3 ms·

The American constitution contains like ten words about free speech, zero of which provide any explanation for what free speech means. Maybe you could say that

The American constitution contains like ten words about free speech, zero of which provide any explanation for what free speech means. Maybe you could say that the particular legal interpretation of those words in the US has done a good job enumerating the limits of free speech - but the text of the constitution sure as hell hasn't. Legal interpretation of the constitution has also very clearly found that a huge collection of actual literal Nazis marching around shouting "death to jews" at the top of their lungs is a-okay. Excuse me if I'm not super excited for that to be present on various social media platforms.

vagabund 4y ago
Sorry, I should have been clearer, I thought it'd be evident that I meant the legal understanding that emerged from the constitution, rather than the text itself. Of course I despise the vitriol spewed on twitter as much as anyone else, but I'd sooner that idiocy be exposed and ridiculed than cede control over acceptable speech to ideologically motivated moderators in the inevitable instances where the ethical lines are blurrier. I realize that's a bit of an antiquated view, and the prevalent opinion is that these people can't be reasoned with and thus shouldn't be platformed, but I truly believe that that cynicism is a greater threat to our liberal institutions than the odd troll or bigot making racist remarks with 25 followers.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  I think it is rather important. Because once you recognize that this is the legal understanding rather than the text itself a really critical thing emerges. Interpretation has not been the same throughout history. When was the time when our interpretation of the constitution produced optimal social media moderation policy? If it is now, what happens when in the future interpretation of speech rights changes? Or even right now? "Bong hits for Jesus"-kid was punished and that was upheld as consistent with the 1st amendment. > but I'd sooner that idiocy be exposed and ridiculed than cede control over acceptable speech to ideologically motivated moderators in the inevitable instances where the ethical lines are blurrier. Great. Will you also be willing to be the person who experiences a torrent of hate speech directed at them? This is not an abstract thing where somebody else can "expose and ridicule" proponents of hate. You need to be willing to have the Nazis literally protest at your home and your job every single day and not leave. > the odd troll or bigot making racist remarks with 25 followers. If you think this is an honest portrayal of the state of hate on social media when moderation is reduced to "everything that isn't illegal" then you are grossly mistaken.
  - vagabund 4y ago
    The fact that legal interpretation has changed over time is a feature; the essential point is that it is within the democratic institution of the judicial system that the debate over and enforcement of acceptable speech should occur. Yes, I am committed to backing up my philosophical attachment to free speech at the expense of personal inconvenience. I realize that's an empty statement without actually being subjected to that reality, but that's the best I can do. If I'm wrong about the extent to which hate speech proliferates in unmoderated spaces (absent the adverse selection effect for sites like 4chan), then that's all the more reason to address that undercurrent of our societies. If anything, I'd argue pushing people off platforms where they might encounter dissenting views exacerbates radicalization.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      I don't believe that it is the best you can do. What you can do is become an active ally, through your time or money, for the people who will suffer by having hate invade their spaces.
brigandish 4y ago
> Legal interpretation of the constitution has also very clearly found that a huge collection of actual literal Nazis marching around shouting "death to jews" at the top of their lungs is a-okay. Not okay, but not illegal, and better than the alternative i.e. a society without freedom of speech (as the Reich was, or Weimar Germany).
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  Better than the alternative for limits on the government perhaps. Better for moderation on social media? I don't really agree. I do find the continued attempts to paint social media kicking transphobes off their platforms as equivalent to the actual Nazis hilarious, though.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    I wouldn't say it's equivalent but it's certainly comparable.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      And as I mentioned, I find that completely hilarious.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        I hope that getting that off your chest was a help to you but for the rest of us Twitter would surely be a better place to share that.
        UncleMeat 4y ago
        I hope that you take the threats to our elections as seriously as you take transphobes getting banned from twitter.
        brigandish 4y ago
jcadam 4y ago
Congress tried passing limits on Free Speech almost immediately with the Sedition Act of 1798. It was very unpopular and eventually allowed to expire.

vagabund 4y ago

Sorry, I should have been clearer, I thought it'd be evident that I meant the legal understanding that emerged from the constitution, rather than the text itself. Of course I despise the vitriol spewed on twitter as much as anyone else, but I'd sooner that idiocy be exposed and ridiculed than cede control over acceptable speech to ideologically motivated moderators in the inevitable instances where the ethical lines are blurrier. I realize that's a bit of an antiquated view, and the prevalent opinion is that these people can't be reasoned with and thus shouldn't be platformed, but I truly believe that that cynicism is a greater threat to our liberal institutions than the odd troll or bigot making racist remarks with 25 followers.

UncleMeat 4y ago
I think it is rather important. Because once you recognize that this is the legal understanding rather than the text itself a really critical thing emerges. Interpretation has not been the same throughout history. When was the time when our interpretation of the constitution produced optimal social media moderation policy? If it is now, what happens when in the future interpretation of speech rights changes? Or even right now? "Bong hits for Jesus"-kid was punished and that was upheld as consistent with the 1st amendment. > but I'd sooner that idiocy be exposed and ridiculed than cede control over acceptable speech to ideologically motivated moderators in the inevitable instances where the ethical lines are blurrier. Great. Will you also be willing to be the person who experiences a torrent of hate speech directed at them? This is not an abstract thing where somebody else can "expose and ridicule" proponents of hate. You need to be willing to have the Nazis literally protest at your home and your job every single day and not leave. > the odd troll or bigot making racist remarks with 25 followers. If you think this is an honest portrayal of the state of hate on social media when moderation is reduced to "everything that isn't illegal" then you are grossly mistaken.
- vagabund 4y ago
  The fact that legal interpretation has changed over time is a feature; the essential point is that it is within the democratic institution of the judicial system that the debate over and enforcement of acceptable speech should occur. Yes, I am committed to backing up my philosophical attachment to free speech at the expense of personal inconvenience. I realize that's an empty statement without actually being subjected to that reality, but that's the best I can do. If I'm wrong about the extent to which hate speech proliferates in unmoderated spaces (absent the adverse selection effect for sites like 4chan), then that's all the more reason to address that undercurrent of our societies. If anything, I'd argue pushing people off platforms where they might encounter dissenting views exacerbates radicalization.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    I don't believe that it is the best you can do. What you can do is become an active ally, through your time or money, for the people who will suffer by having hate invade their spaces.

brigandish 4y ago

> Legal interpretation of the constitution has also very clearly found that a huge collection of actual literal Nazis marching around shouting "death to jews" at the top of their lungs is a-okay. Not okay, but not illegal, and better than the alternative i.e. a society without freedom of speech (as the Reich was, or Weimar Germany).

UncleMeat 4y ago
Better than the alternative for limits on the government perhaps. Better for moderation on social media? I don't really agree. I do find the continued attempts to paint social media kicking transphobes off their platforms as equivalent to the actual Nazis hilarious, though.
- brigandish 4y ago
  I wouldn't say it's equivalent but it's certainly comparable.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    And as I mentioned, I find that completely hilarious.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      I hope that getting that off your chest was a help to you but for the rest of us Twitter would surely be a better place to share that.
      - UncleMeat 4y ago
        I hope that you take the threats to our elections as seriously as you take transphobes getting banned from twitter.
        brigandish 4y ago

jcadam 4y ago

Congress tried passing limits on Free Speech almost immediately with the Sedition Act of 1798. It was very unpopular and eventually allowed to expire.