5 ms·

People on HN and in this thread in particular have such a one sided view of this issue. For some reason people here only think the left is attacking free speec

by slg 4y ago

People on HN and in this thread in particular have such a one sided view of this issue. For some reason people here only think the left is attacking free speech when the truth is that free speech is under attack from both the left and right. One of those two has been much more effective translating these attacks into laws which I would expect to be the most concerning for proponents of free speech and yet it is always "what is happening on college campuses" that scares people more than "what is happening in state legislatures".

lettergram 4y ago
While I agree-ish, I can list a litany of people deplatformed. All of them are on the right. It could just be only the left has power at the moment. A common question is why the Ayatollah is on Twitter (and I think Facebook) calling for death, but Alex Jones isn’t allowed to question events. We can argue both are reprehensible, but only one is banned. Beyond that I haven’t seen anyone on the right truly call for limitation of speech. I’ve only seen them get upset when something is particularly targeting them (say the push for LGBT in elementary schools)
- uoaei 4y ago
  I can list a litany of people deplatformed. All of them are on the left. Selection bias does not a good argument make.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    Who? I’d like to read / listen to them.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      Chris Hedges and John Kiriakou both have a lot to say about many important things
- hirsin 4y ago
  Book banning is the right's equivalent of deplatforming, with the bonus that they are getting the government to do it, not just a private company. They do take it further though, with banning of talking about how to get an abortion, banning of talking about LGBT topics in school. I can't say that allowing those topics, or even pushing them, is targeting the right. By definition it's about some other group being supported. Maybe you meant triggering them, not targeting them?
  - TimPC 4y ago
    It always surprises me the right wants to ban books. After all they want minors to read a book with beastiality in it. It will be fun to see what the courts say on banning the bible from elementary schools in Florida on the grounds that beastiality is not age appropriate.
    - lettergram 4y ago
      Pretty sure the Bible also isn’t taught in public schools. This is why I strongly support school choice. Let the parents decide how to raise their children. Also that said, those sections of the Bible typically aren’t highlighted, aren’t graphic, don’t appear in all bibles and kids will get abridged versions.
      - rnk 4y ago
        You are wrong. I grew up in the south and we absolutely talked about things that were basically biblical in nature. The source of morals, right and wrong. We are way past that now, with cons in florida openly passing a law that says you can put up "in god we trust" in the school. https://www.foxnews.com/us/all-florida-public-schools-to-display-in-god-we-trust-motto https://www.foxnews.com/us/all-florida-public-schools-to-dis... Similar things going on in the other new state determined to make laws against things that hurt their feelings, texas.
        lettergram 4y ago
        > You are wrong. I grew up in the south and we absolutely talked about things that were basically biblical in nature. The source of morals, right and wrong. We are way past that now, with cons in florida openly passing a law that says you can put up "in god we trust" in the school. Okay, but that’s not “the Bible” that’s “biblical in nature” I’m simply making the point that the explicit parts are not taught. Anything related to sex for instance, or even any stories as far as I’m aware.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
remarkEon 4y ago
Which laws have passed that restrict speech?
- slg 4y ago
  Two examples that come to mind: "In a Blow to Free Speech, Texas’ Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed Pending Appeal"[1] "A federal judge blocks part of Florida's 'STOP WOKE' Act on the grounds it violates business free speech rights" [2] [1] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas-unconstitutional-social-media-law-allowed-proceed-pending https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas... [2] - https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-08-18/a-federal-judge-blocks-part-of-floridas-stop-woke-act-on-the-grounds-it-violates-business-free-speech-rights https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-08-18/a-federal-judge-...
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    Neither of these restrict speech, and I'm not sure how one could construe the text of the laws toward that conclusion. The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is banned". The second[1] looks like a workplace and education regulation, which is again well within the boundaries of things the government is charged with regulating. Honestly the text of the law looks pretty benign to me. [1] http://laws.flrules.org/2022/72 http://laws.flrules.org/2022/72
    - rnk 4y ago
      Social media use and restrictions related to that is absolutely a free speech impact. Posting on instagram or twitter is not free speech?
    - slg 4y ago
      >The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is banned". The law prevents private social media companies from adding a warning to posts for things like misinformation. That is banning a speech for these companies. >The second[1] looks like a workplace and education regulation, which is again well within the boundaries of things the government is charged with regulating. Except when those regulations violate the first amendment. This law dictates what private businesses can say while training their employees. How is that not an issue of speech?

by slg 4y ago

lettergram 4y ago

While I agree-ish, I can list a litany of people deplatformed. All of them are on the right. It could just be only the left has power at the moment. A common question is why the Ayatollah is on Twitter (and I think Facebook) calling for death, but Alex Jones isn’t allowed to question events. We can argue both are reprehensible, but only one is banned. Beyond that I haven’t seen anyone on the right truly call for limitation of speech. I’ve only seen them get upset when something is particularly targeting them (say the push for LGBT in elementary schools)

uoaei 4y ago
I can list a litany of people deplatformed. All of them are on the left. Selection bias does not a good argument make.
- lettergram 4y ago
  Who? I’d like to read / listen to them.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Chris Hedges and John Kiriakou both have a lot to say about many important things
hirsin 4y ago
Book banning is the right's equivalent of deplatforming, with the bonus that they are getting the government to do it, not just a private company. They do take it further though, with banning of talking about how to get an abortion, banning of talking about LGBT topics in school. I can't say that allowing those topics, or even pushing them, is targeting the right. By definition it's about some other group being supported. Maybe you meant triggering them, not targeting them?
- TimPC 4y ago
  It always surprises me the right wants to ban books. After all they want minors to read a book with beastiality in it. It will be fun to see what the courts say on banning the bible from elementary schools in Florida on the grounds that beastiality is not age appropriate.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    Pretty sure the Bible also isn’t taught in public schools. This is why I strongly support school choice. Let the parents decide how to raise their children. Also that said, those sections of the Bible typically aren’t highlighted, aren’t graphic, don’t appear in all bibles and kids will get abridged versions.
    - rnk 4y ago
      You are wrong. I grew up in the south and we absolutely talked about things that were basically biblical in nature. The source of morals, right and wrong. We are way past that now, with cons in florida openly passing a law that says you can put up "in god we trust" in the school. https://www.foxnews.com/us/all-florida-public-schools-to-display-in-god-we-trust-motto https://www.foxnews.com/us/all-florida-public-schools-to-dis... Similar things going on in the other new state determined to make laws against things that hurt their feelings, texas.
      - lettergram 4y ago
        > You are wrong. I grew up in the south and we absolutely talked about things that were basically biblical in nature. The source of morals, right and wrong. We are way past that now, with cons in florida openly passing a law that says you can put up "in god we trust" in the school. Okay, but that’s not “the Bible” that’s “biblical in nature” I’m simply making the point that the explicit parts are not taught. Anything related to sex for instance, or even any stories as far as I’m aware.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

remarkEon 4y ago

Which laws have passed that restrict speech?

slg 4y ago
Two examples that come to mind: "In a Blow to Free Speech, Texas’ Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed Pending Appeal"[1] "A federal judge blocks part of Florida's 'STOP WOKE' Act on the grounds it violates business free speech rights" [2] [1] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas-unconstitutional-social-media-law-allowed-proceed-pending https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas... [2] - https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-08-18/a-federal-judge-blocks-part-of-floridas-stop-woke-act-on-the-grounds-it-violates-business-free-speech-rights https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-08-18/a-federal-judge-...
- remarkEon 4y ago
  Neither of these restrict speech, and I'm not sure how one could construe the text of the laws toward that conclusion. The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is banned". The second[1] looks like a workplace and education regulation, which is again well within the boundaries of things the government is charged with regulating. Honestly the text of the law looks pretty benign to me. [1] http://laws.flrules.org/2022/72 http://laws.flrules.org/2022/72
  - rnk 4y ago
    Social media use and restrictions related to that is absolutely a free speech impact. Posting on instagram or twitter is not free speech?
  - slg 4y ago
    >The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is banned". The law prevents private social media companies from adding a warning to posts for things like misinformation. That is banning a speech for these companies. >The second[1] looks like a workplace and education regulation, which is again well within the boundaries of things the government is charged with regulating. Except when those regulations violate the first amendment. This law dictates what private businesses can say while training their employees. How is that not an issue of speech?