5 ms·

It's an easy diversion to label any criticism a "witchhunt". It's a witchhunt if it's merely an accusation without evidence. In this case, Emil Micheal publicl

It's an easy diversion to label any criticism a "witchhunt". It's a witchhunt if it's merely an accusation without evidence. In this case, Emil Micheal publicly confirmed the veracity of the Buzzfeed report and apologized. In another example that was labelled a witchhunt, Brendan Eich was on public record as supporting an anti-gay proposal. It's not a witchhunt if the people in question are attacked over what they do or say and not over unproven allegations. As for proportionate, that's quite subjective. It's not a coincidence that the subjects tend to be fundamental issues of ethics and ideology over which opinions vary wildly.

cousin_it 12y ago
People shouldn't be attacked for what they say. My idea of free speech is a society where people are not afraid to speak their mind. Absence of government censorship is only a small part of it. It was good enough long ago, when governments were the only powerful groups that could scare you into silence, but today it's no longer enough.
- dtparr 12y ago
  >People shouldn't be attacked for what they say. > My idea of free speech is a society where people are not afraid to speak their mind. Aren't the people doing the 'attacking' (assuming you're being metaphorical and I've not missed an account of a physical assault), also simply speaking their mind? Edit: Just a note that this isn't specific to this case, but the general notion that you can say what you want without being criticized seems to actually limit the speech of others.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - cousin_it 12y ago
    I suppose I'm just wishing for a society that would disapprove of political witchhunts the same way it disapproves of Eich's support of Prop 8.
- comrh 12y ago
  Free speech doesn't protect you from criticism.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Just to follow up on this, Scott Alexander has a great essay more fully fleshing this out. 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. If you try to address an idea, your success depends on how good the idea is; if you try to silence it, your success depends on how powerful you are and how many pitchforks and torches you can provide on short notice. For those who tend to believe free speech should not protect you from criticism/social opprobrium/etc, does the same apply to Communists in Hollywood? Remember, the blacklist was not an act of congress - it was nothing more than an article in the Hollywood Reporter. A few years ago mainstream opinion was opposed to blacklists, I guess it's different now?
  - ericd 12y ago
    My guess is that people like getting riled up into a mob, and they don't think about the long term effects of their actions. And on the reporters' side, they seem to have gotten a lot more hand to mouth with regards to the money/clicks/furor their articles generate, so there's more stirring of the pot now from them. Just my theory, though. Might just be that the lower friction of the internet makes these events a lot more likely to bubble up, even with the same inputs.
  - alexqgb 12y ago
    "A good response to an argument is one that addresses an idea; a bad argument is one that silences it." That doesn't make any sense. People with bad ideas frequently fall to silence when the discussion of countervailing good ideas makes them sound like idiots if they persist. Indeed, that's how good ideas (eventually) win. What you're describing as "a bad argument" isn't really an argument at all. It's the abandonment of argument in favor of a personal threat. [EDIT: "threat of violence" changed to "personal threat" to remove confusing specificity.]
    - spindritf 12y ago
      This has not been my experience but either way, let's say someone pronounces that 2+2=7. You could respond with "it's actually 4" (address the idea) or "anyone who believes 2+2=7 should be fired" (attempt to silence it, without violence though). There's a pretty clear difference between the two approaches.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jackmaney 12y ago
  Freedom of speech does not include freedom of consequences for said speech.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    It includes freedom from certain kinds of consequences, for certain kinds of speech...
philwelch 12y ago
> It's a witchhunt if it's merely an accusation without evidence. Accusations without evidence are made all the time without turning into a witch hunt. It's an element of "mob justice" and disproportionality that makes for a witch hunt, not whether or not the allegations are true. For instance, McCarthyism was a witch hunt, even though historical evidence now available to us proves there was widespread Communist infiltration of the government and media and that many of the individuals persecuted at the time were, indeed, Communists or Communist sympathizers.

cousin_it 12y ago

People shouldn't be attacked for what they say. My idea of free speech is a society where people are not afraid to speak their mind. Absence of government censorship is only a small part of it. It was good enough long ago, when governments were the only powerful groups that could scare you into silence, but today it's no longer enough.

dtparr 12y ago
>People shouldn't be attacked for what they say. > My idea of free speech is a society where people are not afraid to speak their mind. Aren't the people doing the 'attacking' (assuming you're being metaphorical and I've not missed an account of a physical assault), also simply speaking their mind? Edit: Just a note that this isn't specific to this case, but the general notion that you can say what you want without being criticized seems to actually limit the speech of others.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- cousin_it 12y ago
  I suppose I'm just wishing for a society that would disapprove of political witchhunts the same way it disapproves of Eich's support of Prop 8.
comrh 12y ago
Free speech doesn't protect you from criticism.
yummyfajitas 12y ago
Just to follow up on this, Scott Alexander has a great essay more fully fleshing this out. 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. If you try to address an idea, your success depends on how good the idea is; if you try to silence it, your success depends on how powerful you are and how many pitchforks and torches you can provide on short notice. For those who tend to believe free speech should not protect you from criticism/social opprobrium/etc, does the same apply to Communists in Hollywood? Remember, the blacklist was not an act of congress - it was nothing more than an article in the Hollywood Reporter. A few years ago mainstream opinion was opposed to blacklists, I guess it's different now?
- ericd 12y ago
  My guess is that people like getting riled up into a mob, and they don't think about the long term effects of their actions. And on the reporters' side, they seem to have gotten a lot more hand to mouth with regards to the money/clicks/furor their articles generate, so there's more stirring of the pot now from them. Just my theory, though. Might just be that the lower friction of the internet makes these events a lot more likely to bubble up, even with the same inputs.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  "A good response to an argument is one that addresses an idea; a bad argument is one that silences it." That doesn't make any sense. People with bad ideas frequently fall to silence when the discussion of countervailing good ideas makes them sound like idiots if they persist. Indeed, that's how good ideas (eventually) win. What you're describing as "a bad argument" isn't really an argument at all. It's the abandonment of argument in favor of a personal threat. [EDIT: "threat of violence" changed to "personal threat" to remove confusing specificity.]
  - spindritf 12y ago
    This has not been my experience but either way, let's say someone pronounces that 2+2=7. You could respond with "it's actually 4" (address the idea) or "anyone who believes 2+2=7 should be fired" (attempt to silence it, without violence though). There's a pretty clear difference between the two approaches.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jackmaney 12y ago
Freedom of speech does not include freedom of consequences for said speech.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  It includes freedom from certain kinds of consequences, for certain kinds of speech...

philwelch 12y ago

> It's a witchhunt if it's merely an accusation without evidence. Accusations without evidence are made all the time without turning into a witch hunt. It's an element of "mob justice" and disproportionality that makes for a witch hunt, not whether or not the allegations are true. For instance, McCarthyism was a witch hunt, even though historical evidence now available to us proves there was widespread Communist infiltration of the government and media and that many of the individuals persecuted at the time were, indeed, Communists or Communist sympathizers.