4 ms·

> EFF has always supported freedom of association and free speech, no matter who is doing the talking. This sentence worries me the most. Anyone means, includi

by yeukhon 12y ago

> EFF has always supported freedom of association and free speech, no matter who is doing the talking. This sentence worries me the most. Anyone means, including those we believe are threat to society (mass killing killer for example). Also those who make racist remarks intentionally to embarrass others in public.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Free speech isn't necessarily unlimited. It is often defined to exclude hate speech, for example.
- yeukhon 12y ago
  I am sorry, but that's not how I would interpret their statement. They make it very clear "no matter who is talking."
  - ryanklee 12y ago
    "No matter Who is talking" =/= "no matter what is said"
- iopq 12y ago
  If you define it that way, then there is an unlimited potential to extend illegal speech to everything. Shut down the poker sites because they facilitate illegal online gambling. Shut down the bitcoin sites because they facilitate money laundering. Etc.
quotemstr 12y ago
The right to free speech is meaningless if it encompasses only the speech with which we already agree. Unless speech represents an imminent danger to society, restricting it is wrong and an abridgment of fundamental western values. This principle applies to hate speech, bomb-making instructions, and reviews of prostitutes. Distastefulness and moral indignation are not legitimate grounds for restricting speech.
- prewett 12y ago
  I am going to have to disagree with everything but your first sentence. Free speech is more about what kind of society we want to create. I don't want to live in the kind of society where hate speech is unrestricted or where instructions on how to make bombs to destroy people's lives and/or property are unrestricted. You mentioned moral indignation, which is a pretty strong, and rare, kind of reaction. I assume you are not talking about the reaction of religious people when a rule is broken, but that spontaneous combination of disgust, revulsion, and outrage that comes when something egregiously violates basic decency. I don't want to live in a society that is so weak-willed that it can't even stand up for its own values and say "this is wrong!" I think your right to free speech ends somewhere around the place where my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness begins. I don't really want to live in a society where intimacy is so distorted that society accepts buying and selling the most intimate act as totally acceptable. You can't buy and sell intimacy (sexual or otherwise). True intimacy is rare and a little fragile, and is something I hope that society feels is worth taking a stand to protect.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    If you can't buy or sell intimacy, then how can society accept it? Your position is nonsensical. Prostitution doesn't sell, buy or endanger intimacy; it only trades sex. Conflating the two is a result of people's own insecurity. I think your right to free speech ends somewhere around the place where my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness begins. As long as my pursuit of happiness doesn't involve acts that you dislike, right? "You're free - to act as we tell you"
    - prewett 12y ago
      I limited myself to moral indignation, and tried to be very clear that moral indignation is not simply what a person happens to dislike. But, since apparently I was not clear, I specifically support your right to say a broad range of things that I dislike. If someone merely dislikes it, I feel like it is probably protected. Regarding your comment on intimacy (by which I mean relational intimacy, not a euphemism for sex), all I can say is, there are some things that money can't buy, nor can be valued in money. Trust is one of them. True friendship is another. If you think that intimacy must be priceable or marketable to have a value, I submit that perhaps you have not experienced what I am talking about. And unfortunately, without a long comment, I don't know how to explain my opinion that prostitution devalues intimacy. I will say that there are many people who feel that sex is more about relational intimacy than just a physical act or pleasure, although they may be a minority here (and quite possibly in the U.S. culture at large).
rosser 12y ago
Free speech is for speech you don't like, or it's for no speech at all. EDIT: No, that doesn't allow incitement to violence, though in the US it does allow hate speech that isn't incitement.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  The US version of 'free speech' doesn't allow incitement to immanent violence, but it certainly allows for advocating violence.
  - rosser 12y ago
    That's typically what "incitement" is taken to mean, particularly in a legal context: the "request, encouragement or direction of one person by another" to undertake some specific course of action, usually criminal in nature.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      It's the "immanent" that's important. Advocating violence is protected speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
spacemanmatt 12y ago
> This sentence worries me the most. [deletia] Amazing, after the most naive and historically inaccurate characterization of the EFF's defense of freedom(s), you're worried? NOT SURPRISING. PS: Felons are already prohibited from associating, and racist remarks intended to embarrass is a perfect example of protected speech. Just don't confuse legal defense with social acceptability. The public isn't as exacting as the law.

by yeukhon 12y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

Free speech isn't necessarily unlimited. It is often defined to exclude hate speech, for example.

yeukhon 12y ago
I am sorry, but that's not how I would interpret their statement. They make it very clear "no matter who is talking."
- ryanklee 12y ago
  "No matter Who is talking" =/= "no matter what is said"
iopq 12y ago
If you define it that way, then there is an unlimited potential to extend illegal speech to everything. Shut down the poker sites because they facilitate illegal online gambling. Shut down the bitcoin sites because they facilitate money laundering. Etc.

quotemstr 12y ago

The right to free speech is meaningless if it encompasses only the speech with which we already agree. Unless speech represents an imminent danger to society, restricting it is wrong and an abridgment of fundamental western values. This principle applies to hate speech, bomb-making instructions, and reviews of prostitutes. Distastefulness and moral indignation are not legitimate grounds for restricting speech.

prewett 12y ago
I am going to have to disagree with everything but your first sentence. Free speech is more about what kind of society we want to create. I don't want to live in the kind of society where hate speech is unrestricted or where instructions on how to make bombs to destroy people's lives and/or property are unrestricted. You mentioned moral indignation, which is a pretty strong, and rare, kind of reaction. I assume you are not talking about the reaction of religious people when a rule is broken, but that spontaneous combination of disgust, revulsion, and outrage that comes when something egregiously violates basic decency. I don't want to live in a society that is so weak-willed that it can't even stand up for its own values and say "this is wrong!" I think your right to free speech ends somewhere around the place where my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness begins. I don't really want to live in a society where intimacy is so distorted that society accepts buying and selling the most intimate act as totally acceptable. You can't buy and sell intimacy (sexual or otherwise). True intimacy is rare and a little fragile, and is something I hope that society feels is worth taking a stand to protect.
- icebraining 12y ago
  If you can't buy or sell intimacy, then how can society accept it? Your position is nonsensical. Prostitution doesn't sell, buy or endanger intimacy; it only trades sex. Conflating the two is a result of people's own insecurity. I think your right to free speech ends somewhere around the place where my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness begins. As long as my pursuit of happiness doesn't involve acts that you dislike, right? "You're free - to act as we tell you"
  - prewett 12y ago
    I limited myself to moral indignation, and tried to be very clear that moral indignation is not simply what a person happens to dislike. But, since apparently I was not clear, I specifically support your right to say a broad range of things that I dislike. If someone merely dislikes it, I feel like it is probably protected. Regarding your comment on intimacy (by which I mean relational intimacy, not a euphemism for sex), all I can say is, there are some things that money can't buy, nor can be valued in money. Trust is one of them. True friendship is another. If you think that intimacy must be priceable or marketable to have a value, I submit that perhaps you have not experienced what I am talking about. And unfortunately, without a long comment, I don't know how to explain my opinion that prostitution devalues intimacy. I will say that there are many people who feel that sex is more about relational intimacy than just a physical act or pleasure, although they may be a minority here (and quite possibly in the U.S. culture at large).

rosser 12y ago

Free speech is for speech you don't like, or it's for no speech at all. EDIT: No, that doesn't allow incitement to violence, though in the US it does allow hate speech that isn't incitement.

pessimizer 12y ago
The US version of 'free speech' doesn't allow incitement to immanent violence, but it certainly allows for advocating violence.
- rosser 12y ago
  That's typically what "incitement" is taken to mean, particularly in a legal context: the "request, encouragement or direction of one person by another" to undertake some specific course of action, usually criminal in nature.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    It's the "immanent" that's important. Advocating violence is protected speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

spacemanmatt 12y ago

> This sentence worries me the most. [deletia] Amazing, after the most naive and historically inaccurate characterization of the EFF's defense of freedom(s), you're worried? NOT SURPRISING. PS: Felons are already prohibited from associating, and racist remarks intended to embarrass is a perfect example of protected speech. Just don't confuse legal defense with social acceptability. The public isn't as exacting as the law.