7 ms·
> Just because we legally can do something doesn't mean it's good to exercise that power. What does "good" and "bad" have to do with this? We have laws specifi
by trabant00 4y ago
> Just because we legally can do something doesn't mean it's good to exercise that power.
What does "good" and "bad" have to do with this? We have laws specifically so we are not at the mercy of moral judgement. We tried that already, it didn't work. If it's legal you either accept it or try change the law. Anything else is mob justice.
- klyrs 4y agoYou can legally share every last detail of the poop you just left in the toilet, pictures and all. If you choose to do that at the lunch table at work, nobody is obliged to remain seated with you. Ergo, sharing such details is not a good idea. Even though it is perfectly legal. Those co-workers who vacated the table are exercising their rights in walking away. Call that "mob justice" if you will.
- briantakita 4y agoThere's a difference between walking away & taping someone's mouth at the table. Walking away is freedom of association. Taping someone's mouth is censorship & a forced imposition or outright violence against a person.
- klyrs 4y agoIs there a rash of mouth taping that I'm unaware of?
- kelseyfrog 4y agoParent is trying to draw a parallel between mouth taping and censorship. The problem is that lunchroom scenarios aren't cleanly isomorphic to online scenarios.
- klyrs 4y agoOkay. Let's say you like to share details of your bathroom escapades on a forum dedicated to 3d printing. The admins give you a few warnings and eventually kick you off, because nobody wants to hear that. I daresay that isn't "violence." It's still an exercise of free association where the forum moderators have decided your speech is "not good" despite being perfectly legal.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoThe argument, as I understand it, is that disabling someone's ability to do speech is categorically censorship.
- klyrs 4y agoSure, call it censorship. I maintain that it's legally permissible to ban shit-posters for misconduct. I'd further argue that failing to ban shit-posters will dissuade 3d printing enthusiasts from using a particular forum, granting the shit-posters a heckler's veto which is its own form of censorship.
- gadders 4y agoHow about murdering? See Charlie Hebdo, Samuel Paty etc.
- trabant00 4y agoNobody is arguing people are obligated to sit and listen to the legal speech. Not even close.
- klyrs 4y agoMy comment illustrates Ken White's statement that prompted your question: > What does "good" and "bad" have to do with this? Happy to hear that you agree that there is a gulf between individuals' judgement and legal judgement. If you'll read more of Ken White, he also says that sometimes it's bad to exercise "cancel culture" even though it's legal to do so.
- glial 4y agoIt's legal for an adult to drink a handle of vodka every night. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's legal for you to tell your neighbor you hate them. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
- AdrianB1 4y agoThis is disingenuous. Drinking vodka is not a constitutional right, it is just something that is not forbidden by law, so you are comparing 2 very different things. For any constitutional right people should be proud to show support and exercise it as much as possible, otherwise it is not a right, just a permission like drinking.
- chadash 4y agoI think that this is a dangerous attitude that leads to more laws and the clawing away of rights. The supreme court explicitly held that people have the constitutional right to hold an anti-gay rally outside of military members' funerals [1]. I think that the vast majority of people (including the overwhelming majority of people holding anti-gay views) would find this behavior atrocious and immoral. But it's protected free speech. The problem though is that enough of this kind of stuff happens and laws begin to change. Sure, it's one crazy group in this case, but if this sort of behavior were prevalent enough, peoples' views on free speech would change. Sure, this is an extreme example, since something specifically mentioned in the constitution is very hard to change. But there are plenty of examples of laws that only exist in response to some idiot(s) who decided to ruin it for everyone else (as a very simple example, I no longer have the right to buy more than one pack of Sudafed at a time where I live... they didn't just dream that law up out of thin air). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps#Alito's_dissent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps#Alito's_disse...
- UncleMeat 4y agoThis would be a much more compelling argument if I believed that homophobic politicians, judges, and groups will defend the speech rights of gay people. Instead what I see is a pattern of right wing groups leveraging the courts to protect their own right to hate while also leveraging the courts to oppress groups they hate. Standing up for the Nazi's right to march in my town won't cause those Nazis to stand up for my right to march in my town.
- diordiderot 4y agoOnly one side cares about the rules, but the other side still uses it as a rhetorical weapon
- mlindner 4y agoWhen’s the last time the courts protected the right to hate in the form of preventing speech of gay people? This is just worrying about things that don’t happen. Right now socially LGBT people have a moral high ground and very little of their speech is ever prevented.