9 ms·

Anything that trumps free speech, except for the truly extreme cases (shouting fire in a theatre etc.) is a slippery slope that can erode liberty over a period

Anything that trumps free speech, except for the truly extreme cases (shouting fire in a theatre etc.) is a slippery slope that can erode liberty over a period of time. How long before this moves into "right to not be offended trumps free speech" territory?

anon1385 12y ago
So you are saying that the exceptions to free speech that you agree with are fine, but that the exceptions other people/cultures have chosen and that you disagree with are a 'slippery slope'.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  This standard of yours completely eliminates the ability to critically comment on the actions of "other cultures".
  - fidotron 12y ago
    Not at all. You can comment all you want about it, but it doesn't compel them to change how they are at all.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      Then why call it out as if it were a negative? Nothing anybody says on Hacker News is going to change EU law.
      - fidotron 12y ago
        Because you're exhibiting cultural imperialism.
        Karunamon 12y ago
        What does that even mean? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. First it's okay to comment on other culture's behaviors and now it's "cultural imperialism". How about everyone is okay to comment on whatever they wish without the meta value judgements? I think that system works pretty well.
        DanBC 12y ago
        There is a tendency for some US commentators to totally ignore the European attitude around freedom of speech and to talk about the slippery slope to totalitarian states. Sometimes those people will mix up "first ammendment" rights with what a website owner is allowed to do; or they appear to be unaware of the very many cases of people in America who lose their jobs or are arrested because they wear the wrong t-shirt or have an innocent poster on their door. We often hear these people when there's coverage of twitter trolls going to court. They'll say that it's ridiculous to prosecute people for being mean on twitter. This is intensely frustrating because -and this should be fucking obvious- no-one is arrested for being a bit mean on social media. People are arrested for making credible repeated threats of violence. But that happens in the US.
        mineshaftgap 12y ago
        An Englishman did three months for an offensive drunken tweet after a match, brilliant.
        pionar 12y ago
        >or they appear to be unaware of the very many cases of people in America who lose their jobs or are arrested because they wear the wrong t-shirt or have an innocent poster on their door. Arrested and convicted of a crime are two different things. Do you have any evidence of that happening? I know of a Virginia teenager who was arrested last year because he wouldn't take off an NRA shirt, but first, he wasn't arrested for the shirt, he was arrested for obstruction, and second, charges were dropped. As for European attitudes toward free speech, I don't say they're wrong for Europeans, I just think some of them are daft, like locking people up for racist remarks or offensive speech. That just turns harmless idiots into martyrs.
        Crito 12y ago
        Imperialism implies some sort of actual meddling. However, as previously established, nothing said on HN is going to change the EU. Without the possibility of any sort of meddling or interference, then there can be no Imperialism. Interestingly though, your comment is a nice example of being irrationally fearful of free political speech.
- mpyne 12y ago
  You say that as if it's hypocritical, but this seems like an almost axiomatic statement to me. It is perfectly reasonable to have opinions about exceptions to free speech which are safe and unsafe, and to advocate why to those with different opinions. Just like the USA's interpretation of "free speech" isn't sacred for the rest of the world (and might actually be wrong!), a European nation's interpretation of safe and unsafe free speech is not absolute and might be wrong. Portions of the U.S. used to have a strong cultural affinity for human slavery, yet many within that same U.S. argued that slavery was wrong from day 1 of the current republic. Europe used to have a cultural affinity for anti-Semitism (and it hasn't completely gone away). If you believe in any sort of objective truth whatsoever, then it's possible for a 'cultural value' to still be wrong.
jasonzemos 12y ago
Shouting fire in a theater isn't an extreme case if you think about it. When was the last time you heard of a stampede in a crowded theater when someone shouted fire and there was none? I've never heard of it. Who would take off running? Would you take off running because someone else is? Honestly. The case this phrase originated from is overpraised.
- mc32 12y ago
  Basically, one can imagine, one would not want someone to invoke panic into others frivolously when it has potential to cause physical harm. Another example would be shouting "She's got a gun, arhhhh!" in a crowded plazza while setting off some firecrackers.
  - rwmj 12y ago
    The firecrackers aren't speech.
    - pluma 12y ago
      What if instead you have an accomplice who's really good at beatboxing?
    - mc32 12y ago
      One could argue that "art isn't speech" as well. It's expression none the less.
  - evan_ 12y ago
    Or yelling "I have Ebola" on an airplane.
- Crito 12y ago
  The case the phrase is from was about placing limitations on blatantly political speech. It was a truly reprehensible decision. "A unanimous Supreme Court, in a famous opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed leaflets to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States From it's very inception, that phrase has been used to justify the restriction of political speech. Nothing has changed since 1917, people still use it to argue against political speech to this day.
mineshaftgap 12y ago
> How long before this moves into "right to not be offended trumps free speech" territory? This is already the case in Europe.

anon1385 12y ago

So you are saying that the exceptions to free speech that you agree with are fine, but that the exceptions other people/cultures have chosen and that you disagree with are a 'slippery slope'.

Karunamon 12y ago
This standard of yours completely eliminates the ability to critically comment on the actions of "other cultures".
- fidotron 12y ago
  Not at all. You can comment all you want about it, but it doesn't compel them to change how they are at all.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Then why call it out as if it were a negative? Nothing anybody says on Hacker News is going to change EU law.
    - fidotron 12y ago
      Because you're exhibiting cultural imperialism.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        What does that even mean? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. First it's okay to comment on other culture's behaviors and now it's "cultural imperialism". How about everyone is okay to comment on whatever they wish without the meta value judgements? I think that system works pretty well.
        DanBC 12y ago
        There is a tendency for some US commentators to totally ignore the European attitude around freedom of speech and to talk about the slippery slope to totalitarian states. Sometimes those people will mix up "first ammendment" rights with what a website owner is allowed to do; or they appear to be unaware of the very many cases of people in America who lose their jobs or are arrested because they wear the wrong t-shirt or have an innocent poster on their door. We often hear these people when there's coverage of twitter trolls going to court. They'll say that it's ridiculous to prosecute people for being mean on twitter. This is intensely frustrating because -and this should be fucking obvious- no-one is arrested for being a bit mean on social media. People are arrested for making credible repeated threats of violence. But that happens in the US.
        mineshaftgap 12y ago
        An Englishman did three months for an offensive drunken tweet after a match, brilliant.
        pionar 12y ago
        >or they appear to be unaware of the very many cases of people in America who lose their jobs or are arrested because they wear the wrong t-shirt or have an innocent poster on their door. Arrested and convicted of a crime are two different things. Do you have any evidence of that happening? I know of a Virginia teenager who was arrested last year because he wouldn't take off an NRA shirt, but first, he wasn't arrested for the shirt, he was arrested for obstruction, and second, charges were dropped. As for European attitudes toward free speech, I don't say they're wrong for Europeans, I just think some of them are daft, like locking people up for racist remarks or offensive speech. That just turns harmless idiots into martyrs.
      - Crito 12y ago
        Imperialism implies some sort of actual meddling. However, as previously established, nothing said on HN is going to change the EU. Without the possibility of any sort of meddling or interference, then there can be no Imperialism. Interestingly though, your comment is a nice example of being irrationally fearful of free political speech.
mpyne 12y ago
You say that as if it's hypocritical, but this seems like an almost axiomatic statement to me. It is perfectly reasonable to have opinions about exceptions to free speech which are safe and unsafe, and to advocate why to those with different opinions. Just like the USA's interpretation of "free speech" isn't sacred for the rest of the world (and might actually be wrong!), a European nation's interpretation of safe and unsafe free speech is not absolute and might be wrong. Portions of the U.S. used to have a strong cultural affinity for human slavery, yet many within that same U.S. argued that slavery was wrong from day 1 of the current republic. Europe used to have a cultural affinity for anti-Semitism (and it hasn't completely gone away). If you believe in any sort of objective truth whatsoever, then it's possible for a 'cultural value' to still be wrong.

jasonzemos 12y ago

Shouting fire in a theater isn't an extreme case if you think about it. When was the last time you heard of a stampede in a crowded theater when someone shouted fire and there was none? I've never heard of it. Who would take off running? Would you take off running because someone else is? Honestly. The case this phrase originated from is overpraised.

mc32 12y ago
Basically, one can imagine, one would not want someone to invoke panic into others frivolously when it has potential to cause physical harm. Another example would be shouting "She's got a gun, arhhhh!" in a crowded plazza while setting off some firecrackers.
- rwmj 12y ago
  The firecrackers aren't speech.
  - pluma 12y ago
    What if instead you have an accomplice who's really good at beatboxing?
  - mc32 12y ago
    One could argue that "art isn't speech" as well. It's expression none the less.
- evan_ 12y ago
  Or yelling "I have Ebola" on an airplane.
Crito 12y ago
The case the phrase is from was about placing limitations on blatantly political speech. It was a truly reprehensible decision. "A unanimous Supreme Court, in a famous opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed leaflets to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States From it's very inception, that phrase has been used to justify the restriction of political speech. Nothing has changed since 1917, people still use it to argue against political speech to this day.

mineshaftgap 12y ago

> How long before this moves into "right to not be offended trumps free speech" territory? This is already the case in Europe.