4 ms·

This is a response to you, and not a commentary on what's happening at Reddit right now. The ACLU would disagree. One of their landmark cases involved defendin

by donw 11y ago

This is a response to you, and not a commentary on what's happening at Reddit right now. The ACLU would disagree. One of their landmark cases involved defending the constitutional right of a group of Nazis to hold a peaceful demonstration in a town populated with more than a small number of Holocaust survivors. I am a Jew, and I support the ACLU defending the rights of people that hate me beyond reason. Not because I agree with their point of view. But because I believe that everybody deserves the same rights, no matter how much of an asshole they may be. We, or at least Americans, care deeply about free speech, not because it protects the weak, but because it is a fundamental human right.

fuzzywalrus 11y ago
Agreed and to preface, not a comment on Reddit: Usually the defense of free speech means defending the less worthy of using it for those times when for when its truly worthy, there's just really no middle ground.
- studentrob 11y ago
  Your sentence is a bit muddled. I'm not sure if you're in agreement with the above comment or not. You say "there's no middle ground" but you are also saying people usually only defend free speech at certain "times ... when its truly worthy". There certainly is no middle ground. You must defend it all the time or defend it not at all, because once you lose free speech you will not get it back without a fight
  - nekopa 11y ago
    I read the sentence to mean that you have to defend free speech for the less worthy so that free speech is still there for the truly worthy. Seems like he is in agreement with you.
DanBC 11y ago
> We, or at least Americans, care deeply about free speech, not because it protects the weak, but because it is a fundamental human right. Thanks for recognising that this level of free speech is pretty much an American cultural thing and that most of the rest of the world doesn't see it that way. English mewspapers talk about how important it is for them to keep their freedoms when they operate under, to Americans, restrictive laws. And "we're a bit worried about the unpleasant parts of the Internet" is something baked in from the early 90s when commercial providers of Internet started offering services. See the various swearing filters; or Compuserve carrying but delisting a range of porn Usenet newsgroups. http://www.rogerclarke.com/II/Compuserve http://www.rogerclarke.com/II/Compuserve https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/hsv.general/5BiIjbHDLL0 https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/hsv.general/5BiIjb... http://www.ibiblio.org/pjones/ils310/msg00266.html http://www.ibiblio.org/pjones/ils310/msg00266.html And see also the AUPs of some ISPs that provide restrictions on top of US law about not harassing users (in some but not all AUPs) or not sending unsolicited bulk email (in most AUPs, even before there were laws about spam). A blog post about the early AUPs of different services would possibly be useful. Your mention of fundamental human rights is a bit odd; the US (for constitutional reasons) has not fully signed up to the UDHR. The freedom of speech bit is article 19. > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. But the US trashes articles 3, 4 (arguably), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16(3)(arguably), 17(2). I'd argue that being allowed to write about the fact a police officer took your house and there's no real recourse for you to get it back is less important than the officer just not taking it in the first place.
- donw 11y ago
  I have lived in more than a few countries over the past ten years, which has helped me to understand my own country better, both in terms of what we do wrong, and also, what we do right. > Your mention of fundamental human rights is a bit odd; the US (for constitutional reasons) has not fully signed up to the UDHR. Eleanor Roosevelt helped to draft the UDHR, and the United States voted in favor of its adoption in 1948. That said, we have many problems in the US. Civil forfeiture is one of those, as are privatized prisons -- and the general barbarism of our penal system. But none of those are caused by free speech, and none of them would be solved by eliminating it.
- studentrob 11y ago
  > I'd argue that being allowed to write about the fact a police officer took your house and there's no real recourse for you to get it back is less important than the officer just not taking it in the first place. The fact that you can write about it IS your recourse. If you're not allowed to share your issues with others, you'll never get any weight behind them. Places like China and North Korea know this and clamp down on any groups rallying around a cause. Meanwhile, their laws go unenforced and an "every man for himself" attitude prevails, as they know they don't really have protection from the state. Is America perfect? No. But freedom of speech is the one open door we have towards making our country better. Remember the Boston Tea Party, the I Have a Dream speech, Women's Suffrage, Antiwar movements, Gay rights, labor movements... None of these are possible in places that do not have free speech.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > Women's Suffrage, Antiwar movements, Gay rights, labor movements... England has those. We don't have freedom of speech in the US sense.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      Right, countries define it differently. England's in a different part of the world, I can understand that. My response was to your comment that having the correct laws in place is more important than giving people freedom of speech. And I'm saying having freedom of speech IS your path to enacting just laws. As donw pointed out, civil forefeiture laws were not created as a result of free speech in America. The two are unrelated

by donw 11y ago

fuzzywalrus 11y ago

Agreed and to preface, not a comment on Reddit: Usually the defense of free speech means defending the less worthy of using it for those times when for when its truly worthy, there's just really no middle ground.

studentrob 11y ago
Your sentence is a bit muddled. I'm not sure if you're in agreement with the above comment or not. You say "there's no middle ground" but you are also saying people usually only defend free speech at certain "times ... when its truly worthy". There certainly is no middle ground. You must defend it all the time or defend it not at all, because once you lose free speech you will not get it back without a fight
- nekopa 11y ago
  I read the sentence to mean that you have to defend free speech for the less worthy so that free speech is still there for the truly worthy. Seems like he is in agreement with you.

DanBC 11y ago

> We, or at least Americans, care deeply about free speech, not because it protects the weak, but because it is a fundamental human right. Thanks for recognising that this level of free speech is pretty much an American cultural thing and that most of the rest of the world doesn't see it that way. English mewspapers talk about how important it is for them to keep their freedoms when they operate under, to Americans, restrictive laws. And "we're a bit worried about the unpleasant parts of the Internet" is something baked in from the early 90s when commercial providers of Internet started offering services. See the various swearing filters; or Compuserve carrying but delisting a range of porn Usenet newsgroups. http://www.rogerclarke.com/II/Compuserve http://www.rogerclarke.com/II/Compuserve https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/hsv.general/5BiIjbHDLL0 https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/hsv.general/5BiIjb... http://www.ibiblio.org/pjones/ils310/msg00266.html http://www.ibiblio.org/pjones/ils310/msg00266.html And see also the AUPs of some ISPs that provide restrictions on top of US law about not harassing users (in some but not all AUPs) or not sending unsolicited bulk email (in most AUPs, even before there were laws about spam). A blog post about the early AUPs of different services would possibly be useful. Your mention of fundamental human rights is a bit odd; the US (for constitutional reasons) has not fully signed up to the UDHR. The freedom of speech bit is article 19. > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. But the US trashes articles 3, 4 (arguably), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16(3)(arguably), 17(2). I'd argue that being allowed to write about the fact a police officer took your house and there's no real recourse for you to get it back is less important than the officer just not taking it in the first place.

donw 11y ago
I have lived in more than a few countries over the past ten years, which has helped me to understand my own country better, both in terms of what we do wrong, and also, what we do right. > Your mention of fundamental human rights is a bit odd; the US (for constitutional reasons) has not fully signed up to the UDHR. Eleanor Roosevelt helped to draft the UDHR, and the United States voted in favor of its adoption in 1948. That said, we have many problems in the US. Civil forfeiture is one of those, as are privatized prisons -- and the general barbarism of our penal system. But none of those are caused by free speech, and none of them would be solved by eliminating it.
studentrob 11y ago
> I'd argue that being allowed to write about the fact a police officer took your house and there's no real recourse for you to get it back is less important than the officer just not taking it in the first place. The fact that you can write about it IS your recourse. If you're not allowed to share your issues with others, you'll never get any weight behind them. Places like China and North Korea know this and clamp down on any groups rallying around a cause. Meanwhile, their laws go unenforced and an "every man for himself" attitude prevails, as they know they don't really have protection from the state. Is America perfect? No. But freedom of speech is the one open door we have towards making our country better. Remember the Boston Tea Party, the I Have a Dream speech, Women's Suffrage, Antiwar movements, Gay rights, labor movements... None of these are possible in places that do not have free speech.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > Women's Suffrage, Antiwar movements, Gay rights, labor movements... England has those. We don't have freedom of speech in the US sense.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    Right, countries define it differently. England's in a different part of the world, I can understand that. My response was to your comment that having the correct laws in place is more important than giving people freedom of speech. And I'm saying having freedom of speech IS your path to enacting just laws. As donw pointed out, civil forefeiture laws were not created as a result of free speech in America. The two are unrelated