7 ms·

I have never understood this type of statement. If you view some speech as a problem then you're just not for free speech. If you're all for free speech, the "

by fein 4y ago

I have never understood this type of statement. If you view some speech as a problem then you're just not for free speech. If you're all for free speech, the "nazi at the bar" problem isn't a problem because free speech would allow you to battle it out in a propaganda (the neutral definition) war. I don't think a whole lot of people are actually pro free speech, but I think a lot of people are afraid to admit that.

diffeomorphism 4y ago
Ironically the US explicitly noted this problem when the German constitution (in the part occupied by the allies) was drawn up. So they basically introduced free* *no nazis or similar. Seems entirely reasonable and this whole "it isn't free if there isn't anarchy" sounds very naive.
ajross 4y ago
> battle it out in a propaganda (the neutral definition) war How would that be distinguished from "cancellation", exactly?
- fein 4y ago
  Because no one gets cancelled? The war of ideas is a game where the goal is to get the most amount of people to adopt that idea. No part of this is removing someone's ability to speak, but they may not be listened to by the masses that don't like their ideas.
ohbtvz 4y ago
Supporting free speech doesn't mean that you support absolute free speech without any limitation. We all have a lot of rights, and exercising those rights can impinge on the rights of others. Why would freedom of speech be somehow special and trump every single other right? I don't know in English, but in French we have a saying: the freedom of some begins where the freedom of others ends.
- happyopossum 4y ago
  > Why would freedom of speech be somehow special and trump every single other right? Because speech doesn’t cause physical harm or loss to others.
  - icedistilled 4y ago
    >"Because speech doesn’t cause physical harm or loss to others." Nope, that is trivially wrong with the obvious counter examples being slander and libel.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Which is why they're excluded from the definition of free speech pretty much everywhere?
  - morjom 4y ago
    Couldn't "psychological harm/turmoil" fit somewhere in there aswell? Verbal abuse etc.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      generally speaking that would fall under harassment.
- fein 4y ago
  I assume it would be obvious, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Free speech in the USA is (supposed) to mean the freedom to do political speech without state ramifications (I'm not sure how well this constitutionally works for private companies). This obviously doesn't count credible threats, telling people to riot or be violent, etc. Basically you have a right to offend people short of targeted harassment. *This is obviously an oversimplification but I'm giving the HN the benefit of the doubt here, however misguided that may be.
  - Taywee 4y ago
ShredKazoo 4y ago
>If you view some speech as a problem then you're just not for free speech. I strongly disagree. Support for freedom of speech means being anti-censorship. It's perfectly coherent to believe that particular speech does harm, and also should not be censored. Suppose you and I are top medical researchers, and we disagree about the best way to treat a disease. It's perfectly coherent for me to believe that your speech is killing people by promoting a treatment which is suboptimal/counterproductive, and also believe that your speech should not be censored.
- fein 4y ago
  I don't believe that your example is what the first amendment exists to protect, in fact if your hypothetical researcher is causing physical harm to people with their treatment, that's probably a criminal offense that has nothing to do with political speech.
  - darawk 4y ago
    Scientists and doctors regularly disagree with each other about which treatments are best for patient, how much heavily to regulate pharmaceuticals, etc. And who is right in those debates have far reaching consequences for human life. Thousands of people live or die every year based on those disagreements. Ignaz Semmelweiss's life is the perfect example of this phenomenon in action, with extreme consequences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis He realized doctors were killing their patients by not washing their hands and cleaning their instruments. He devised simple solutions to this problem. The doctors of his day laughed him out of the room and had him committed to an insane asylum where he was effectively tortured to death. The consensus of medical practitioners at the time was that he was a crank. But he was right. Should he have been imprisoned? Certainly the doctors of his day would have had him banned from social media for "misinformation" if they could have, and they did far worse. We abide by the principle of free expression not because it causes the least harm in every instance, but because it causes the least harm in expectation. The value of minority viewpoints that are right about important things that the majority is wrong about will always outweigh the harm of harmful speech, in aggregate. And one thing is clear from all of human history: We are not responsible enough to tell the difference ex ante.
rch 4y ago
It seems to me that far too few "have the courage to use [their] own understanding," and that many would willingly abdicate intellectually to external authorities, provided the opportunity to do so without incurring social costs. A culture of open, potentially adversarial, discourse is incompatible with systems of thought which devalue the individual's capacity to reason, and so that culture itself is routinely undermined.
bigbacaloa 4y ago
Almost no notion of free speech considers an absolute freedom to say whatever. Almost all conceptions of free speech deny the freedom to promote manifestly false and/or terroristic ideas (promoting killing a specific person, for example, almost no one considers protected speech). Always the problem is not whether there is a line, but where to draw it.

by fein 4y ago

diffeomorphism 4y ago

Ironically the US explicitly noted this problem when the German constitution (in the part occupied by the allies) was drawn up. So they basically introduced free* *no nazis or similar. Seems entirely reasonable and this whole "it isn't free if there isn't anarchy" sounds very naive.

ajross 4y ago

> battle it out in a propaganda (the neutral definition) war How would that be distinguished from "cancellation", exactly?

fein 4y ago
Because no one gets cancelled? The war of ideas is a game where the goal is to get the most amount of people to adopt that idea. No part of this is removing someone's ability to speak, but they may not be listened to by the masses that don't like their ideas.

ohbtvz 4y ago

Supporting free speech doesn't mean that you support absolute free speech without any limitation. We all have a lot of rights, and exercising those rights can impinge on the rights of others. Why would freedom of speech be somehow special and trump every single other right? I don't know in English, but in French we have a saying: the freedom of some begins where the freedom of others ends.

happyopossum 4y ago
> Why would freedom of speech be somehow special and trump every single other right? Because speech doesn’t cause physical harm or loss to others.
- icedistilled 4y ago
  >"Because speech doesn’t cause physical harm or loss to others." Nope, that is trivially wrong with the obvious counter examples being slander and libel.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Which is why they're excluded from the definition of free speech pretty much everywhere?
- morjom 4y ago
  Couldn't "psychological harm/turmoil" fit somewhere in there aswell? Verbal abuse etc.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    generally speaking that would fall under harassment.
fein 4y ago
I assume it would be obvious, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Free speech in the USA is (supposed) to mean the freedom to do political speech without state ramifications (I'm not sure how well this constitutionally works for private companies). This obviously doesn't count credible threats, telling people to riot or be violent, etc. Basically you have a right to offend people short of targeted harassment. *This is obviously an oversimplification but I'm giving the HN the benefit of the doubt here, however misguided that may be.
- Taywee 4y ago

ShredKazoo 4y ago

>If you view some speech as a problem then you're just not for free speech. I strongly disagree. Support for freedom of speech means being anti-censorship. It's perfectly coherent to believe that particular speech does harm, and also should not be censored. Suppose you and I are top medical researchers, and we disagree about the best way to treat a disease. It's perfectly coherent for me to believe that your speech is killing people by promoting a treatment which is suboptimal/counterproductive, and also believe that your speech should not be censored.

fein 4y ago
I don't believe that your example is what the first amendment exists to protect, in fact if your hypothetical researcher is causing physical harm to people with their treatment, that's probably a criminal offense that has nothing to do with political speech.
- darawk 4y ago
  Scientists and doctors regularly disagree with each other about which treatments are best for patient, how much heavily to regulate pharmaceuticals, etc. And who is right in those debates have far reaching consequences for human life. Thousands of people live or die every year based on those disagreements. Ignaz Semmelweiss's life is the perfect example of this phenomenon in action, with extreme consequences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis He realized doctors were killing their patients by not washing their hands and cleaning their instruments. He devised simple solutions to this problem. The doctors of his day laughed him out of the room and had him committed to an insane asylum where he was effectively tortured to death. The consensus of medical practitioners at the time was that he was a crank. But he was right. Should he have been imprisoned? Certainly the doctors of his day would have had him banned from social media for "misinformation" if they could have, and they did far worse. We abide by the principle of free expression not because it causes the least harm in every instance, but because it causes the least harm in expectation. The value of minority viewpoints that are right about important things that the majority is wrong about will always outweigh the harm of harmful speech, in aggregate. And one thing is clear from all of human history: We are not responsible enough to tell the difference ex ante.

rch 4y ago

It seems to me that far too few "have the courage to use [their] own understanding," and that many would willingly abdicate intellectually to external authorities, provided the opportunity to do so without incurring social costs. A culture of open, potentially adversarial, discourse is incompatible with systems of thought which devalue the individual's capacity to reason, and so that culture itself is routinely undermined.

bigbacaloa 4y ago

Almost no notion of free speech considers an absolute freedom to say whatever. Almost all conceptions of free speech deny the freedom to promote manifestly false and/or terroristic ideas (promoting killing a specific person, for example, almost no one considers protected speech). Always the problem is not whether there is a line, but where to draw it.