18 ms·

At last, a voice of reason in hundreds of pointless comments. Free speech is a principle and people should be free to say whatever they want no matter how disg

by dmfdmf 11y ago

At last, a voice of reason in hundreds of pointless comments. Free speech is a principle and people should be free to say whatever they want no matter how disgusting or distasteful to the majority or mainstream. This is the ideal of a free society and people who can't make the distinction between supporting the principle and yet rejecting the advocates of idiocy are implicitly advocating some form of government censorship.

Veedrac 11y ago
If your version of free speech means allowing anything to be said anywhere, I don't want it. The principle of free speech I subscribe to is allowing anyone a place such that those who want to listen, can. In essence, to prevent one party silencing a communication between two other parties. Reddit need not be that place.
- dmfdmf 11y ago
  Can you elaborate? Its not clear to me where we disagree, if at all.
- geomark 11y ago
  That's a good definition. But even that approach will fail when those with power define the "place such that those who want to listen, can" to be so small that nobody can find it. An example is the so-called free speech zones at some colleges that are small designated spots far from earshot of the entire campus population.
  - ketralnis 11y ago
    > that approach will fail when those with power define the "place such that those who want to listen, can" to be so small that nobody can find it Okay. But reddit isn't "those with power". reddit isn't making it illegal to do it elsewhere.
    - geomark 11y ago
      Agree. I was speaking more in general rather than specifically about reddit.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >Reddit need not be that place. Nope, but then again, being that place is what made it grow so large in the first place.
jarfil 11y ago
Freedom of speech != freedom to force anyone to listen to you. As long as you are free to create your own community where you can say whatever you want, there is no need for any other community to listen to you.
- nindalf 11y ago
  Nor was anyone forced to listen. I find the default subs pretty low quality, so I stopped subscribing to them years ago. So the only things I read about were the books, video games and programming languages I like. If you had a different experience, then I sympathise with you, but don't go reading a thread filled with utter crap and then claim that someone forced you to listen.
- mirimir 11y ago
  As I've said in another subthread, Reddit is not a single community, but rather numerous communities. All users are free to listen to what they like, and to not listen (or even block) what they don't like. It's rather like Usenet, with a Reddit account being equivalent to a news server account.
- Natsu 11y ago
  As I understand it, the founding fathers cast it more as "freedom to listen" rather than freedom of speech. And it's certainly understandable that Reddit has no wish to be associated with certain speech, but that comes with troubling implications as well. For example, do they not then appear to support whatever they do not ban if we know that whatever sufficiently offends them gets the ban hammer? For another example, take Google removing Confederate flags. I personally hate that damned flag and would be perfectly happy to join others in burning one to express my feelings about it, but I'm loathe to go around removing them. Please understand that I'm perfectly happy if a few get taken down where they appear that some governmental branch was endorsing it. But at the same time, that's not quite the same as when Google goes about removing them. Sure, they are free to do as they wish, I have to wonder why Google doesn't do the same for Nazi symbols? Surely they don't support Nazis, but it's hard to make a case for not giving the Nazis the same treatment. They're at least as evil, right? So what explanations are left to us for the disparity? That Nazis don't offend googlers as much? That doesn't seem like a likely reason, but just what's left? And in the end, where does that leave us? The problem is, I don't think that train of thought has an end, and that's what makes me uneasy. After we remove everything offensive, what's left? It's not like we'll have things that don't offend anybody, so at some point it becomes a matter of choosing which people are okay to offend and which people are not okay to offend. In the end, I just want to get along with everyone. I don't like the thought of living in a society where everything becomes a matter of whether you are one of Us or one of Them and that's where we appear to be heading.
agumonkey 11y ago
What about duty of thinking ? I'm often weirded by the freedom of speech argument in non critical contexts. These persons life aren't at risk because they can't express opinions, isn't that what is meant by FoS ? not just a free card to be able to let yourself loose in public. I have no solution, but far too often FoS ends up a noisy non-discussions. ps: I'll add that I was somehow afraid to express my views on Freedom of Speech. Funny.
- ryanmonroe 11y ago
  >These persons life aren't at risk because they can't express opinions, isn't that what is meant by FoS ? No
  - rustynails77 11y ago
    This thread is very interesting and I deeply appreciate the comments people are making, including FoS, fear to comment on FoS, etc. I personally respect freedom of speech, except hate. For example, HN strongly discourages attacking another member personally (eg. calling someone else idiot). I consider this a reasonable limit on freedom of speech, but concepts and opinions should be fully open for discussion (eg. pro/anti evolution etc). If the discussions are respectful, then anything should be allowed. I believe Political Correctness has done more harm than it does good. It has created an unhealthy focus on skin colour, reproductive organs, etc to the point of lunacy. Many people struggle to look past superficial features and seem to lost the ability to make reasoned judgements. Any criticism of a woman gets you labelled a misogynist, regardless of how incapable she is. This continues to undermine the credibility of women that are truly capable in their own right. I'm currently managing a team of women. They all got there on their own merit. I would not hire a woman for the sake of political correctness or because I was bullied by a feminist journalist (as is quite common these days). The women in my team were not selected based on their gender - they were selected based on their talents and attitudes. They were available and capable. This whole Ellen Pao incident made me think about the validity of comments on sexism and racism that are floating around the net. Compare the attitudes towards the criticisms of Steve Ballmer vs Ellen Pao. One of these individuals contributed to the significant growth of Microsoft, the other didn't manage to achieve much that stands out. Both developed a bad reputation as leaders. Yet, one of these people is being defended and the other is not. The major difference (other than Ballmer's financial track record for Microsoft) is their genders. Political Correctness has driven the need to blindly defend women, no matter how incompetent they may be. The hope is that this behaviour will help "women's rights". I view it as doing the exact opposite ... "jobs for the girls". It saddens me that we seem to be more sexist, less tolerant and more willing to defend incompetence an an attempt to promote rights for selected members of society. On a side note, I dislike the term "women's rights". Is it so hard to represent "people's rights"? I believe one of these reflects a destructive, prejudiced mindset and creates a bad attitude of entitlement and encourages sexism. If society said we'd defend the rights of everyone equally based on merit, the world would be a much better place.
JakeAl 11y ago
The obvious solution to the problem that I don't see on any of these message board sites is simply to allow users to have their own personal blacklists for blocking/filtering users whose comments they don't want to see. Personal differences aside the paid troll farms boosting the noise has really gotten unbearable on the interwebs.
- tsotha 11y ago
  That was one thing Digg had that I missed when I moved to reddit. I suspect it's a pretty resource-intensive function compared to what exists today, though.
intopieces 11y ago
But as the comment you're replying to said: >Reddit is a private company and so is not obliged to provide a platform for anyone's free speech, that also is a facet of freedom. We must be careful not to confuse commercial viability with government censorship. At some point, advertisers will leave a website that continues to foster vitriol/hate speech/illegal content because they do not want their brand associated with it. This is freedom of speech in action.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
lewisl9029 11y ago
Sure, but people should also be free to refuse to listen to things they find distasteful, and to refuse access to people who post things they find distasteful on platforms they operate.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  >...and to refuse access to people who post things they find distasteful on platforms they operate. I tend to agree with what I think you're saying but I wonder if you realize what a controversial opinion that can be to some people. Consider the reaction to Rand Paul's criticism of the Civil Rights Act. Should one be able to operate a restaurant/business/country club that won't serve [blacks, LGBT, Muslims, whites, hispanics, cops, etc]?
raz32dust 11y ago
This is very idealistic, though. A society works on give and take. Courtesy keeps the society stable. There ought to be some negative consequences for billowing hatred.

by dmfdmf 11y ago

Veedrac 11y ago

If your version of free speech means allowing anything to be said anywhere, I don't want it. The principle of free speech I subscribe to is allowing anyone a place such that those who want to listen, can. In essence, to prevent one party silencing a communication between two other parties. Reddit need not be that place.

dmfdmf 11y ago
Can you elaborate? Its not clear to me where we disagree, if at all.
geomark 11y ago
That's a good definition. But even that approach will fail when those with power define the "place such that those who want to listen, can" to be so small that nobody can find it. An example is the so-called free speech zones at some colleges that are small designated spots far from earshot of the entire campus population.
- ketralnis 11y ago
  > that approach will fail when those with power define the "place such that those who want to listen, can" to be so small that nobody can find it Okay. But reddit isn't "those with power". reddit isn't making it illegal to do it elsewhere.
  - geomark 11y ago
    Agree. I was speaking more in general rather than specifically about reddit.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>Reddit need not be that place. Nope, but then again, being that place is what made it grow so large in the first place.

jarfil 11y ago

Freedom of speech != freedom to force anyone to listen to you. As long as you are free to create your own community where you can say whatever you want, there is no need for any other community to listen to you.

nindalf 11y ago
Nor was anyone forced to listen. I find the default subs pretty low quality, so I stopped subscribing to them years ago. So the only things I read about were the books, video games and programming languages I like. If you had a different experience, then I sympathise with you, but don't go reading a thread filled with utter crap and then claim that someone forced you to listen.
mirimir 11y ago
As I've said in another subthread, Reddit is not a single community, but rather numerous communities. All users are free to listen to what they like, and to not listen (or even block) what they don't like. It's rather like Usenet, with a Reddit account being equivalent to a news server account.
Natsu 11y ago
As I understand it, the founding fathers cast it more as "freedom to listen" rather than freedom of speech. And it's certainly understandable that Reddit has no wish to be associated with certain speech, but that comes with troubling implications as well. For example, do they not then appear to support whatever they do not ban if we know that whatever sufficiently offends them gets the ban hammer? For another example, take Google removing Confederate flags. I personally hate that damned flag and would be perfectly happy to join others in burning one to express my feelings about it, but I'm loathe to go around removing them. Please understand that I'm perfectly happy if a few get taken down where they appear that some governmental branch was endorsing it. But at the same time, that's not quite the same as when Google goes about removing them. Sure, they are free to do as they wish, I have to wonder why Google doesn't do the same for Nazi symbols? Surely they don't support Nazis, but it's hard to make a case for not giving the Nazis the same treatment. They're at least as evil, right? So what explanations are left to us for the disparity? That Nazis don't offend googlers as much? That doesn't seem like a likely reason, but just what's left? And in the end, where does that leave us? The problem is, I don't think that train of thought has an end, and that's what makes me uneasy. After we remove everything offensive, what's left? It's not like we'll have things that don't offend anybody, so at some point it becomes a matter of choosing which people are okay to offend and which people are not okay to offend. In the end, I just want to get along with everyone. I don't like the thought of living in a society where everything becomes a matter of whether you are one of Us or one of Them and that's where we appear to be heading.

agumonkey 11y ago

What about duty of thinking ? I'm often weirded by the freedom of speech argument in non critical contexts. These persons life aren't at risk because they can't express opinions, isn't that what is meant by FoS ? not just a free card to be able to let yourself loose in public. I have no solution, but far too often FoS ends up a noisy non-discussions. ps: I'll add that I was somehow afraid to express my views on Freedom of Speech. Funny.

ryanmonroe 11y ago
>These persons life aren't at risk because they can't express opinions, isn't that what is meant by FoS ? No
- rustynails77 11y ago
  This thread is very interesting and I deeply appreciate the comments people are making, including FoS, fear to comment on FoS, etc. I personally respect freedom of speech, except hate. For example, HN strongly discourages attacking another member personally (eg. calling someone else idiot). I consider this a reasonable limit on freedom of speech, but concepts and opinions should be fully open for discussion (eg. pro/anti evolution etc). If the discussions are respectful, then anything should be allowed. I believe Political Correctness has done more harm than it does good. It has created an unhealthy focus on skin colour, reproductive organs, etc to the point of lunacy. Many people struggle to look past superficial features and seem to lost the ability to make reasoned judgements. Any criticism of a woman gets you labelled a misogynist, regardless of how incapable she is. This continues to undermine the credibility of women that are truly capable in their own right. I'm currently managing a team of women. They all got there on their own merit. I would not hire a woman for the sake of political correctness or because I was bullied by a feminist journalist (as is quite common these days). The women in my team were not selected based on their gender - they were selected based on their talents and attitudes. They were available and capable. This whole Ellen Pao incident made me think about the validity of comments on sexism and racism that are floating around the net. Compare the attitudes towards the criticisms of Steve Ballmer vs Ellen Pao. One of these individuals contributed to the significant growth of Microsoft, the other didn't manage to achieve much that stands out. Both developed a bad reputation as leaders. Yet, one of these people is being defended and the other is not. The major difference (other than Ballmer's financial track record for Microsoft) is their genders. Political Correctness has driven the need to blindly defend women, no matter how incompetent they may be. The hope is that this behaviour will help "women's rights". I view it as doing the exact opposite ... "jobs for the girls". It saddens me that we seem to be more sexist, less tolerant and more willing to defend incompetence an an attempt to promote rights for selected members of society. On a side note, I dislike the term "women's rights". Is it so hard to represent "people's rights"? I believe one of these reflects a destructive, prejudiced mindset and creates a bad attitude of entitlement and encourages sexism. If society said we'd defend the rights of everyone equally based on merit, the world would be a much better place.

JakeAl 11y ago

The obvious solution to the problem that I don't see on any of these message board sites is simply to allow users to have their own personal blacklists for blocking/filtering users whose comments they don't want to see. Personal differences aside the paid troll farms boosting the noise has really gotten unbearable on the interwebs.

tsotha 11y ago
That was one thing Digg had that I missed when I moved to reddit. I suspect it's a pretty resource-intensive function compared to what exists today, though.

intopieces 11y ago

But as the comment you're replying to said: >Reddit is a private company and so is not obliged to provide a platform for anyone's free speech, that also is a facet of freedom. We must be careful not to confuse commercial viability with government censorship. At some point, advertisers will leave a website that continues to foster vitriol/hate speech/illegal content because they do not want their brand associated with it. This is freedom of speech in action.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

lewisl9029 11y ago

Sure, but people should also be free to refuse to listen to things they find distasteful, and to refuse access to people who post things they find distasteful on platforms they operate.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>...and to refuse access to people who post things they find distasteful on platforms they operate. I tend to agree with what I think you're saying but I wonder if you realize what a controversial opinion that can be to some people. Consider the reaction to Rand Paul's criticism of the Civil Rights Act. Should one be able to operate a restaurant/business/country club that won't serve [blacks, LGBT, Muslims, whites, hispanics, cops, etc]?

raz32dust 11y ago

This is very idealistic, though. A society works on give and take. Courtesy keeps the society stable. There ought to be some negative consequences for billowing hatred.