4 ms·

You are absolutely correct that the private sector campaigns against Eich, Orson Scott Card, or Hollywood Communists were not violations of the constitutional a

You are absolutely correct that the private sector campaigns against Eich, Orson Scott Card, or Hollywood Communists were not violations of the constitutional amendment. But one can also appeal to a more general principle of free speech, which is ultimately what many people are doing. Scott Alexander has useful thoughts on this topic: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first-amendment/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first... "A good response to an argument is one that addresses an idea; a bad argument is one that silences it." The gay activists here are attempting to do the latter. It's no different from assorted people attacking Kathy Sierra [1] or Scooby1961 [2], except of course that we happen to like Sierra and Scooby's opinions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Sierra#Harassment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Sierra#Harassment [2] Scooby is probably less familiar to the HN crowd, he's a bodybuilder/fitness guru who was doxxed by 4chan for no apparent reason. http://newmediarockstars.com/2013/07/4chan-bullies-fitness-guru-scooby-off-youtube-with-doxxing-and-threats-video/ http://newmediarockstars.com/2013/07/4chan-bullies-fitness-g...

dalke 13y ago
That's a false equivalence, if only because Kathy Sierra received death threats. A threat of physical violence isn't an argument at all, and free speech doesn't extend to threats of violence. (Eg, http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-62 http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-62 has it as a Class A misdemeanor.) As your own [1] points out, "Robert Scoble ... temporarily suspended their blogs in a show of support for Sierra." By your appeal to a "general principle of free speech", you surely must chastise Scoble's actions. It's also a false appeal, because free speech does not stand alone, not even in the first amendment. The amendment lists several other rights, including the right to assembly, which protects freedom of association. We have a right to boycott. We have a right to picket. We have a right to call on others to participate in the boycott and picket. Those are free speech rights. We have a right to quit a company, or stop volunteering for a company, if we don't like what it does. OKCupid has the right to prevent Firefox users from connecting to their site. These are parts of the freedom of association. See http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ for the importance of freedom of association when talking about freedom of speech. > Yet people often confuse these categories. It's one of the fundamental errors of free speech analysis that I like to write about the most. ... The foundation of "witch hunt" rhetoric is the notion that some free speech (say, Pax's) is acceptable, and other free speech (say, the speech of people criticizing and ridiculing Pax and his employer) is not. You can try to find a coherent or principled way to reconcile that, but you will fail."
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Suppose Sierra/Scooby received no threats of violence. Suppose the attacks were merely gross sexual depictions of them, broadcasting their private information, and other constitutionally protected acts. Would the attacks on them be acceptable? I don't chastise Scoble using his blog to express his opinions. Nor have I called for anyone curtailing the freedom of association. I'm merely calling out the gay activist movement as being a bunch of anti-intellectual jerks who want to suppress speech they dislike and attack their opponents. Kind of like the non-violent people attacking Kathy Sierra, Scooby, or the Hollywood system that created the blacklist.
  - dalke 13y ago
    "Suppose Sierra/Scooby received no threats of violence." And suppose unicorns had wings. You made a comparison and said they were equivalent. I showed they aren't equivalent. Now you want to compare a real-world event to a fictional alternative? Balderdash. And you're complaining about things being 'anti-intellectual'? How is this action against Eich as CEO anything different than a call for boycott, a boycott, and picketing? BTW, the Hollywood blacklist was effective because of state and national government involvement since the '20s. The blacklist only started after the House Un-American Activities Committee conviction of the "Hollywood Ten" on contempt of Congress charges for refusing to answer some questions by committee members. If you're going to make that comparison, where's the heavy hand of government in this boycott against Eich as CEO? For the record, I support that 12,000 Southern Baptists can call for and carry out a boycott of Disney-owned companies because they don't like that Disney has "Gay Days". I don't support the boycott, and I disagree with the premises which underlie it, but I support their right to free speech and assembly. Just like I support the rights of free speech and assembly of those opposed to Eich as CEO to call for and carry out a boycott of Mozilla products. P.S. I checked my memory regarding Sierra. It was specifically those threats of violence which "forced her to cancel a public appearance and suspend her blog". As she wrote, "I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same. I will never be the same." So your fictional world where she received no threats of violence would have been a very different world, and one we can't reasonably probe through hypotheticals.

dalke 13y ago

That's a false equivalence, if only because Kathy Sierra received death threats. A threat of physical violence isn't an argument at all, and free speech doesn't extend to threats of violence. (Eg, http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-62 http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-62 has it as a Class A misdemeanor.) As your own [1] points out, "Robert Scoble ... temporarily suspended their blogs in a show of support for Sierra." By your appeal to a "general principle of free speech", you surely must chastise Scoble's actions. It's also a false appeal, because free speech does not stand alone, not even in the first amendment. The amendment lists several other rights, including the right to assembly, which protects freedom of association. We have a right to boycott. We have a right to picket. We have a right to call on others to participate in the boycott and picket. Those are free speech rights. We have a right to quit a company, or stop volunteering for a company, if we don't like what it does. OKCupid has the right to prevent Firefox users from connecting to their site. These are parts of the freedom of association. See http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ for the importance of freedom of association when talking about freedom of speech. > Yet people often confuse these categories. It's one of the fundamental errors of free speech analysis that I like to write about the most. ... The foundation of "witch hunt" rhetoric is the notion that some free speech (say, Pax's) is acceptable, and other free speech (say, the speech of people criticizing and ridiculing Pax and his employer) is not. You can try to find a coherent or principled way to reconcile that, but you will fail."

yummyfajitas 13y ago
Suppose Sierra/Scooby received no threats of violence. Suppose the attacks were merely gross sexual depictions of them, broadcasting their private information, and other constitutionally protected acts. Would the attacks on them be acceptable? I don't chastise Scoble using his blog to express his opinions. Nor have I called for anyone curtailing the freedom of association. I'm merely calling out the gay activist movement as being a bunch of anti-intellectual jerks who want to suppress speech they dislike and attack their opponents. Kind of like the non-violent people attacking Kathy Sierra, Scooby, or the Hollywood system that created the blacklist.
- dalke 13y ago
  "Suppose Sierra/Scooby received no threats of violence." And suppose unicorns had wings. You made a comparison and said they were equivalent. I showed they aren't equivalent. Now you want to compare a real-world event to a fictional alternative? Balderdash. And you're complaining about things being 'anti-intellectual'? How is this action against Eich as CEO anything different than a call for boycott, a boycott, and picketing? BTW, the Hollywood blacklist was effective because of state and national government involvement since the '20s. The blacklist only started after the House Un-American Activities Committee conviction of the "Hollywood Ten" on contempt of Congress charges for refusing to answer some questions by committee members. If you're going to make that comparison, where's the heavy hand of government in this boycott against Eich as CEO? For the record, I support that 12,000 Southern Baptists can call for and carry out a boycott of Disney-owned companies because they don't like that Disney has "Gay Days". I don't support the boycott, and I disagree with the premises which underlie it, but I support their right to free speech and assembly. Just like I support the rights of free speech and assembly of those opposed to Eich as CEO to call for and carry out a boycott of Mozilla products. P.S. I checked my memory regarding Sierra. It was specifically those threats of violence which "forced her to cancel a public appearance and suspend her blog". As she wrote, "I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same. I will never be the same." So your fictional world where she received no threats of violence would have been a very different world, and one we can't reasonably probe through hypotheticals.