> The real debate here is not about the principle of free speech, but the much grayer question of how we draw its boundaries. What kinds of speech should be morally out of bounds?
"All speech is free, some speech is more free than others."
Restrictions are usually on specific modes (ie. no violence, obscenity, etc) rather than the content of the speech. Most of the current attempts to restrict speech focus on contents.
What’s an example of free speech being violated now (in the USA debate at least) that’s not about violence? Just curious what you think should be ok to promote without restriction that you think is being curbed.
As the article points out, neo-Nazis have not been allowed certain platforms for a very long time and would get "cancelled" if their views were known. That is content of speech.
Allowing one type of speech over others could be attacked by enemies as being "supportive" of those viewpoints as by your own decision you find it to be "reasonable" enough to fit within the boundaries of free speech.
> Abstract appeals to “free speech” and “liberal values” obscure the fact that what’s being debated is not anyone’s right to speech, but rather their right to air that speech in specific platforms like the New York Times without fear of social backlash.
Well, yeah, isn't that concerning? How can a paper of record seriously discuss & analyze controversial issues of the day if journalists are afraid to even air controversial speech? Is it not their journalistic duty to inform readers of other prominent views so they can make decisions in a democracy? Doesn't that duty lie at the heart of liberal values, isn't that why we value the abstract concept of free speech in the first place?
The entire point of the Opinion section is to bring in relevant outside views into the public eye, yet the NYT editorial page editor was pushed out for allowing a sitting Congressman to say what he thinks [1]. How can the NYT credibly claim to inform its readers on what's going on in the world when they won't even publish the views of an elected representative?
I don't care what you think of gender critical theory or Tom Cotton or neo-Nazi views, they are increasingly relevant in American discourse and journalists should not be hiding them from the public. If you're a journalist, use your Pulitzer-prize-winning words to contextualize it, to argue against it, to expose us to your perspective. It is cowardly to passive aggressively cut professional ties with colleagues you disagree with in order to effectively silence them.
Cancel Culture is the physical manifestation of freedom of association and the effects of market forces on rational actors.
People pretending to be L/libertarians hate it.
If you don't want to lose your job maybe don't tweet shit?
What's worse than the fake libertarians "angwy" that rational actors tend to act rationally when associated with ideas they (or the market) find(s) abhorrent are the people who think tweets are "speech" that Twitter cannot arbitrarily control.
HN techbros tend to be more vocal than average about "speech" and "freedom" but are the first to report/hide/criticize, much like the fauxlibertarian stuffed shirts and billionaire-controlled free marketeer groups who keep suing social media sites for deleting their hateful and bigoted comments. Or DARING to not do business with them.
Thankfully judges actually understand rights and freedoms and have read more about them than what is contained within never-opened pocket constitution that techbros like to pretend to have read keep swatting them down in court like the losers they are.
Techbro: "Freedom!!!"
Corporate Board: "Ok, we're going to practice our freedom of association and disassociate from your bigoted ass. We like money and hate criticism."
Techbro: "No, not like that..... Only speech and guns. No association-- that doesn't count."
> HN techbros tend to be more vocal than average about "speech" and "freedom" but are the first to report/hide/criticize, much like the fauxlibertarian stuffed shirts and billionaire-controlled free marketeer groups who keep suing social media sites for deleting their hateful and bigoted comments. Or DARING to not do business with them.
^ I'm pretty sure this post breaks a rule or two.
This is not Facebook/Twitter, things are not so black and white. You can hold some libertarian values without being a caricature, likewise for any other value system.
Just like collective groups of rationally acting rational actors CANNOT and MUST NOT have rules on how they associate or disassociate with other actors.
At least, that’s what everyone downvoting pretends to believe.
Or maybe I’m wrong and there are rules.
And if you break them you get cancelled— as the market dictates.
If this was a diatribe about how (minority group x) actually isn’t (straw man) and twitter deleted it every single one of you knuckleheads would be screaming FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH END CANCEL CULTURE if Twitter admins hid it.
Or is twitter free speech but HN comments not? For... reasons...
C’mon, we both know this. Let the veil down just a little for once.
Just pretend to not be hypocritical tar pits of fractured and faulty logic for five minutes.
Maybe I should be more offensive so that people twist themselves into knots defending me, and then complain about rights and freedom while waving my pocket constitution when my comment gets deleted?
14 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 46.2 ms ] thread"All speech is free, some speech is more free than others."
With apologies, it sounds like a "no true Scotsman" position, where censorship is only real when it bolsters one side of the argument.
Well, yeah, isn't that concerning? How can a paper of record seriously discuss & analyze controversial issues of the day if journalists are afraid to even air controversial speech? Is it not their journalistic duty to inform readers of other prominent views so they can make decisions in a democracy? Doesn't that duty lie at the heart of liberal values, isn't that why we value the abstract concept of free speech in the first place?
The entire point of the Opinion section is to bring in relevant outside views into the public eye, yet the NYT editorial page editor was pushed out for allowing a sitting Congressman to say what he thinks [1]. How can the NYT credibly claim to inform its readers on what's going on in the world when they won't even publish the views of an elected representative?
I don't care what you think of gender critical theory or Tom Cotton or neo-Nazi views, they are increasingly relevant in American discourse and journalists should not be hiding them from the public. If you're a journalist, use your Pulitzer-prize-winning words to contextualize it, to argue against it, to expose us to your perspective. It is cowardly to passive aggressively cut professional ties with colleagues you disagree with in order to effectively silence them.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/nyt-opinion-bennet-...
People pretending to be L/libertarians hate it.
If you don't want to lose your job maybe don't tweet shit?
What's worse than the fake libertarians "angwy" that rational actors tend to act rationally when associated with ideas they (or the market) find(s) abhorrent are the people who think tweets are "speech" that Twitter cannot arbitrarily control.
HN techbros tend to be more vocal than average about "speech" and "freedom" but are the first to report/hide/criticize, much like the fauxlibertarian stuffed shirts and billionaire-controlled free marketeer groups who keep suing social media sites for deleting their hateful and bigoted comments. Or DARING to not do business with them.
Thankfully judges actually understand rights and freedoms and have read more about them than what is contained within never-opened pocket constitution that techbros like to pretend to have read keep swatting them down in court like the losers they are.
Techbro: "Freedom!!!"
Corporate Board: "Ok, we're going to practice our freedom of association and disassociate from your bigoted ass. We like money and hate criticism."
Techbro: "No, not like that..... Only speech and guns. No association-- that doesn't count."
^ I'm pretty sure this post breaks a rule or two.
This is not Facebook/Twitter, things are not so black and white. You can hold some libertarian values without being a caricature, likewise for any other value system.
You can’t have rules with free speech, amirite?
Just like collective groups of rationally acting rational actors CANNOT and MUST NOT have rules on how they associate or disassociate with other actors.
At least, that’s what everyone downvoting pretends to believe.
Or maybe I’m wrong and there are rules.
And if you break them you get cancelled— as the market dictates.
If this was a diatribe about how (minority group x) actually isn’t (straw man) and twitter deleted it every single one of you knuckleheads would be screaming FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH END CANCEL CULTURE if Twitter admins hid it.
Or is twitter free speech but HN comments not? For... reasons...
C’mon, we both know this. Let the veil down just a little for once.
Just pretend to not be hypocritical tar pits of fractured and faulty logic for five minutes.
Maybe I should be more offensive so that people twist themselves into knots defending me, and then complain about rights and freedom while waving my pocket constitution when my comment gets deleted?