3 ms·

I disagree with the metaphor. In the past freedom of speech meant absolute free speech with a small blacklist of specific situations in which it would cause imm

by Dig1t 3y ago

I disagree with the metaphor. In the past freedom of speech meant absolute free speech with a small blacklist of specific situations in which it would cause immediate, physical, danger to others. Everything else was okay, even if it hurts other peoples' feelings. It is an extremely GOOD thing to have for society, it is the main tool that the left used to gain the power that it has today. It is the main tool by which good people can overcome bad people in power. The newer generation seems to be okay with moving from a blacklist -> whitelist approach where the range of acceptable opinions and topics are set by the group and things outside of that range are labeled offensive, bigoted, racist, something-phobic, or harmful in some other way and banned. Responding specifically to your point about trans educational material, free speech absolutists are 100% okay with allowing trans educational material that says anything at all. I'm not kidding, think of whatever offensive thing you want to say about cis people, free speech absolutists are okay with you saying it. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is something I, and other free speech absolutists, truly believe.

uLogMicheal 3y ago
When people fear discussion they will disengage, leaving discourse to the most motivated or incentivized to program thoughts.
foldr 3y ago
>In the past freedom of speech meant absolute free speech with a small blacklist of specific situations in which it would cause immediate, physical, danger to others. You'll have to specify when this golden age existed. I suspect that if you name any specific date, we could find all sorts of respects in which freedom of speech was much more restricted in the US at that time than it is now.
- Dig1t 3y ago
  I am not saying that it has always been perfectly implemented, right leaning politicians have been guilty in myriad ways of censorship over the years. But the ideal that we define as a culture is what I stated, and if we all agree that's what we want then we can work every day towards the ideal. It has been the ideal since the founding of the United States in 1776. I know this to be true because my parents and grandparents told me that that is what their generation valued, and what they thought the definition of free speech should be. If the majority of the people in a culture decide that they care about free speech then the minority of censorious bad people in power can be overcome. How do you think the left got the power they have today? By being allowed to write whatever they want in opinion columns, make movies that insult corrupt politicians, write plays about evil industrial fat cats poisoning the water supply, marching through the streets with megaphones dissenting to war mongers. Now we are saying it's okay to silence these people as long as we label them as "harmful" or "bigots" in some way. Even being anti-war is now somehow becoming associated with the alt-right taboo people that must not be talked about. What we are seeing now is a generation of people who do not share the ideal of free speech, and are okay with censorship and an ingroup/outgroup by default.
  - foldr 3y ago
    It's trivial to find historical examples of censorship in the US that wouldn't happen today. Here is one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bertrand_Russell_Case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bertrand_Russell_Case Can you imagine a situation now where CUNY was unable to appoint someone to an academic position because the Catholic church canceled them? As another example one might mention the vast reduction of censorship in movies. Movies can be shown now that would have been unthinkable in at least the first half of the 20th century. Granted, there may also be instances of present day censorship that wouldn't have happened historically. But it's naive and completely ahistorical to see any past period as some kind of bastion of free speech absolutism. Believe me, lots of people in your grandparents' generation also wanted to restrict free speech (particularly with regard to e.g. sexually explicit content, or anything that might be vaguely connected with Communism).
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      Can we at least agree on the premise that free speech should be absolute? The parent pointed out that the implementation has never been perfect, but the objective was correct? Conditional upon that, why wouldn't we strive to correct the implementation? The opposite seems to be happening.
      - foldr 3y ago
        What’s the point in having a debate on HN about whether or not free speech should be absolute? I doubt there’s anything new to say on the topic.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        My comment was in response to your initial response that nitpicked the OP's point that free speech was considered absolute in the past, contrary to the current climate which seems to be trying to do away with it and replace it with white listed speech. The OP was discussing the ideology of free speech, not the implementation. My response was an attempt to bring the topic back to the ideology of whether free speech should be allowed in absoluteness, in contrast to your deviation towards implementation.

by Dig1t 3y ago

uLogMicheal 3y ago

When people fear discussion they will disengage, leaving discourse to the most motivated or incentivized to program thoughts.

foldr 3y ago

>In the past freedom of speech meant absolute free speech with a small blacklist of specific situations in which it would cause immediate, physical, danger to others. You'll have to specify when this golden age existed. I suspect that if you name any specific date, we could find all sorts of respects in which freedom of speech was much more restricted in the US at that time than it is now.

Dig1t 3y ago
I am not saying that it has always been perfectly implemented, right leaning politicians have been guilty in myriad ways of censorship over the years. But the ideal that we define as a culture is what I stated, and if we all agree that's what we want then we can work every day towards the ideal. It has been the ideal since the founding of the United States in 1776. I know this to be true because my parents and grandparents told me that that is what their generation valued, and what they thought the definition of free speech should be. If the majority of the people in a culture decide that they care about free speech then the minority of censorious bad people in power can be overcome. How do you think the left got the power they have today? By being allowed to write whatever they want in opinion columns, make movies that insult corrupt politicians, write plays about evil industrial fat cats poisoning the water supply, marching through the streets with megaphones dissenting to war mongers. Now we are saying it's okay to silence these people as long as we label them as "harmful" or "bigots" in some way. Even being anti-war is now somehow becoming associated with the alt-right taboo people that must not be talked about. What we are seeing now is a generation of people who do not share the ideal of free speech, and are okay with censorship and an ingroup/outgroup by default.
- foldr 3y ago
  It's trivial to find historical examples of censorship in the US that wouldn't happen today. Here is one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bertrand_Russell_Case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bertrand_Russell_Case Can you imagine a situation now where CUNY was unable to appoint someone to an academic position because the Catholic church canceled them? As another example one might mention the vast reduction of censorship in movies. Movies can be shown now that would have been unthinkable in at least the first half of the 20th century. Granted, there may also be instances of present day censorship that wouldn't have happened historically. But it's naive and completely ahistorical to see any past period as some kind of bastion of free speech absolutism. Believe me, lots of people in your grandparents' generation also wanted to restrict free speech (particularly with regard to e.g. sexually explicit content, or anything that might be vaguely connected with Communism).
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Can we at least agree on the premise that free speech should be absolute? The parent pointed out that the implementation has never been perfect, but the objective was correct? Conditional upon that, why wouldn't we strive to correct the implementation? The opposite seems to be happening.
    - foldr 3y ago
      What’s the point in having a debate on HN about whether or not free speech should be absolute? I doubt there’s anything new to say on the topic.
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        My comment was in response to your initial response that nitpicked the OP's point that free speech was considered absolute in the past, contrary to the current climate which seems to be trying to do away with it and replace it with white listed speech. The OP was discussing the ideology of free speech, not the implementation. My response was an attempt to bring the topic back to the ideology of whether free speech should be allowed in absoluteness, in contrast to your deviation towards implementation.