5 ms·

If you want a free society then that's the only way. If published in today's age, Samuel L. Clemens would have been cancelled by mercurial cry bullies.

toofy 4y ago
by canceled you mean, people would have used their own free speech to say stuff he didn’t want to hear. and then he would have published his books.
kenjackson 4y ago
I disagree. My ability to apply consequences is a necessary part of freedom. The consequences on their own shouldn't be illegal (e.g., murder), but applying those actions shouldn't in themselves be illegal when applied as a consequence of speech. For example, if I'm in line at McDonalds and the cashier tells me that I'm ugly and he hates my family, I should be able to say, "I've changed my mind, I'm not going to eat here". But not being able to apply consequence to speech prohibits me from doing even this simple act.
- pdpi 4y ago
  > But not being able to apply consequence to speech prohibits me from doing even this simple act. Going a bit further: not being able to apply consequences to speech is itself curtailing your speech, so you literally can't have one without the other!
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > (...) not being able to apply consequences to speech is itself curtailing your speech,(...) No, not really. Your right to speech isn't infringed if someone does not share your personal opinion. You're always able to express your mind about how profoundly you disagree or how wrong you feel everyone around you is. What you cannot do is go around strong-arming people to shut up or stop expressing ideas you don't share. That is not a way to protect your right to free speech. That's just fascism 101.
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      No one is suggesting anyone get strong-armed. Unless doing things like writing letters or boycotting is strong-arming. Physical violence, or threats, or denial of service, etc... are all out-of-bounds. But saying that me and my group of colleagues is no longer frequenting your establishment because you said you support our extermination is fair play, IMO.
      - 8note 4y ago
        Denial of service is in bounds - I'm not required to do business with you. I can't stop others from doing business with you, though I could convince them
        kenjackson 4y ago
        I meant someone overloading your email or phone so you couldn’t use the service. I agree with what you’re saying is in bounds.
    - three_seagrass 4y ago
      There's a difference between "strong arming" and showing someone the door. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
      - Plasmoid 4y ago
        As an honest question. By what authority do you have the right to "show someone the door"?
        DFHippie 4y ago
        "Showing someone the door" is just indicating that you would like them to leave. How much authority do you need to do this? If you believe the person being shown the door should have the right to say whatever they want, do you believe the other participants in the conversation don't have the right to say they would like to stop hearing from him?
- ericd 4y ago
  This argument comes up over and over in this debate, and it seems like the result of some misunderstanding. You’re certainly allowed to react in a way that’s punitive as long as it’s a legal action, you won’t be violating the law, and I don’t think anyone claims otherwise, but you’ll be violating the cultural norms of free speech by engaging in repression. If you generally believe in the freedom of speech as a principle, you believe that people who you disagree with should be able to say their piece, without your feeling the need to retaliate, because you know that that’s what’s necessary to maintain a culture of free speech and open, honest discourse. But when you try to punish or retaliate for someone airing a view you disagree with, you’re going past civil discourse into actions intended to harm them financially, emotionally, or otherwise. And that’s frankly harmful to democracy. If they say they hate your family directly to you, sure, don’t eat there. But most speech that people disagree with and try to retaliate against the speaker isn’t on that level - it’s bits of speech taken out of context, indirect expressions of opinion like donations to candidates, etc. People are being manipulated by professional propagandists, and they’re following along enthusiastically. It’s polarizing the country, and it’s actively harmful to the stability of the democracy.
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    I don't understand this argument though. For example, "People are being manipulated by professional propagandists, and they’re following along enthusiastically." Are you saying that pro propagandists don't have the right to their speech? Is the ability to persuade the problem? It seems like half of the reason why we speak is to persuade. We both stated in our posts that the reactions must be legal on their own. So lets take illegal actions out of the picture. But if it is legal for me to start a boycott about your product, I think it is problematic to say it is now illegal to do so as a reaction to something you said. If boycotting is so problematic, just make it illegal all up. The problem with our country isn't the speech. Its the fact that people are easily manipulated with bad data. But I don't see how prohibiting legal actions resulting from free speech is going to be helpful. All you've done is infringed on another "freedom". We should instead just be actively working on better educating people. Critical thinking and logic skills should be fundamental in our education system.
vkou 4y ago
Just like Joe Rogan (most popular podcast in the world, btw), Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, John Stewart were all cancelled, as opposed to being wildly popular, but divisive media creators..?
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  "divisive media creators" AKA "they make content I don't like."
  - vkou 4y ago
    No, the definition of divisive is 'large groups of people like them, and large groups of people really hate them'.
watwut 4y ago
Obvious example is that Jews don't have to stay at the party where someone is yelling nazi slogans. And their friends can leave too. Neither have to wait till first physical attack starts. I intentionally picked obvious example instead of anything nuanced.

toofy 4y ago

by canceled you mean, people would have used their own free speech to say stuff he didn’t want to hear. and then he would have published his books.

kenjackson 4y ago

I disagree. My ability to apply consequences is a necessary part of freedom. The consequences on their own shouldn't be illegal (e.g., murder), but applying those actions shouldn't in themselves be illegal when applied as a consequence of speech. For example, if I'm in line at McDonalds and the cashier tells me that I'm ugly and he hates my family, I should be able to say, "I've changed my mind, I'm not going to eat here". But not being able to apply consequence to speech prohibits me from doing even this simple act.

pdpi 4y ago
> But not being able to apply consequence to speech prohibits me from doing even this simple act. Going a bit further: not being able to apply consequences to speech is itself curtailing your speech, so you literally can't have one without the other!
- simplotek 4y ago
  > (...) not being able to apply consequences to speech is itself curtailing your speech,(...) No, not really. Your right to speech isn't infringed if someone does not share your personal opinion. You're always able to express your mind about how profoundly you disagree or how wrong you feel everyone around you is. What you cannot do is go around strong-arming people to shut up or stop expressing ideas you don't share. That is not a way to protect your right to free speech. That's just fascism 101.
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    No one is suggesting anyone get strong-armed. Unless doing things like writing letters or boycotting is strong-arming. Physical violence, or threats, or denial of service, etc... are all out-of-bounds. But saying that me and my group of colleagues is no longer frequenting your establishment because you said you support our extermination is fair play, IMO.
    - 8note 4y ago
      Denial of service is in bounds - I'm not required to do business with you. I can't stop others from doing business with you, though I could convince them
      - kenjackson 4y ago
        I meant someone overloading your email or phone so you couldn’t use the service. I agree with what you’re saying is in bounds.
  - three_seagrass 4y ago
    There's a difference between "strong arming" and showing someone the door. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
    - Plasmoid 4y ago
      As an honest question. By what authority do you have the right to "show someone the door"?
      - DFHippie 4y ago
        "Showing someone the door" is just indicating that you would like them to leave. How much authority do you need to do this? If you believe the person being shown the door should have the right to say whatever they want, do you believe the other participants in the conversation don't have the right to say they would like to stop hearing from him?
ericd 4y ago
This argument comes up over and over in this debate, and it seems like the result of some misunderstanding. You’re certainly allowed to react in a way that’s punitive as long as it’s a legal action, you won’t be violating the law, and I don’t think anyone claims otherwise, but you’ll be violating the cultural norms of free speech by engaging in repression. If you generally believe in the freedom of speech as a principle, you believe that people who you disagree with should be able to say their piece, without your feeling the need to retaliate, because you know that that’s what’s necessary to maintain a culture of free speech and open, honest discourse. But when you try to punish or retaliate for someone airing a view you disagree with, you’re going past civil discourse into actions intended to harm them financially, emotionally, or otherwise. And that’s frankly harmful to democracy. If they say they hate your family directly to you, sure, don’t eat there. But most speech that people disagree with and try to retaliate against the speaker isn’t on that level - it’s bits of speech taken out of context, indirect expressions of opinion like donations to candidates, etc. People are being manipulated by professional propagandists, and they’re following along enthusiastically. It’s polarizing the country, and it’s actively harmful to the stability of the democracy.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  I don't understand this argument though. For example, "People are being manipulated by professional propagandists, and they’re following along enthusiastically." Are you saying that pro propagandists don't have the right to their speech? Is the ability to persuade the problem? It seems like half of the reason why we speak is to persuade. We both stated in our posts that the reactions must be legal on their own. So lets take illegal actions out of the picture. But if it is legal for me to start a boycott about your product, I think it is problematic to say it is now illegal to do so as a reaction to something you said. If boycotting is so problematic, just make it illegal all up. The problem with our country isn't the speech. Its the fact that people are easily manipulated with bad data. But I don't see how prohibiting legal actions resulting from free speech is going to be helpful. All you've done is infringed on another "freedom". We should instead just be actively working on better educating people. Critical thinking and logic skills should be fundamental in our education system.

vkou 4y ago

Just like Joe Rogan (most popular podcast in the world, btw), Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, John Stewart were all cancelled, as opposed to being wildly popular, but divisive media creators..?

PM_me_your_math 4y ago
"divisive media creators" AKA "they make content I don't like."
- vkou 4y ago
  No, the definition of divisive is 'large groups of people like them, and large groups of people really hate them'.

watwut 4y ago

Obvious example is that Jews don't have to stay at the party where someone is yelling nazi slogans. And their friends can leave too. Neither have to wait till first physical attack starts. I intentionally picked obvious example instead of anything nuanced.