing is hate speech. However, I'm shouted down every time I say one word about this on any online forums. That's because the matriarchy that we live in does not allow me to define those terms as hate speech. There's no corresponding "toxic femininity," "woman-nagging," "matriarchy," or showing women as stupid and inept. Well, there might be a few on either side, but the vast majority of hate speech is piled upon men.
    - pstuart 4y ago
      Making up your own definitions isn't how it works. And mockery is not hate speech. And I'm not shouting either.
      - As_You_Wish 4y ago
        I'm not trying to be contradictory but my point is something different.
        4y ago
cies 4y ago
> they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance. Yup, that's me. What's wrong with that according to you? If your expression is promoting violence, especially violence against a vulnerable group (children, minorities, I'd say even animals), I'm okay with drawing up laws against such things. Thereby reducing freedom of expression. Advertising for instance. If every building/land owner or municipality could put ads on 'm promoting drinking and smoking, that'd be bad for kids. Limiting that would reduce freedom of expression right?
- sejje 4y ago
  I hope you're in charge of maintaining the list of vulnerable groups. Expect death threats, whether or not they're legal.
- gonehome 4y ago
  The issue is that when we abandon the general principle it immediately becomes a question of what speech is ok to ban and this can be weaponized by rivals. People always imagine themselves or people they agree with in the position of determining what gets banned, but they should imagine their political rival or enemy in that position. The free speech principle is about setting the bar such that everyone agrees on the right for everyone else despite that meaning it will protect speech nearly everyone agrees is terrible. It draws a real distinction between speech and actual violence and it’s an important one. The people in positions of power to limit speech are often wrong. Forcing private companies to not moderate though is different - that is itself a violation of the company’s speech. I think policy like cloudflare’s approach where they try to make distinctions between application level and infra level tools is generally better than capricious enforcement. Still, this issue is a real one and a result of the local max we’re trapped in because of incentives that lead to our centralized tech stack. We need better tools.
  - TimPC 4y ago
    Porn is speech according to the Supreme Court. The minute we ban child pornography we no longer support unlimited free speech. So pretending that’s the line we are still holding is a rhetorical device rather than a helpful contribution to the discussion on free speech. In practice nowhere in the world supports unlimited free speech and we all draw a line somewhere the question is where we draw the line.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dev-3892 4y ago

that's interesting, 'saying X should be against the law' is precisely not what I'm hearing. instead I'm hearing 'there shouldn't be a law that requires a private entity to broadcast X' and 'you really shouldn't say X, and I would strongly suggest that you do not say X' and 'if you say X, there may not be legal consequences, but legal consequences are not the only kind of consequences' so i don't agree that 'the way it works is ... saying it should be against the law' I disagree, and in no way am i trotting out Popper quotes. I am questioning your willingness to actually listen to people.

bandyaboot 4y ago
Oops, it appears your comment has been marked as wrong speech by the hn free speech society.
- dev-3892 4y ago
  oh no... anyway
renlo 4y ago
Yea! Why should phone companies be forced to carry conversations they don’t want you to have over their networks? Why should ISPs be forced to serve content they don’t want you to see? If you want to call the competitor of ATT to switch your service, well you need to do it using a competitor’s line, and, if you want to view competing plans over Comcast’s internet, well you need to do that at the library or on someone else’s network! Obvious \s, the issue is that these “broadcast companies” are used by everyone, and should be treated as a utility.
- MiguelX413 4y ago
  This but unironically and unsarcastically, the problem is the centralization of infrastructure itself.
  - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
    Centralization of infrastructure that benefits from the economies of scale shouldn’t be a problem.
    - MiguelX413 4y ago
      Centralization is THE problem.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> that's interesting, 'saying X should be against the law' is precisely not what I'm hearing. You've never heard anybody in the US advocating for laws against hate speech? I mean 'hate speech' which isn't inciting imminent lawless action, the present standard set by Bradenburg v. Ohio. Something like "ethnic group X are bringing crime to our community"; this sort of statement is called hate speech, but is legal in America. I have met a fair few people in America who believe that all hate speech such as that is intrinsically an incitement of violence, rejecting the imminent lawless action standard. They reason that any statement which could inspire negative feelings towards another, particularly a marginalized group, might also indirectly inspire people to commit acts of violence and should therefore be illegal.
- As_You_Wish 4y ago
  I always notice that "hate speech" is how people want it defined. For example, I personally think "toxic masculinity," "mansplaining," "patriarchy," showing men as stupid foolish and incapable in movies and tv shows, and all the rest of the anti-male bashing is hate speech. However, I'm shouted down every time I say one word about this on any online forums. That's because the matriarchy that we live in does not allow me to define those terms as hate speech. There's no corresponding "toxic femininity," "woman-nagging," "matriarchy," or showing women as stupid and inept. Well, there might be a few on either side, but the vast majority of hate speech is piled upon men.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    Making up your own definitions isn't how it works. And mockery is not hate speech. And I'm not shouting either.
    - As_You_Wish 4y ago
      I'm not trying to be contradictory but my point is something different.
      - 4y ago

cies 4y ago

> they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance. Yup, that's me. What's wrong with that according to you? If your expression is promoting violence, especially violence against a vulnerable group (children, minorities, I'd say even animals), I'm okay with drawing up laws against such things. Thereby reducing freedom of expression. Advertising for instance. If every building/land owner or municipality could put ads on 'm promoting drinking and smoking, that'd be bad for kids. Limiting that would reduce freedom of expression right?

sejje 4y ago
I hope you're in charge of maintaining the list of vulnerable groups. Expect death threats, whether or not they're legal.
gonehome 4y ago
The issue is that when we abandon the general principle it immediately becomes a question of what speech is ok to ban and this can be weaponized by rivals. People always imagine themselves or people they agree with in the position of determining what gets banned, but they should imagine their political rival or enemy in that position. The free speech principle is about setting the bar such that everyone agrees on the right for everyone else despite that meaning it will protect speech nearly everyone agrees is terrible. It draws a real distinction between speech and actual violence and it’s an important one. The people in positions of power to limit speech are often wrong. Forcing private companies to not moderate though is different - that is itself a violation of the company’s speech. I think policy like cloudflare’s approach where they try to make distinctions between application level and infra level tools is generally better than capricious enforcement. Still, this issue is a real one and a result of the local max we’re trapped in because of incentives that lead to our centralized tech stack. We need better tools.
- TimPC 4y ago
  Porn is speech according to the Supreme Court. The minute we ban child pornography we no longer support unlimited free speech. So pretending that’s the line we are still holding is a rhetorical device rather than a helpful contribution to the discussion on free speech. In practice nowhere in the world supports unlimited free speech and we all draw a line somewhere the question is where we draw the line.