3 ms·

I think out of all of this the worst thing to come of it, is this term, seemingly re-invented here, called "free speech absolutists". Which isn't a thing. It's

by fswd 4y ago

I think out of all of this the worst thing to come of it, is this term, seemingly re-invented here, called "free speech absolutists". Which isn't a thing. It's the inversion of "relative censorship" and much larger concept and strategy to turn everything "relative", i.e relativism, or "The Relativists Clan". Free speech can't be "relative" to somebody's interpretation, otherwise it wouldn't be speech that is free -- free -- of relative-style censorhip. The basis of relative speech is that some speech is harmful and it should be censored. That just means, hey we're not a free speech website. It comes down to be honest, there are people who don't want other people saying things and they will go as far to redefine words and meanings to censor them.

omnicognate 4y ago
Free speech absolutism is a clear and useful term for the belief that anybody should be allowed to say anything, i.e. that absolute freedom of speech is inherently a good thing. It's not synonymous with "freedom of speech" (i.e. the "absolutism" part isn't redundant) because there are versions of the idea of freedom of speech that aren't absolute, that don't allow anybody to say anything they like. The version of freedom of speech that is encoded in US consitutional law (the first amendment and the long history of supreme court judgements on the subject) is an example. There are forms of speech that are not protected and there is a mainstream interpretation of freedom of speech that does not see restrictions against defamation, incitement of violence, etc., as infringements of it. A "free speech absolutist" would see these as infringements of freedom of speech, so the term is useful to distinguish that particular view. You're seeing the term used a lot on Hacker News because there are people here who routinely argue that any speech should be allowed on a platform that claims to support freedom of speech. These people are free speech absolutists (at least in the context of the debate about online platforms) and, if they feel their views on the matter are correct, shouldn't be offended to be called that.

by fswd 4y ago

omnicognate 4y ago

Free speech absolutism is a clear and useful term for the belief that anybody should be allowed to say anything, i.e. that absolute freedom of speech is inherently a good thing. It's not synonymous with "freedom of speech" (i.e. the "absolutism" part isn't redundant) because there are versions of the idea of freedom of speech that aren't absolute, that don't allow anybody to say anything they like. The version of freedom of speech that is encoded in US consitutional law (the first amendment and the long history of supreme court judgements on the subject) is an example. There are forms of speech that are not protected and there is a mainstream interpretation of freedom of speech that does not see restrictions against defamation, incitement of violence, etc., as infringements of it. A "free speech absolutist" would see these as infringements of freedom of speech, so the term is useful to distinguish that particular view. You're seeing the term used a lot on Hacker News because there are people here who routinely argue that any speech should be allowed on a platform that claims to support freedom of speech. These people are free speech absolutists (at least in the context of the debate about online platforms) and, if they feel their views on the matter are correct, shouldn't be offended to be called that.