3 ms·

I wouldn't call disagreement the same as trying to get someone fired because you disagree with them. > Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. Again

I wouldn't call disagreement the same as trying to get someone fired because you disagree with them. > Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. Again, the definition of freedom of speech is "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint". It's not really free speech if you have to worry about being censored or consequences. It may be reprehensible speech that you are against but using freedom of speech as a weapon to punish others does not foster an environment where freedom of speech exists. I personally think we should be able to have academic discussions with people that we disagree with and not try to further worsen this divisive and polarized world that we are trending towards by attacking them instead of their opinions. Shouting the opposing side down so that they cannot speak does nothing but make the situation worse. You might feel like you win a short term win by deplatforming someone but it causes further radicalization. It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum you are on you will not convince the other side without actually engaging in good faith discussions.

cycomanic 4y ago
> I wouldn't call disagreement the same as trying to get someone fired because you disagree with them. > > Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. > Again, the definition of freedom of speech is "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint". It's not really free speech if you have to worry about being censored or consequences. That's a very absolutist way of seeing free speech. I also don't believe anyone practices this view of free speech in practice. If you have children, are they allowed to say anything without consequences? What would you do with a guest at your house who repeatedly insulted you? I also would like to know what you think about spam filters, or moderation here on HN is that not cancellation? As a side note there was an interesting post from a twitter discussion a number of weeks ago. The main gist of the discussion was that moderation is hardly ever about "cancelling" some sort of free speech, but about increasing SNR. Harassment, racism etc. decrease SNR and make people leave your platform.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  No, it is not. You have the freedom to rebuttal, but not the one to insist of speakers to be silence or removed. Look up the definition of freedom of speech on wikipedia, it is in the first sentence. This is not absolutist at all, this is a very basic rule for civilized discourse. You are correct that people occasionally do not adhere to these principles.
jonnybgood 4y ago
In the US, that definition has only ever applied to the government. And it should only ever apply to the government. > Shouting the opposing side down so that they cannot speak does nothing but make the situation worse. You might feel like you win a short term win by deplatforming someone but it causes further radicalization. It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum you are on you will not convince the other side without actually engaging in good faith discussions. Are you suggesting we moderate and apply a little restraint to someone's speech because of the consequences of radicalizing someone?
- bostonsre 4y ago
  > Are you suggesting we moderate and apply a little restraint to someone's speech because of the consequences of radicalizing someone? Yes. Why not try to engage them in a discussion to try to convince them? If you truly believe in your viewpoint and want it to prevail, don't you think engaging with them and convincing them of your viewpoint would be better for whatever you believe in in the long run than simply muting the opposing viewpoint?

cycomanic 4y ago

> I wouldn't call disagreement the same as trying to get someone fired because you disagree with them. > > Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. > Again, the definition of freedom of speech is "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint". It's not really free speech if you have to worry about being censored or consequences. That's a very absolutist way of seeing free speech. I also don't believe anyone practices this view of free speech in practice. If you have children, are they allowed to say anything without consequences? What would you do with a guest at your house who repeatedly insulted you? I also would like to know what you think about spam filters, or moderation here on HN is that not cancellation? As a side note there was an interesting post from a twitter discussion a number of weeks ago. The main gist of the discussion was that moderation is hardly ever about "cancelling" some sort of free speech, but about increasing SNR. Harassment, racism etc. decrease SNR and make people leave your platform.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
No, it is not. You have the freedom to rebuttal, but not the one to insist of speakers to be silence or removed. Look up the definition of freedom of speech on wikipedia, it is in the first sentence. This is not absolutist at all, this is a very basic rule for civilized discourse. You are correct that people occasionally do not adhere to these principles.

jonnybgood 4y ago

In the US, that definition has only ever applied to the government. And it should only ever apply to the government. > Shouting the opposing side down so that they cannot speak does nothing but make the situation worse. You might feel like you win a short term win by deplatforming someone but it causes further radicalization. It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum you are on you will not convince the other side without actually engaging in good faith discussions. Are you suggesting we moderate and apply a little restraint to someone's speech because of the consequences of radicalizing someone?

bostonsre 4y ago
> Are you suggesting we moderate and apply a little restraint to someone's speech because of the consequences of radicalizing someone? Yes. Why not try to engage them in a discussion to try to convince them? If you truly believe in your viewpoint and want it to prevail, don't you think engaging with them and convincing them of your viewpoint would be better for whatever you believe in in the long run than simply muting the opposing viewpoint?