6 ms·

The issue is when "free speech absolutists" often aren't actually that. They'll stand up to defend folks like the ones from the case you cited because "Free Spe

by erklik 2y ago

The issue is when "free speech absolutists" often aren't actually that. They'll stand up to defend folks like the ones from the case you cited because "Free Speech". Yet, they'll also defend laws like the ones passed earlier in the year by the US House about codifying the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism. > spectrum The spectrum is far too often simply colored by the politics one's interested in, i.e. Free Speech is simply a tool to attack another and provide justification for their own opinions. Not an actual Free Speech position. I don't believe anyone truly has a Free Speech Absolutist position. It's always just a tool. When the speech is against you, everyone conveniently turns against it.

tonynator 2y ago
>they'll also defend laws like the ones passed earlier in the year by the US House about codifying the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism. Anyone who defended that isn't even close to a free-speech absolutist. >I don't believe anyone truly has a Free Speech Absolutist position I do. It's what makes America great. Erosions like that jewish law are slowly weakening that. You should be allowed to say whatever you want about White people, straight people, men, Christians, etc. and I should be able to say whatever I want about jews. You just don't want to acknowledge such a stance is possible because the people you agree with are in power, allow the speech you agree with, and censor the speech you don't disagree with, so you stand with nothing to gain by supporting free speech. That's a personal choice to have no integrity.
- katbyte 2y ago
  Should I be able to make wild claims about my product to trick you into buying it? False claims about my buisness performance to pump the stock? Lies about your character? Your kids? made up stuff that whips up entire segments of your city to commit violence or vandalism against you? Because absolute free speech is allowing all that without consequence
  - tonynator 2y ago
    Yes. The free market would solve the first two, the next two aren't even crimes currently, and with the last the crime is the violence/vandalism not someone telling a fib.
    - squigz 2y ago
      Firstly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation Secondly, you're okay with someone inciting violence/vandalism/crimes, and people acting explicitly on that person's direction, as long as only the actual violence/vandalism/crime is punished?
      - tonynator 2y ago
        Defamation shouldn't exist (see Alex Jones, that's an insane situation to be told to pay $1.5 BILLION for sharing an opinion) but the standards are generally higher than "someone told lies about my character" at least. Yes. Everyone has agency, if I tell you to commit a crime it's up to you whether to do so.
        squigz 2y ago
        Well I'm glad the vast majority of people don't agree with you and actually recognize there's nuance here.
        tonynator 2y ago
        The vast majority of people don't like being censored
    - notnaut 2y ago
      “The free market would fix it” quite spiritually similar to “god will provide” or “prayer solves everything.” Maybe, maybe with an unwieldy amount of time the rubes would all die out as they administer snake oil to themselves and their families, the pyramid schemes all collapse under the weight of their inability to produce the results their funders sought, and the collective, unorganized and ungovernmented multitudes publicly shame and criticize those industry leaders who conducted research into the effects of their products, but decided instead to make some shit up to sell more. Maybe more likely: as the divine wisdom of the heavenly free market dictates, a few really good liars get a massive foothold and build empires on it. And maybe in the truest American free market fashion, these opportunities to profit from fraud are available to everyone! Even if you’re not clever enough to build an empire, you can at least move state to state, lying, selling more slow-burn poison, all the while with the cops backing you up when the mob forms, because fraud and the affects of lying are as protected as saying something ignorant or mean.
- erklik 2y ago
  > Anyone who defended that isn't even close to a free-speech absolutist. No True Scotsman. > You just don't want to acknowledge such a stance is possible because the people you agree with are in power, allow the speech you agree with, and censor the speech you don't disagree with, so you stand with nothing to gain by supporting free speech. That's a personal choice to have no integrity. ... I am not American, neither do I have anyone in power who supports the speech I agree with. There's no need to attack me specifically. I am talking about the wider pattern. Free Speech Absolutists exist as long as the speech they support is being oppressed. Do you support Free Speech of the person screaming obscenities at your young child? False claims about you? Whipping up entire communities to attack you physically? Do you support speech that incites genocide? Yes, some of those are crimes but I am not sure you'd care if you'd been attacked already. The damage is done.
  - tonynator 2y ago
    >No True Scotsman. Nope. If you support laws that censor criticism of israel you are not a free speech supporter, let alone an absolutist. The term has a very clear definition and it's the opposite of what the antisemitism law entails. >... I am not American, neither do I have anyone in power who supports the speech I agree with. Did I say you were American? All of Europe and many parts of Asia are way worse when it comes to free speech. >Do you support Free Speech of the person screaming obscenities at your young child? False claims about you? Whipping up entire communities to attack you physically? Yes. If it's just words and not a direct threat it's fine. Direct threats are a fine exception because they promise crossing over from words into physical action, at that point the NAP is violated if you want to look at it that way. No need to wait and see if they're actually going to follow through. Aside from that I really don't see any need for further exceptions.
    - g6taa 2y ago
      > >Do you support Free Speech of the person screaming obscenities at your young child? False claims about you? Whipping up entire communities to attack you physically? > > Yes. If it's just words and not a direct threat it's fine. > > Direct threats are a fine exception because they promise crossing over from words into physical action, at that point the NAP is violated if you want to look at it that way. No need to wait and see if they're actually going to follow through. > > Aside from that I really don't see any need for further exceptions. I'd argue that someone who has effectively control over some kind of mob riling them up is quite a bit more threatening than a "direct threat" if they know that mob contains people that will (or even just are very likely to) commit violence as a result of it: instead of making one direct threat, they generate multiple (indirect and possibility silent) ones.

by erklik 2y ago

tonynator 2y ago

>they'll also defend laws like the ones passed earlier in the year by the US House about codifying the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism. Anyone who defended that isn't even close to a free-speech absolutist. >I don't believe anyone truly has a Free Speech Absolutist position I do. It's what makes America great. Erosions like that jewish law are slowly weakening that. You should be allowed to say whatever you want about White people, straight people, men, Christians, etc. and I should be able to say whatever I want about jews. You just don't want to acknowledge such a stance is possible because the people you agree with are in power, allow the speech you agree with, and censor the speech you don't disagree with, so you stand with nothing to gain by supporting free speech. That's a personal choice to have no integrity.

katbyte 2y ago
Should I be able to make wild claims about my product to trick you into buying it? False claims about my buisness performance to pump the stock? Lies about your character? Your kids? made up stuff that whips up entire segments of your city to commit violence or vandalism against you? Because absolute free speech is allowing all that without consequence
- tonynator 2y ago
  Yes. The free market would solve the first two, the next two aren't even crimes currently, and with the last the crime is the violence/vandalism not someone telling a fib.
  - squigz 2y ago
    Firstly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation Secondly, you're okay with someone inciting violence/vandalism/crimes, and people acting explicitly on that person's direction, as long as only the actual violence/vandalism/crime is punished?
    - tonynator 2y ago
      Defamation shouldn't exist (see Alex Jones, that's an insane situation to be told to pay $1.5 BILLION for sharing an opinion) but the standards are generally higher than "someone told lies about my character" at least. Yes. Everyone has agency, if I tell you to commit a crime it's up to you whether to do so.
      - squigz 2y ago
        Well I'm glad the vast majority of people don't agree with you and actually recognize there's nuance here.
        tonynator 2y ago
        The vast majority of people don't like being censored
  - notnaut 2y ago
    “The free market would fix it” quite spiritually similar to “god will provide” or “prayer solves everything.” Maybe, maybe with an unwieldy amount of time the rubes would all die out as they administer snake oil to themselves and their families, the pyramid schemes all collapse under the weight of their inability to produce the results their funders sought, and the collective, unorganized and ungovernmented multitudes publicly shame and criticize those industry leaders who conducted research into the effects of their products, but decided instead to make some shit up to sell more. Maybe more likely: as the divine wisdom of the heavenly free market dictates, a few really good liars get a massive foothold and build empires on it. And maybe in the truest American free market fashion, these opportunities to profit from fraud are available to everyone! Even if you’re not clever enough to build an empire, you can at least move state to state, lying, selling more slow-burn poison, all the while with the cops backing you up when the mob forms, because fraud and the affects of lying are as protected as saying something ignorant or mean.
erklik 2y ago
> Anyone who defended that isn't even close to a free-speech absolutist. No True Scotsman. > You just don't want to acknowledge such a stance is possible because the people you agree with are in power, allow the speech you agree with, and censor the speech you don't disagree with, so you stand with nothing to gain by supporting free speech. That's a personal choice to have no integrity. ... I am not American, neither do I have anyone in power who supports the speech I agree with. There's no need to attack me specifically. I am talking about the wider pattern. Free Speech Absolutists exist as long as the speech they support is being oppressed. Do you support Free Speech of the person screaming obscenities at your young child? False claims about you? Whipping up entire communities to attack you physically? Do you support speech that incites genocide? Yes, some of those are crimes but I am not sure you'd care if you'd been attacked already. The damage is done.
- tonynator 2y ago
  >No True Scotsman. Nope. If you support laws that censor criticism of israel you are not a free speech supporter, let alone an absolutist. The term has a very clear definition and it's the opposite of what the antisemitism law entails. >... I am not American, neither do I have anyone in power who supports the speech I agree with. Did I say you were American? All of Europe and many parts of Asia are way worse when it comes to free speech. >Do you support Free Speech of the person screaming obscenities at your young child? False claims about you? Whipping up entire communities to attack you physically? Yes. If it's just words and not a direct threat it's fine. Direct threats are a fine exception because they promise crossing over from words into physical action, at that point the NAP is violated if you want to look at it that way. No need to wait and see if they're actually going to follow through. Aside from that I really don't see any need for further exceptions.
  - g6taa 2y ago
    > >Do you support Free Speech of the person screaming obscenities at your young child? False claims about you? Whipping up entire communities to attack you physically? > > Yes. If it's just words and not a direct threat it's fine. > > Direct threats are a fine exception because they promise crossing over from words into physical action, at that point the NAP is violated if you want to look at it that way. No need to wait and see if they're actually going to follow through. > > Aside from that I really don't see any need for further exceptions. I'd argue that someone who has effectively control over some kind of mob riling them up is quite a bit more threatening than a "direct threat" if they know that mob contains people that will (or even just are very likely to) commit violence as a result of it: instead of making one direct threat, they generate multiple (indirect and possibility silent) ones.