4 ms·

The Tongue Is a Fire

25 points by Petiver 1y ago

croes 1y ago
> without freedom of speech: which is the right of every man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the right of another. And this is the only check which it ought to suffer, the only bounds it ought to know. The latter part is often ignored from free speech absolutists but only as long it’s about their free speech.
- ycombinete 1y ago
  "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Or as the most recent absurd social media controversy: what does "86 49" refer to and to what extent is it a threat?
    - ben_w 1y ago
      I find this particular controversy to be exceptionally hypocritical, given that it was only a few months ago that the people chanting "Hang Mike Pence" at some point between standing in front of a gallows and unlawfully trespassing government premises… were pardoned by Trump. But the point is still valid.
michaelmrose 1y ago
There are two sorts of free speech absolutists. Those without power whom merely want to be heard and those with power who would not be limited in its exercise.
- nyanpasu64 1y ago
  Trump believes in free speech for the far-right and fascists, and deportation for students speaking against his actions.
- gsf_emergency 1y ago
  Remarkably, the boundary between public goods and public bads, which presumably each citizen ought to be fascinated by, Does not lie on the spectrum. How would one redefine either of the extremal points (or, more concisely, the notion of speech itself) so that it does?
internet_points 1y ago
> First, the zealots today are no longer the progressives on the left – liberals, socialists, trade unionists. Instead they are predominantly on the right: campaigners against immigration, Brexiters, the enemies of Woke, aka Anti Social Justice Warriors, or ‘Anti-SJW’, as they proclaim themselves on their black T-shirts, available online for £15. This switch-around isn’t entirely new. It has already switched back, now that the right wing is in power. It used to be that you would get your talk cancelled for having views that challenged family values. Now you get deported for having views that challenge the war machine.
ur-whale 1y ago
https://archive.is/D97iG https://archive.is/D97iG
thrance 1y ago
My stance on free speech is now that we need hate speech laws. The main argument against them, as I understand it, is always "that's a slippery slope toward authoritarianism". Truth is, when fascists get into power, whatever the law says will not save you from their potential desire to censor you. Allowing them to propagate their hateful ideas before then only serves their cause. It's the paradox of tolerance [1]. > If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. And indeed, many of those that claimed to be "free speech absolutists" before nov. 5 2025 are now cheering on books burnings and deporting citizens without due process. They simply brandished "free speech" as a defense everytime someone rightfully pointed out how bigoted and hateful the lies they spouted were, and never believed in it as a philosophical or legal ideal. To them, this "free speech" aestethic was always a mean to an end, taking advantage of a weak opposition that believed too much in the power of institutions and law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- Arn_Thor 1y ago
  Hear hear!
- theodric 1y ago
  I believe in due process of law and absolute free speech. Guess I don't exist. Honestly, that's such a relief.
  - thrance 1y ago
    Got it, no need for such abrasiveness. I tweaked my previous comment, you're right: not every free speech absolutist is a hypocrite.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    > absolute free speech So.. where's the real boundary? Fraud? CSAM? Other media deemed obscene? FOSTA/SESTA related matters? Death threats? Actions adjacent to death threats, like posting a picture of someone's face and address with a target photoshopped on them? Overt advocacy of violence against the state? (people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here)
noqc 1y ago
To me, the only reasonable exception that might exist to totally unrestricted speech is paid speech. If the courts really wishes to foster a state of free speech, then it should recognize that doing so requires the regulation of contractually obligated speech. Advertising, paid endorsements, Public relations firms, these are all things that obviously must be regulated, perhaps out of existence. And as an aside, deporting people (back to their home countries) over their ideology is appropriate. The administration was recently elected to do just that. Deportations are legal, and the US public voted for them. The mandate is clear.
- thrance 1y ago
  Deportations without due process aren't though. And what does it even mean to deport citizens? Republicans have to stop with this "mandate" argument. Being elected doesn't make the president all-powerful, they still have to abide by the law.
  - noqc 1y ago
    You cannot deport citizens, and I believe that I am not arguing that you can, however, the process due to non-citizens is very minimal. You and your belongings are being returned to your country, where you will be free to do with them whatever you please. It's not incarceration, or a fine, we're just kicking you out, and we can basically do that at our discretion.
    - thrance 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus The way this administration is doing their deportations is illegal, that's all I'm saying, and at this point it is not an opinion.
      - noqc 1y ago
        I agree! But this is very different from "the first amendment protects you from deportation".
el_don_almighty 1y ago
This is what makes Hacker News such an astounding resource for thought provoking insight. I take the American perspective on free speech as nearly a theological imperative despite the problematic side effects. The alternatives strike me as far worse. Free speech drives faster resolution and remediation to the socially unacceptable. The ideas and behaviors highlighted by the reviewer are not new to society and collectively we do not stand in a place in a place, "never before seen." Our tools for communicating, identifying, and correcting the evils in this world are better than ever. Evil is just so damned ingenious. That isn't speech's fault.
- thrance 1y ago
  > Our tools for communicating, identifying, and correcting the evils in this world are better than ever. Are they really? It feels like fascist propaganda never spread so fast and so far than with social media. X is infested with neo-nazis casually discussing the jewish question or fantasizing about a coming race war on the front page. Fox News is a well-oiled oligarch-funded lie machine that never stops spinning narratives in service of power. To me, that such a large portion of the country is gleefully cheering on ICE parting sick children from their parents [1] is proof enough of the absolute failure of our systems of information and free speech laws in addessing the rising issue of right-wing populism. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g8yj2n33yo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g8yj2n33yo
- pjc50 1y ago
  > I take the American perspective on free speech as nearly a theological imperative Is this the one where books get pulled from school libraries if they mention the existence of gay people? (as I argue lower down, the US has a whole bunch of restrictions on speech that it avoids dealing with by saying "not speech" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44029515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44029515 )

25 points by Petiver 1y ago

> without freedom of speech: which is the right of every man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the right of another. And this is the only check which it ought to suffer, the only bounds it ought to know. The latter part is often ignored from free speech absolutists but only as long it’s about their free speech.

ycombinete 1y ago
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
- pjc50 1y ago
  Or as the most recent absurd social media controversy: what does "86 49" refer to and to what extent is it a threat?
  - ben_w 1y ago
    I find this particular controversy to be exceptionally hypocritical, given that it was only a few months ago that the people chanting "Hang Mike Pence" at some point between standing in front of a gallows and unlawfully trespassing government premises… were pardoned by Trump. But the point is still valid.

michaelmrose 1y ago

There are two sorts of free speech absolutists. Those without power whom merely want to be heard and those with power who would not be limited in its exercise.

nyanpasu64 1y ago
Trump believes in free speech for the far-right and fascists, and deportation for students speaking against his actions.
gsf_emergency 1y ago
Remarkably, the boundary between public goods and public bads, which presumably each citizen ought to be fascinated by, Does not lie on the spectrum. How would one redefine either of the extremal points (or, more concisely, the notion of speech itself) so that it does?

internet_points 1y ago

> First, the zealots today are no longer the progressives on the left – liberals, socialists, trade unionists. Instead they are predominantly on the right: campaigners against immigration, Brexiters, the enemies of Woke, aka Anti Social Justice Warriors, or ‘Anti-SJW’, as they proclaim themselves on their black T-shirts, available online for £15. This switch-around isn’t entirely new. It has already switched back, now that the right wing is in power. It used to be that you would get your talk cancelled for having views that challenged family values. Now you get deported for having views that challenge the war machine.

ur-whale 1y ago

https://archive.is/D97iG https://archive.is/D97iG

thrance 1y ago

My stance on free speech is now that we need hate speech laws. The main argument against them, as I understand it, is always "that's a slippery slope toward authoritarianism". Truth is, when fascists get into power, whatever the law says will not save you from their potential desire to censor you. Allowing them to propagate their hateful ideas before then only serves their cause. It's the paradox of tolerance [1]. > If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. And indeed, many of those that claimed to be "free speech absolutists" before nov. 5 2025 are now cheering on books burnings and deporting citizens without due process. They simply brandished "free speech" as a defense everytime someone rightfully pointed out how bigoted and hateful the lies they spouted were, and never believed in it as a philosophical or legal ideal. To them, this "free speech" aestethic was always a mean to an end, taking advantage of a weak opposition that believed too much in the power of institutions and law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Arn_Thor 1y ago
Hear hear!
theodric 1y ago
I believe in due process of law and absolute free speech. Guess I don't exist. Honestly, that's such a relief.
- thrance 1y ago
  Got it, no need for such abrasiveness. I tweaked my previous comment, you're right: not every free speech absolutist is a hypocrite.
- pjc50 1y ago
  > absolute free speech So.. where's the real boundary? Fraud? CSAM? Other media deemed obscene? FOSTA/SESTA related matters? Death threats? Actions adjacent to death threats, like posting a picture of someone's face and address with a target photoshopped on them? Overt advocacy of violence against the state? (people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here)

noqc 1y ago

To me, the only reasonable exception that might exist to totally unrestricted speech is paid speech. If the courts really wishes to foster a state of free speech, then it should recognize that doing so requires the regulation of contractually obligated speech. Advertising, paid endorsements, Public relations firms, these are all things that obviously must be regulated, perhaps out of existence. And as an aside, deporting people (back to their home countries) over their ideology is appropriate. The administration was recently elected to do just that. Deportations are legal, and the US public voted for them. The mandate is clear.

thrance 1y ago
Deportations without due process aren't though. And what does it even mean to deport citizens? Republicans have to stop with this "mandate" argument. Being elected doesn't make the president all-powerful, they still have to abide by the law.
- noqc 1y ago
  You cannot deport citizens, and I believe that I am not arguing that you can, however, the process due to non-citizens is very minimal. You and your belongings are being returned to your country, where you will be free to do with them whatever you please. It's not incarceration, or a fine, we're just kicking you out, and we can basically do that at our discretion.
  - thrance 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus The way this administration is doing their deportations is illegal, that's all I'm saying, and at this point it is not an opinion.
    - noqc 1y ago
      I agree! But this is very different from "the first amendment protects you from deportation".

el_don_almighty 1y ago

This is what makes Hacker News such an astounding resource for thought provoking insight. I take the American perspective on free speech as nearly a theological imperative despite the problematic side effects. The alternatives strike me as far worse. Free speech drives faster resolution and remediation to the socially unacceptable. The ideas and behaviors highlighted by the reviewer are not new to society and collectively we do not stand in a place in a place, "never before seen." Our tools for communicating, identifying, and correcting the evils in this world are better than ever. Evil is just so damned ingenious. That isn't speech's fault.

thrance 1y ago
> Our tools for communicating, identifying, and correcting the evils in this world are better than ever. Are they really? It feels like fascist propaganda never spread so fast and so far than with social media. X is infested with neo-nazis casually discussing the jewish question or fantasizing about a coming race war on the front page. Fox News is a well-oiled oligarch-funded lie machine that never stops spinning narratives in service of power. To me, that such a large portion of the country is gleefully cheering on ICE parting sick children from their parents [1] is proof enough of the absolute failure of our systems of information and free speech laws in addessing the rising issue of right-wing populism. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g8yj2n33yo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g8yj2n33yo
pjc50 1y ago
> I take the American perspective on free speech as nearly a theological imperative Is this the one where books get pulled from school libraries if they mention the existence of gay people? (as I argue lower down, the US has a whole bunch of restrictions on speech that it avoids dealing with by saying "not speech" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44029515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44029515 )