5 ms·

I'm not following you. What can I say that prevents you from saying something? That would seem to violate causality.

zamalek 4y ago
That causal violation is the exact problem with free speech aboslutism. "You are not allowed to criticize the CCP" is speech. "I order you to kill/hang that vice president" is speech, and the dead don't speak.
- mh- 4y ago
  That last one would already fail the Brandenburg test [0], wouldn't it? (I'm not a lawyer.) [0] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/inciting-to-riot-violence-or-insurrection.html https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/inciting-to-...
  - zamalek 4y ago
    > Brandenburg test The Brandenburg Test doesn't apply to free speech absolutism.
    - erichocean 4y ago
      Elon Musk has already said he supports unrestricted *legal* speech on Twitter, and that individual cultures should decide what that is for themselves, through their local legal system. He's not a "free speech absolutist."
      - krapp 4y ago
        He calls himself a free speech absolutist, and he's already banned parody, racist but legal (in the US) speech and criticism of himself and his technical knowledge - which is more restrictive than Twitter was prior. As is the plan to "deboost" negative and hateful tweets - I'll remind the court that when Youtube did the same thing, many people here considered even demonetizing and downranking content to be censorship, and antithetical to free speech.
        erichocean 4y ago
        Elon Musk discussed this on Apr 26, 2022: > By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people. Source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 If you want to argue Musk's position on free speech is anything else, "absolute" or otherwise, kindly cite your sources.
        krapp 4y ago
        quote for quote: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 Even if you want to dismiss this, he still isn't following his own principles, since again, he's clearly banning legal speech.
- ibejoeb 4y ago
  You are suggesting that in an environment without the right to free speech, there is no right to free speech. Back to the twitter context: if I bought twitter and simply did nothing at all, anyone would be free to post anything, because in order to stop it, I'd have to act, which I already said I won't do.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  > "You are not allowed to criticize the CCP" is speech Yes... speech I'm allowed to (and do) ignore. You're not making the point you think you're making.
  - zamalek 4y ago
    What about Chinese nationals?
- endominus 4y ago
  Except this doesn't prove the point asked. I can literally write your second example and in fact, I will; I hereby order whatever shadowy figures monitor all internet communications to kick zamalek off of the internet. There; has that in any way impacted your ability to respond to me? Has my speech at all affected yours? The thing you're actually against is the execution of an action, killing or hanging or whatever else. The basic right of freedom of speech is not that. This equivocation between speech and action, this insistence that speech itself is fundamentally harmful and must be controlled, censored, and limited, is pretty fundamentally undemocratic in ways that most actual authoritarians who rose to power in the past century would be quite familiar with.
  - zamalek 4y ago
    What if I followed you around and shouted my speech really loudly every time you tried to speak?
    - endominus 4y ago
      What if I had a sonic cannon that could blast a house off it's foundations? Is a DDoS attack speech? No. No one argues that in good faith. Stop justifying your conclusions by redefining speech to something else. There are actual, reasonable arguments for the limitations of speech - "speech is actually just any noise and people can play noise really loudly and that can cause hearing damage" is not one of them.
      - zamalek 4y ago
        You are restating my argument as using a sonic cannon. That is not what I said. I said: what happens if I shout my speech so as to obscure yours? Given the strawman, I guess that you don't have an answer.
        endominus 4y ago
        Your argument is, abstractly, "Isn't censorship also speech?" My response is, no, censorship is not covered under free speech. This is a faulty supposition that many people who are generally opposed to free speech hold. Preventing people from hearing someone speak is self-evidently the most anti-free-speech act it is possible for a private individual to do.
throwaway290 4y ago
Humans function in a society only, no one exists and speaks in vacuum. What someone says can encourage you to say something or preclude you from speaking, if you are not a sociopath.
kuramitropolis 4y ago
>What can I say that prevents you from saying something? Any syntactially correct but illogical thing, basically. The textbook example is "have you stopped beating your wife? yes or no, asshole". Most humans aren't very good at being rational. Undermining someone's capacity for correct reasoning and effective communication is a whole dark art - one that is fundamental to our entire social reality. Also known as "trolling", in the offline world - as "bullying", or if you want to be academical about it, "exercising soft power". Of course, it's only considered reprehensible if an individual does it.
AlexandrB 4y ago
Cancel culture is often framed as a threat to free speech. How is that possible if speech cannot suppress other speech?

That causal violation is the exact problem with free speech aboslutism. "You are not allowed to criticize the CCP" is speech. "I order you to kill/hang that vice president" is speech, and the dead don't speak.

mh- 4y ago
That last one would already fail the Brandenburg test [0], wouldn't it? (I'm not a lawyer.) [0] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/inciting-to-riot-violence-or-insurrection.html https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/inciting-to-...
- zamalek 4y ago
  > Brandenburg test The Brandenburg Test doesn't apply to free speech absolutism.
  - erichocean 4y ago
    Elon Musk has already said he supports unrestricted *legal* speech on Twitter, and that individual cultures should decide what that is for themselves, through their local legal system. He's not a "free speech absolutist."
    - krapp 4y ago
      He calls himself a free speech absolutist, and he's already banned parody, racist but legal (in the US) speech and criticism of himself and his technical knowledge - which is more restrictive than Twitter was prior. As is the plan to "deboost" negative and hateful tweets - I'll remind the court that when Youtube did the same thing, many people here considered even demonetizing and downranking content to be censorship, and antithetical to free speech.
      - erichocean 4y ago
        Elon Musk discussed this on Apr 26, 2022: > By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people. Source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 If you want to argue Musk's position on free speech is anything else, "absolute" or otherwise, kindly cite your sources.
        krapp 4y ago
        quote for quote: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 Even if you want to dismiss this, he still isn't following his own principles, since again, he's clearly banning legal speech.
ibejoeb 4y ago
You are suggesting that in an environment without the right to free speech, there is no right to free speech. Back to the twitter context: if I bought twitter and simply did nothing at all, anyone would be free to post anything, because in order to stop it, I'd have to act, which I already said I won't do.
commandlinefan 4y ago
> "You are not allowed to criticize the CCP" is speech Yes... speech I'm allowed to (and do) ignore. You're not making the point you think you're making.
- zamalek 4y ago
  What about Chinese nationals?
endominus 4y ago
Except this doesn't prove the point asked. I can literally write your second example and in fact, I will; I hereby order whatever shadowy figures monitor all internet communications to kick zamalek off of the internet. There; has that in any way impacted your ability to respond to me? Has my speech at all affected yours? The thing you're actually against is the execution of an action, killing or hanging or whatever else. The basic right of freedom of speech is not that. This equivocation between speech and action, this insistence that speech itself is fundamentally harmful and must be controlled, censored, and limited, is pretty fundamentally undemocratic in ways that most actual authoritarians who rose to power in the past century would be quite familiar with.
- zamalek 4y ago
  What if I followed you around and shouted my speech really loudly every time you tried to speak?
  - endominus 4y ago
    What if I had a sonic cannon that could blast a house off it's foundations? Is a DDoS attack speech? No. No one argues that in good faith. Stop justifying your conclusions by redefining speech to something else. There are actual, reasonable arguments for the limitations of speech - "speech is actually just any noise and people can play noise really loudly and that can cause hearing damage" is not one of them.
    - zamalek 4y ago
      You are restating my argument as using a sonic cannon. That is not what I said. I said: what happens if I shout my speech so as to obscure yours? Given the strawman, I guess that you don't have an answer.
      - endominus 4y ago
        Your argument is, abstractly, "Isn't censorship also speech?" My response is, no, censorship is not covered under free speech. This is a faulty supposition that many people who are generally opposed to free speech hold. Preventing people from hearing someone speak is self-evidently the most anti-free-speech act it is possible for a private individual to do.

throwaway290 4y ago

Humans function in a society only, no one exists and speaks in vacuum. What someone says can encourage you to say something or preclude you from speaking, if you are not a sociopath.

kuramitropolis 4y ago

>What can I say that prevents you from saying something? Any syntactially correct but illogical thing, basically. The textbook example is "have you stopped beating your wife? yes or no, asshole". Most humans aren't very good at being rational. Undermining someone's capacity for correct reasoning and effective communication is a whole dark art - one that is fundamental to our entire social reality. Also known as "trolling", in the offline world - as "bullying", or if you want to be academical about it, "exercising soft power". Of course, it's only considered reprehensible if an individual does it.

AlexandrB 4y ago

Cancel culture is often framed as a threat to free speech. How is that possible if speech cannot suppress other speech?