
Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive - Reedx
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-06-19/protests-free-speech-first-amendment
======
AHappyCamper
I understand that there are a lot of people who are hurting right now, and I
empathize with their pain, but how can we share out most wonderful and
beautiful ideas with each other or convey important information to the public
if we believe there might be serious reprisals against us if we "say the wrong
thing".

For example, I personally helped work against slavery on the Black Market in
the Middle East, and I wanted to raise awareness of this issue.

But now I have to be worried that I'll insult people by using the term Black
Market, and will also insult people by giving off the impression that the the
Middle East is a 3rd world primitive place where they buy and sell slaves.

There is no "right" way to convey the issue above without offending someone.
So what should I do? Just shut my mouth and don't say anything? Then the slave
trade will continue to operate freely...

All speech besides threats of violence needs to be free, or we can't progress
as a society.

~~~
TuringTest
_> how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other_

The trick is to create channels with limited audiences, where you can set an
expectation of which ideas are acceptable and which are not.*

It always has been, but the the arrival of new communication methods has
disrupted the traditional channels, and now every idea is propagated to a much
larger and looser audience, which aren't aware or don't share the expectations
of the sender.

We need to rebuild the architecture of communication channels around this
principle of limited audiences sharing a common understanding, and reshape the
current "free" massive communication tools so that they respect this principle
instead of exploiting the benefits of popularising aggressive messages for
their shock value.

This compartmentalisation of channels would do much more for freedom of
expression than the current "everyone gets a distorted and contextless version
of the original message and can have their say".

* By the way, this is the reason why explicit Codes of Conduct are a _good_ thing for online projects. Without them, you simply get a _default_ implicit code of conduct based on the expectations of the dominant group; which is not a good solution for people coming from any other group.

~~~
PopeDotNinja
How do you manage reading every code of conduct and honoring it?

The trouble I'm having with social changes, expectations, per person pronouns,
and other things is that managing all of these interactions can be a crushing
amount of cognitive load.

Now that I think about it, it's the same challenge I have with microservices.
Formerly simple interactions are now hellza complicated. I'm not fighting the
trend. I'm just fatigued.

~~~
paulgb
> The trouble I'm having with social changes, expectations, per person
> pronouns, and other things is that managing all of these interactions can be
> a crushing amount of cognitive load.

Are per-person pronouns really such a big deal to manage? I've known more
people who have changed their name in marriage than changed their pronouns.

~~~
blueflow
"changing your pronouns" has a link to "tying your identity to how you are
being referenced" (i claim this from observation). Using the wrong pronoun is
such much more likely to be seen as a personal attack than using your pre-
marriage name.

~~~
paulgb
Have you seen anyone personally take offense, or just high-profile cases? I've
definitely seen a few of the latter (e.g. Jordan Peterson) but the common
denominator there seems to be _antagonistically_ refusing to use pronouns or
doing so to make the point that you reject them, which is different from an
honest mistake.

~~~
blueflow
Yes, i left Open Source projects because referring to co-contributors is such
a minefield. I don't wish to work with self-identified transgender people due
to this anymore. They take everything so personal even if its not about them.

And just for saying this, same people will accuse me of hating trans people
and rejecting their right to exist. But you know what - people with successful
HRT who also pass don't exhibit this behavior. They also don't self-identify
as trans.

~~~
joshuamorton
> They also don't self-identify as trans.

A lot of them do.

> They take everything so personal even if its not about them.

Is this an actual experience? I've worked with/interacted with quite a few
queer people. And I've misgendered people on more than one occasion. Nothing a
"shit sorry" hasn't been able to fix.

This forces me to wonder why our experiences are so different. Do the queer
people I work with have different norms than yours? Do I have some level of
legitimacy among them that you don't? Or is there something else at play?

~~~
blueflow
Assuming you are from the US (im not) and work at Google, i guess its that
your ideas about the LGBT community might come from people who actively
participate in identity politics. If they do, they have interest in not
passing and constantly outing themselves to demonstrate their minority status,
because this is what they think makes their voice 'valid'.

If you go trans because you suffer from gender dysphoria, your 'fix' is to
become accepted as the gender you identify as. To achieve it, you do HRT and a
surgery (if you suffer from bottom dysphoria), and you present yourself as the
gender you identify as, NOT as trans. This goes so far that these people
correct you if you call them trans - they are a "Man" or a "Woman" now. If
these people pass, they also pass as cis and are thus not easily recognizable
as having undergone transition.

I'm active in a fan community of an Anime that features dissociation, so it
accidentally attracts people with gender dysphoria. I had affairs with some
people from this community and, this way, also got into the gay/trans
community, which has an significant overlap. This is how i learned that
identity politics is not representative of queer people. Heck, even the
CSD/gay pride with the rainbow flags isn't representative of the gay community
- many sexually deviant people just want to live a normal life and not be
associated with pants where your butt cheeks peek out. I'm one of them.

~~~
joshuamorton
> If they do, they have interest in not passing and constantly outing
> themselves to demonstrate their minority status, because this is what they
> think makes their voice 'valid'.

This is a bit of an outdated view on being "trans". I'll elaborate a bit
because this old view on transness I think is the main difference in our
views.

As background, I assume we'll both agree that gender is (in western society
anyway) stereotypically expressed as a binary: masculine and feminine. The
extent and degree of this binary has shifted over time. At one point women
wearing pants was unacceptable.

The historical view of transness was that people who are trans wanted to
present as the other part of the binary. "I want to be seen as a man instead
of a woman". This raises a question: why? The answer follows: "Because I feel
like I should be a woman."

If you stop at the first question, your view of trans identities make sense: a
trans identity is only valid if it fits snuggly into the existing gender
binary. You are a biological male who identifies as a women, or a biological
female who identifies as a man. And while both of those work under the second
framing, gender nonconforming identities, which don't feel like they should be
a woman, but instead feel like they _shouldn 't_ be a man (or a woman). I'll
note that I'm intentionally simplifying here which has the consequence of
erasing some identities like gender-fluidity. The framing still works for
those, but the answers are different.

So "old" trans was about perception, "new" trans is about identity. Passing
(or not) doesn't make someone's voice valid. Identity does. If you identify as
trans, you are and that identity is valid is really how I'd summarize things.
There's the _potential_ for abuse of this, but in practice it doesn't happen.

So I reject the notion that one need to be visibly non-passing to be valid in
any circle. This I think also addresses much of your second paragraph: there
are many people who choose to identify as trans even though they are passing
or mostly passing, if only because the shared experience is useful to
identify. And they may do so only in certain circles (e.g. Be "out" only in
queer circles where they feel more free to discuss their trans experiences).

> many sexually deviant

I'd be careful conflating sexual deviancy with LGBT identities for two
reasons. First, "sexual deviancy" has historically been used as a pejorative
for LGBT people in the US, and I assume elsewhere. And second, it's not
particularly relevant. In psychology, "sexual deviancy" refers to paraphilias
or kinks, which are explicitly sexual in nature. But a trans or gay person
could be totally asexual. Even still, they could be romantically attracted to
same sex people or have some gender dysphoria. Neither implies anything about
the act of sex itself.

~~~
blueflow
> The historical view of transness was that people who are trans wanted to
> present as the other part of the binary.

This is still how trans people think today. And if you are into language
details, you'll realize that 'transgender' literally says that - getting
across to another gender. Same way like transport meant getting to another
harbour.

> I'll note that I'm intentionally simplifying here which has the consequence
> of erasing some identities like gender-fluidity.

> So "old" trans was about perception, "new" trans is about identity.

If the identity of gender-fluidity can be externally erased by your wording,
its perception, not identity. I'm sure the same applies to trans.

> Passing (or not) doesn't make someone's voice valid. Identity does.

The wrong assumption here is that your LGBT status can make your voice valid
or invalid. The idea that interpretation sovereignty for things comes from
your subjective identity is appalling. I'm not sure how you read that into my
posting.

> Identity does. If you identify as trans, you are and that identity is valid
> is really how I'd summarize things.

Only a very privileged person (or lack of social experience) would be in the
position to even assume that this is how things work in reality. Subjectively
identifying yourself does not work for anything except your name. Its all
about how others perceive you.

And i tell you, they explicitly told me that they want to be seen and accepted
as women. This is like, the greatest wish of people with gender dysphoria.
This is definitely "perception".

> There's the potential for abuse of this, but in practice it doesn't happen.

What about Jessica Yaniv?

> I'd be careful conflating sexual deviancy with LGBT identities for two
> reasons [...]

I meant 'deviant' literally. As in, "deviance". Remove the "sexual" if it
bothers you. I don't have contact fears with that word and will use it to
refer to myself to reclaim it. You better not have any problems with that.

You are repeating the mistakes of identity politics. Like, if it was just a
random opinion, fine. But identity politics are (due to their observably wrong
dogma) alienating to both LGBT people and allies. If people go on like you,
acceptance might fall enough that LGBT rights will be rolled back (already
happening in the US). And this will hit LGBT people, not you.

~~~
joshuamorton
> This is still how trans people think today.

Some trans people find external validation important, yes. But being trans is
not _defined_ by external validation (and certainly not external perception),
but instead self perception.[0] This is obvious: it would imply that a man in
drag is a trans woman, which is obviously untrue.

> If the identity of gender-fluidity can be externally erased by your wording,
> its perception, not identity. I'm sure the same applies to trans.

No, gender-fluidity can be erased only due to the simplification that feelings
are permanent. If we accept that how one self-perceives can, for some, change
over time, then that leads obviously to gender fluidity. Like I said, I was
simplifying, and specifically the simplification erased some identities.
Removing the simplification doesn't erase any other identities. The identities
were never invalid. The simplified definition I was using just didn't extend
to them.

> Its all about how others perceive you.

Self perception certainly isn't _all_ about how others perceive you. It may
indeed be influenced by external factors, but I identify as a man not because
of how others perceive me but due to my innate feelings about myself.
Dysphoria is a mismatch between self-perception and external validation. The
self-perception isn't defined by the external validation, if it were you
couldn't experience dysphoria.

So I'll reiterate: trans people are trans based on how they identify, not
based on how they are perceived. A biological male who is a closeted trans
woman is still trans, no matter how I perceive them. The same person is still
trans if they eventually become a passing woman.

> The wrong assumption here is that your LGBT status can make your voice valid
> or invalid.

When discussing the experience of being LGBT, _of course it does_. In general,
of course it doesn't. You seemed to imply otherwise when you said "because
this is what they think makes their voice 'valid'."

Which, like I said, isn't the case. None of the trans people I work with or
know believe that being physically non-passing makes their voices any more
valid than it would be if they were passing. Let me just reiterate that: _None
of the trans people I associate put any particular weight on being non-
passing_ , this was something you invented, and it entirely contradicts how
the trans people I know define their transness.

In other words, to make that claim is to misrepresent what being trans _is_
for many trans people.

> This is like, the greatest wish of people with gender dysphoria. This is
> definitely "perception".

Yes, for some trans people that is absolutely the case! I'm not denying that
people who are "classically" trans are trans. They absolutely are. Their
dysphoria is still driven by a self-perception mismatch.

Let try to approach this another way: if we agree that classical trans
identities, those that align closely with the gender binary, are valid, then
the question is what about people who have less severe dysphoria? Like if we
accept that it is possible for someone's self-perception to _completely_
mismatch their body, why do we reject the idea that there can only be
_partial_ mismatch. In other words, they don't perceive themselves as either
strictly a man or a woman. This is where you get various non-binary trans
identities.

Again, all I'm doing is adding more people under the trans umbrella, I'm very
much not denying any particular trans person's experience.

> What about Jessica Yaniv?

I'm glad you asked! Here's Contrapoints again to dive into the concept of
"trans-trenders" and specifically Yaniv better than I ever could.[1]

> acceptance might fall enough that LGBT rights will be rolled back (already
> happening in the US)

If you honestly believe that LGBT rights are at risk because of a perceived
backlash to "identity politics" (which, to be clear is a phrase I still don't
understand the meaning of), and not simply the US religious right doing the
same things it's _always_ done, you haven't been paying attention. Education
and normalization does more to protect LGBT people than staying silent.

[0]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mspMJTNEY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mspMJTNEY)

[1]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdvM_pRfuFM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdvM_pRfuFM)

~~~
blueflow
> But being trans is not defined by external validation [...]

Did i say so?

My observations and your 'definitions' are different.

> Like I said, I was simplifying, and specifically the simplification erased
> some identities.

Language is inherently symbolic and thus an simplification (an reduction).
This makes "Identity erasure" an very toxic concept - you are guilty of it
because there wasn't a way to comply with it in the first place.

> The same person is still trans if they eventually become a passing woman.

Wow. You can't say that - that's really rude and a offense to transitioned
people. They are a woman - becoming so was the whole purpose of transitioning.
You should know that.

> and it entirely contradicts how the trans people I know define their
> transness.

If that's so, fine. The trans people i know don't even "define" themselves,
because here people aren't obsessed with self-identity as in the US. They only
want to be accepted as Women.

> [...] they don't perceive themselves as either strictly a man or a woman.
> This is where you get various non-binary trans identities.

Only in identity politics. In the outside world you get people that don't
conform to various gender expectations, and the majority of them does not need
to make up their mind around that being an identity. They "can be".

> Education and normalization does more to protect LGBT people than staying
> silent.

Yes, but then do it correctly. Identity politics as it is now has resulted in
a large number of "shit liberals say"-outrage-memes. People are making fun of
self-identifying because it is so absurd - does "I sexually identify as an
Apache Attack Helicopter" ring a bell for you? I'm sure you have good
intentions for LGBT people, but if you unironically argue with concepts like
self-identification or identity erasure, people will be driven off. I'm driven
off. Its neither how things work in practice nor how we will get LGBT
acceptance in the future.

> "identity politics" (which, to be clear is a phrase I still don't understand
> the meaning of)

In the US, identity politics is the most vocal view on LGBT issues. Its core
feature is the strong emphasis on self-identity and that it must be
'respected'. How the latter happens in detail is subject to being abused as
leverage to control other people. Its only a power play if you see through it,
and it rejects the normal-ness of LGBT people, segregating people into groups.

Contrast it to the other parts of the LGBT community, where people are like,
normal people. And happen to have transitioned or a having partner of the same
sex. That's as normal as chewing gum. Nothing 'special' that needs any kind of
extra things to be respected. Just personal life choices.

~~~
joshuamorton
> Did i say so?

I've isolated the statement I was responding to at least twice: "because this
is what they think makes their voice 'valid'." You seem to think that trans
people believe that, even if you yourself don't.

> Wow. You can't say that - that's really rude and a offense to transitioned
> people.

I don't see how differentiating between passing and non passing when we're
talking about the impact of external perception is offensive, but please
elaborate, I'm open to criticism.

> They only want to be accepted as Women.

And as I explained, this limits the definition of Trans to only a very
specific type of trans person. It seems like you're saying that those are the
right kinds of trans people. Perhaps that's why you're met with friction with
those people: you're choosing to invalidate their self-perception because they
don't conform to how you think a trans person _should_ be.

In your mind, the trans "identity" is someone in one gender role who swaps to
another gender role quietly.

After this point, the rest of your post was really just a rant about how you
don't want to accept trans people who don't conform to your perception of
them. That's you playing identity politics, it's forcing an identity on to
them. And this is why I mentioned that I don't get identity politics: it's not
a liberal or US-centric thing. It's a lens. It's a form of analysis of the
world, a framework for looking at interpersonal interactions. Forcing someone
to conform to an identity is identity politics just as much as identifying
with an identity in a way you disagree is. They're two sides of the same coin.

The argument that identity politics forces you to be controlled is the exact
same argument that the US religious right used for years to push back against
all the "personal life choices" you mention, like marrying a same-gender
person. It's the same argument that the US religious right pushes when they
try to ban trans people from using the right bathrooms. The argument that
respecting someone else's personal choice is an imposition on you. It's the
same argument.

------
ngngngng
I argued with a family member about this just the other day. She was trying to
get a faculty member at a local university fired for saying something
offensive on Twitter. I asked her what happens after we get him fired? Can he
earn back the worthiness to again feed his family? Will he need to denounce
his views or just stop spewing them publicly? Will he just need to collect
unemployment for the rest of his life now that we've deemed him a heretic
unworthy of work?

The answers of her and her friends bounced between "I don't care what happens
to racists like him" and calling me a racist for "defending" him. One
participant said that he'll just have to work a job making far less like "the
rest of us." As if there's a cap on how much money racists are allowed to
make. I read everything he said that offended people, and I didn't see
anything racist, as far as I can tell, he just hates protesters and "PC"
culture.

I just can't shake the first 3 words of The Constitution from my thoughts
lately. Very nice of the LA Times to include a picture of it at the top of the
page. We are not two separate entities in this country, the government and the
NOT government. We are all The People. And we should all uphold the rights
guaranteed in The Constitution to all of our fellow citizens.

Shoutout to Paul Grahams ever applicable "What You Can't Say"
[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

~~~
nonsince
People with racist or otherwise regressive views know that these views will
(rightly) get them criticised by the majority, and so they won't couch them in
those terms precisely, but it's often very clear when you take context into
account. I can't speak for this exact case, because we don't know what his
exact words were, but it's telling that even your defence of him describes him
criticising protesters at a time when protesters are being shot and having
chemical weapons used on them by the police, a state militia who can kill
pretty much anyone without threat of consequence. If your stance in this case
is to support that militia, their murders and their use of chemical weapons,
then I think that it's not remotely unfair to say that you not only do not
support the black lives matter movement, but that you support the continuation
of black people in the states being murdered without recompense.

When you have such a significant power over someone's higher education and
therefore their life earnings, I don't think it's unfair to scrutinise these
people's views further than had they little structural power.

~~~
whiddershins
You are trying to say you can infer racism, and you need to do that to
identify the racists because they won’t speak their racism openly?

Can you see how that is a recipe for attacking people and ruining their lives
based on something that in the end might be imagined?

Do you see how easily that becomes ... anyone who disagrees with any opinion I
have is evil?

~~~
scoutt
What amazes me most is the cascade of reasoning. It's the most obscene misuse
of logic, that might be fine only if it comes from a toddler.

"criticising protesters" leads to "support militia", that leads to "support
their murders", so he "do(es) not support the black lives matter", therefore
wants "continuation of black people being murdered".

Imagine that for a guy that had his car turned upside down by protesters and
was complaining about that.

------
bosswipe
There's a disconnect that keeps running through a lot of the arguments from
the conservative side which I don't understand. The examples given in this
piece are a) the right of street protesters to be heard without being attacked
by government officers vs b) the right of people to not get fired for what
they say by private organizations like the New York Times.

This disconnect keeps coming up, and it's extra weird because conservatives
have traditionally been the bigger proponents of corporate freedom to fire
whoever they want. But now many conservatives seem to want some kind of new
labor protection laws.

Maybe what is going on is not really about free speech but more about quickly
changing cultural norms. It used to be OK to make blatant racist and sexist
jokes in an office setting but at some point that changed and now you can
easily get fired over it. That's not a change in free speech restrictions,
it's a change in what is considered culturally acceptable behavior between
private actors. But changing cultural norms aren't something that should be
somehow regulated by the government.

~~~
belorn
The disconnect goes away if we see person opinions as something people are
rather than something which people say.

This happens also to be a common thread in the disagreement between left and
right. When something becomes a voluntary chosen action it can be controlled,
limited and stopped by the government. When something is a personal trait it
should be protected and given status as a right.

To take the example of a street protestor. Should companies be allowed to fire
political activists? When we see it as a personal trait a lot of people find
the answer as no. Should companies be allowed to fire people who choosed to
say bad things? Many say yes. The issue becomes how people frame the question
and what values get attached to it.

~~~
nabla9
Yes. Person with Tourette should not be fired for saying things that others
don't.

(discussing norms, not free speech as legal rights below)

The norms in private organizations (companies, universities, associations) are
different for different people.

1) If you are representative of an organization, what you say in private
reflects your organization and it's reputation. It's established norm that
personal values and opinions publicly expressed can't deviate from that of the
organization. This includes many low level customer service jobs.

2) Low level managers, teachers and coaches are in position of authority and
their whole identity is involved. Leader can shout their mouth about their
political opinions and people working under them are not in position to talk
back. That's not proper position to be politically opinionated. There are some
norms limiting to their self expression in private, but it's usually context
dependent.

3) Low level workers without public position or responsibilities over other
should get most leeway to be whatever they are outside the job. When I was
working in the floor level warehouse, the coffee break was the most
politically diverse environment. Anarchist and far-right guy sitting next to
each other debating angrily about women's rights, unions, Jews, holocaust.
Nobody considered taking it upstairs because it was offensive. Only cases of
bullying were considered out of line.

------
the_resistence
Regrettably, that is what's lost in all of this. Protesters against other
opinions and belief systems strongly defend free speech so long as you are
saying what they approve of.

~~~
fennecfoxen
The world, in general, is abandoning the past two centuries in which freedom
has risen, to become illiberal, and enforce intellectual orthodoxies. It is
more obvious and markedly so in in places like Turkey, but even here in the US
we see those who would blacklist all political enemies and dissenters. These
efforts will ultimately fail here, but not before grave harm is inflicted;
history will judge us as harshly as we judge the McCarthy era.

There were Communists in the government in the McCarthy era. There were quite
a few Communists, much as there is still racism at large in the USA today. And
yet you will note that successfully rooting out spies is not why McCarthy is
remembered, but rather, for his self-aggrandizing campaign of paranoid
repression.

~~~
drtillberg
A chaplin recently had to resign in apology at a distinguished academic
institution for ... making factual and insightful comments about the George
Floyd incident.[1] McCarthy eventually was shamed and disgraced by his casual
destructiveness. "Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency,
sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

[1] [https://nypost.com/2020/06/17/mit-chaplain-resigns-over-
emai...](https://nypost.com/2020/06/17/mit-chaplain-resigns-over-email-
criticizing-george-floyd/)

~~~
smt88
Saying someone "didn't live a virtuous life" is not factual. In this case,
it's an irrelevant and tasteless opinion about a victim. It implies Floyd
somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed.

~~~
legostormtroopr
> It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed.

No it doesn't. This is wild hyperbole. No one deserves to be shot in the back.

However, people are painting him out to be an angel - quite literally there
are multiple artworks of George Floyd with a halo and wings [1]. The reality
is he was human, and one with a complicated criminal past who was jailed 8
times [2] including for drug offenses. Is saying that someone with a criminal
record like that "didn't live a virtuous life" really a fireable offense?

[1]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=george+floyd+angel&client=fi...](https://www.google.com/search?q=george+floyd+angel&client=firefox-
b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk00nMHtG8DjlxgC9apPjPLBHYmpIkA:1593066663036&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Zc2XqCm-
cCeq_M%252C0loWz6H057CD0M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRPwZ_-x7-s6YTPcjlhnnGhGltT3g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjawrbkq5zqAhXCyzgGHXlzB3sQ9QEwAHoECAkQHA&biw=1217&bih=579#imgrc=Zc2XqCm-
cCeq_M)

[2] [https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-
criminal...](https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal-
record/)

~~~
romwell
>Is saying that someone with a criminal record like that "didn't live a
virtuous life" really a fireable offense?

Talk about wild hyperboles!

“In the wake of George Floyd’s death, most people in the country have framed
this as an act of racism,” Moloney’s email continued. “I don’t think we know
that. Many people have claimed that racism is a major problem in police
forces. I don’t think we know that.”

The Chaplain has said enough things that association with him became a
liability for an institution like MIT, that is all.

~~~
miracle2k
The new orthodoxy requires this quote to be something awful, and upon reading
it, that was my immediate thought as well. "He really said _that_?".

But it really isn't. In fact, it continues to be an opinion of a large section
of the society. He is only saying that the police are not totally racist,
maybe only a bit! Disagree as much as you want, this is an opinion beyond the
pale now?

And the fact that the culture causes MIT to believe this to be a liability is
exactly the point.

~~~
romwell
>He is only saying that the police are not totally racist, maybe only a bit

Let's not be facetious here, shall we?

He said that we don't know that racism is a major problem in police forces. In
fact, we do know that; the structural racism is what many people are
protesting against.

Structural racism manifests itself in the rules and protocols, in traditions
and patterns in actions. To say that it is a major problem does not imply that
the majority of individual policemen are racists. What it means is that the
black people are disproportionately affected by the negative effects of
policing, including brutality.

To say that "we don't know that" is unacceptable ignorance for a public
figurehead of a reputable institution.

Because _we_ do know that.

------
trabant00
Why are we beating around the bush even on anonymous platform like this one?

What do "conversations", language policing, social media activism, etc
actually do to improve the situation? Where are the actual actions and
involvements like volunteering for actual work in a poor community?

Why is the suggested action so often giving money? Buy this book about how to
be a good white person, donate to local BLM chapter, support this twitter
activist on Patreon, hire a racial issues consultant for a company seminar?

If anybody really cares about black lives they should be deeply concerned with
gang violence, human trafficking, drugging minors, etc. Where are the
conversations about that?

For me it is clear that a lot of individuals are taking advantage of a real
problem for their own goals and purposes, even wiling to do more harm than
good. And now we are debating whether it's worth to sacrifice certain freedoms
not to offend them.

~~~
koheripbal
> If anybody really cares about black lives they should be deeply concerned
> with gang violence, human trafficking, drugging minors, etc. Where are the
> conversations about that?

There's no question that BLM is being hijacked by groups with entirely
different agendas - most of whom couldn't care less about black lives.

...but this argument is a logically flawed whataboutism. It's entirely
reasonable to protest a lesser problem. It doesn't mean you don't care or work
to fix the larger problems.

------
pornel
Like with the Paradox of Tolerance, the absolutist free speech position
paradoxically leads to loss of free speech. Speech that is "truth to power"
has to be defended. But defending the opposite kind—lies spread by the
powerful—is helping them silence dissent.

There are people/orgs/governments that are experts in twisting the idea of
free speech to their advantage. They know very well what to say to change
clear opposing voices into a "controversy", represent indisputable facts as
"opinions", and play free speech card when called out on it. They can keep
doing it until people who genuinely want to evaluate all sides can't keep up
with all the distractions.

And there are lots of cases when people are just being assholes. They enjoy
that they can troll as much as they want and "freeze peach! slippery slope!"
magically elevates any stupid shit they say into an important political
message to be defended at all costs.

~~~
luckylion
> But defending the opposite kind—lies spread by the powerful—is helping them
> silence dissent.

But that just moves the problem to the question of "who is powerful?", doesn't
it? Everybody feels that _their side_ isn't in power because their goals and
ideals haven't been completely achieved, so obviously they are the powerless
who are speaking truth to power, and therefore the other side are the powerful
who are spreading lies to silence dissent.

That doesn't help. I think there's a good chance for anybody that they are
wrong in their perception of who is in power, their perception of what "the
powerful" want, their political convictions and theories of life, so any kind
of distinction of what speech to suppress and what to allow is pretty much a
coin flip with regards to this "allow & support speaking truth to power".

~~~
joshuamorton
Who is more powerful: The President of the United States, or me?

While it's indeed possible that there are ambiguous cases, that doesn't
invalidate the idea in general. Unless you legitimately believe that it is
always impossible to determine when there is a power imbalance in a
relationship. But we make that decision just fine in many other situations, so
I don't know why speech would be different.

~~~
luckylion
> While it's indeed possible that there are ambiguous cases, that doesn't
> invalidate the idea in general.

Compared to you vs the US president, I'd say all cases are ambiguous. Are we
just measuring the president and then say "that's what the people in power
believe", or are we determining everyone's power level and opinions and then
weigh both to find out what part of those in power believe X?

It's impossible to do accurately, and you won't get a binary picture even if
you managed to do it.

------
gentleman11
There are a lot of downvoted posts in this thread that make reasonable
arguments and that are promoting discussion. I disagree with a lot of them,
but it’s awkward for this to be a story where people are heavily downvoting
people they disagree with

~~~
cheschire
It's a question I've been struggling with lately. Downvotes reinforce
groupthink, that much is subjectively clear. I've considered solutions, and I
believe forcing people to reply before they are allowed to downvote would
help.

However, in opposition to my own idea, I consider that simply requiring a more
effort wouldn't necessarily change the groupthink problem, but would just
stifle low effort downvotes.

Let's consider then the whole idea of votes in the first place. Are downvotes
considered "speech" in an abstract sense? Should they be protected in the same
way disagreeable opinions are? Is the level of effort necessary to express the
speech relevant to the level of protection it deserves? Would restricting
downvotes in any way be considered a speech restriction?

So these are all interesting aspects to the problem that cause me a lot of
internal debate.

~~~
cousin_it
We could remove downvotes. They had three purposes:

1) Crowdsourced moderation. Well, everyone is using manual moderation anyway.

2) Silencing others. This is a misfeature.

3) Finding the best content. Upvotes are enough for that.

That said, I'm not sure this will reduce groupthink. Twitter has no downvotes
and plenty of groupthink.

~~~
lazyjones
In the forum I was working on, downvotes were limited per 24h, so people
eventually saved them for really bad / offensive / spam comments instead of
punishing people for their opinions (except a few who even wrote scripts to
downvote certain people systematically...).

The problem is in my opinion that once people begin to act like this, their
victims behave like this also. If you get punished for arguing against
somebody, you learn to stop arguing and just downvote that person instead.
It's a chain reaction.

~~~
ratww
_> In the forum I was working on, downvotes were limited per 24h_

I believe this is also true for Hacker News.

~~~
jessaustin
If so, it must be a sort of "hell" downvote, which has no effect even though
the UI seems to indicate that it does... I don't think this would change
behavior as described above.

------
mrfusion
Jon Stuart Mill “On Liberty” full text:

[https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liber...](https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liberty.pdf)

Has anyone read it? I found it eye opening for these kind of discussions.

~~~
gentleman11
There are some pretty decent librevox recordings available also

------
Myce
To me the limit in freedom of speech is when one calls for violence. As I
truly believe in free speech, every exception you make to free speech, is
arbitrary. If we have to everyone's exceptions into account, it's over with
real free speech.

I personally can't be easily hurt by people I don't know well, but also
understand that other people are easier hurt. This can be due to their current
situation or things from the past that can more easily hurt their feelings.

I also want to stress that there's obviously something as politeness, empathy
and social behavior. These should be encouraged at all times. But we all know
some people simply can't behave and sometimes you even yourself can make an
insulting remark

But due to free of speech, I do believe that people who are rude, insult
others and make insensitive jokes, should be allowed to do so. Without any
limit. How terrible it is what they say

They practice their freedom of speech. And we shouldn't punish them, other
than telling them how we feel about what they say and making clear it can hurt
the feelings of others.

On the other side we should invest in becoming more resilent to insults etc.

Obviously I see a task for parents and maybe even schools.

Thet should invest time in teaching children how to deal with rude,
insensitive, insulting people and make them more resilient e.g. by boosting
their self confidence.

For me that would be the best solution to keep an open society where people
can speak freely. Making exceptions will kill it.

After all what can be insulting to person 1 can mean totally nothing to person
2.

------
klmadfejno
As great as free speech is, I don't think western political systems will
survive it if it's not accompanied by transparency and accountability. Humans
are hard wired to perceive their environments as local. They are not local
anymore. The bar of plausible deniability has sunk two inches into the mud we
stand on for any dumbass political justification.

I don't want restrictions on free speech, but I also feel absolutely screwed
by the way society functions right now.

~~~
krapp
Sorry, but both "transparency" and "accountability" are considered censorship
now.

~~~
dependenttypes
I think that you are confused. If anything it is the lack of transparency that
is closer to censorship.

------
guscost
“I trust you guys. I love you guys. We'll keep this space open. This is the
last stronghold for civil discourse. After this shit it's just rat-a-tat
tattity tat-tat ta tat tat TAT.”

\- Dave Chappelle

~~~
mellosouls
“I seen Candace Owens try to convince white America, ‘don’t worry about it
he’s a criminal anyway', I don’t give a fuck what this nigga did… I don’t care
if he personally kicked Candace Owens in her stink pussy. I don’t know if it
stinks, but I imagine it does."

\- Dave Chappelle, civil discourse champion, also

~~~
guscost
“There’s something so true about this genre when done correctly that I will
fight anybody that gets in a true practitioner of this art form’s way, because
I know you’re wrong. This is the truth and you are obstructing it. I’m not
talking about the content, I’m talking about the art form.”

~~~
mellosouls
I love Chappelle - but he's not an angel, and didn't serve the free speech
cause well with his personal attack (she took it sportingly) on somebody
genuinely brave in speaking off-message.

~~~
augustt
I would not call it bravery. She started her career as an anti-conservative
blogger and then realized there was money to be made in being conservatives'
token minority friend.

~~~
syshum
That is somewhat revisionist I would say, She was cancelled by the left like
many have been over the years, because while she was "anti-conservative"
(though not really) she was far more moderate than the Extreme Authoritarian
left accepts

~~~
nl
You don't find it slightly ironic that you are defending her when she was
"cancelled" for setting up a website with the express purpose of doxxing
people who didn't want to be identified?[1]

I think it was you who claimed this on the Scott Alexander story:

> One of the biggest problems in modern society is the lack of respect for
> privacy and anonymous speech. anonymous speech has been a cornerstone of the
> advancement of civilization many times through out history including playing
> a critical role in the formation of the United States as well as the US
> Constitution

It seems to me that she was criticised by the left (and many on the right!)
for attempting to start a pretty distasteful service.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens#Privacy_violatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens#Privacy_violation,_Gamergate,_and_political_transformation)

~~~
syshum
I dont believe I was defending her. i believe in facts and the statement was
factually inaccurate, She moved more conservative and started her conservative
persona after the left rejected or ejected her from their circle.

Not sure how correcting the record with facts is "defending" some one but I
guess in times of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act

I absolutely am not a fan of her or her works on the doxxing site

~~~
nl
You seem to think her rejection by the left was some kind of extreme act ("far
more moderate than the Extreme Authoritarian left accepts") and yet she was
actually rejected for setting up a doxxing site!

It's not an extreme act to reject someone for that, and nor is it a moderate
act to set one up.

~~~
syshum
Again we are back to revisionism. The Authoritarian left likes nothing more
than to doxx people, it happens every day on twitter and it is a critical part
of Cancel Culture

That was not way she was rejected

------
lazylizard
We know that the wages of secrecy are corruption. We know that in secrecy
error, undetected, will flourish and subvert. – Robert Oppenheimer

“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to
exist.” – Salman Rushdie

------
jgeada
I think they're misunderstanding the difference between freedom of speech and
not having any negative consequences accruing to you for said speech. Yes, we
all agree that government must not censor speech. However, all us other
individuals and non-government organizations are certainly free to decide who
to associate with and who not to associate with. You are free to say whatever
stupid shit you want in public, but the rest of us are well within our rights
to ostracize you, fire you, etc as a consequence of learning that you, due to
your free speech, are an ignorant/repulsive/racist/evil person.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> " _...any negative consequences accruing to you for said speech..._ "

I see this argument all the time but it's pretty clear that progressives would
be livid if an organization/business chose to impose "negative consequences"
on one of their won for their progressive beliefs. Quite a double standard.

------
rbecker
Just in case someone finds the examples in the article all acceptable
censorship, here's a few more off the top of my head:

Evergreen professor forced to resign for opposing day of white absence:
[https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-
weinstei...](https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-weinstein-
explained-the-evergreen-scandal-f3dfe07b1d70)

UCLA professor placed under investigation for reading MLK's "Letter from a
Birmingham Jail": [https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-
lect...](https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-lecturer-for-
reading-mlks-letter-from-birmingham-jail/)

Data scientist fired for retweeting study showing non-violent protests are
more effective: [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-
liberalism-...](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-
tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html)

~~~
gentleman11
In mainstream news (ap, CBC, bbc, others), increasingly people and groups are
being labelled as racist without any discretion. Eg, people out protecting
Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories[1].
Surely, there is at least one racist in the group, but increasingly every
single person who doesn’t tow the line is being called out - entire police
departments, mayors, city councils, schools, news organizations - everyone is
either supporting the cause or else is a racist, with no evidence or scrutiny
being applied. How can entire police departments be racist? Entire companies?

[1] to be fair, Churchill was a racist and a colonialist. He opposed Ghandi.
He also helped defeat fascism and naziism and is an important historical
figure. Defending a Churchill statue does not automatically make everybody in
the vicinity a nazi.

~~~
DanBC
> Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as
> racists in several stories

You missed out the bit where some of them were doing Nazi salutes or carrying
EDL / Britain First etc flags.

~~~
gentleman11
If you’re in a group with people you don’t know very well and some of them say
or do something utterly stupid, you are not automatically one of them. Eg,
some people were looting during the protests but it would be ridiculous to say
the entire protest is just a bunch of thugs

~~~
DanBC
If you're in a large group, and many members of that group are by any
definition racist, you're going to be called part of a racist group.

~~~
gentleman11
Then the early black lives matter protests were nothing but a bunch of
anarchistic rioters and looters. And every cop in those police departments is
racist. And all those city councillors too. It isn’t true though and the point
is you can’t just go around labelling people like that willy nilly. You can’t
just group everyone together based on what the worst of them do.

Imagine a world where every honest cop quit in order to avoid being associated
with the bad ones

~~~
maccard
I don't agree with the point you're making at all here. OPs point is that if
you attend a gathering with people you don't know, and that gathering turns
out to be heavily represented by white supremacist groups, you are going to be
labelled with it.

You're furiously defending an argument that you've made, which is exactly the
point that is being made repeatedly in this thread, that's it's very difficult
to have a discussion on many of these topics because the debate turns to this
very quickly.

~~~
dependenttypes
In the same spirit, gentleman11's point is that if you attend a gathering with
people you don't know, and that gathering turns out to be heavily represented
by looters and rioters, you are going to be labelled with it.

> You're furiously defending an argument that you've made

More like trying to show to DanBC that their line of thinking is illogical.
Regardless, I do not see anything furious about it.

~~~
DanBC
There's nothing illogical about describing as racist a group of people who
make Nazi salutes, who attack black people, who spray racist graffiti.

I'm pointing out that this is a simplistic, dishonest, framing:

> Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as
> racists in several stories[1].

A more honest framing would be "people out protecting Churchill statutes, many
of them making Nazi salutes and chanting racist slogans, are labelled as
racists in several stories".

This isn't just the extreme left calling everything racist. Here's the
Telegraph[1] quoting Boris Johnson[2] who condemns "racist thuggery".
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/13/black-lives-
matt...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/13/black-lives-matter-
protests-london-statues-racism-churchill/)

[1] A right wing newspaper.

[2] A right wing PM.

~~~
textgel
> There's nothing illogical about describing as racist a group of people who
> make Nazi salutes, who attack black people, who spray racist graffiti.

However that's not what you were doing; you were stating the point that being
with a group doing x means you will labelled as x.

> If you're in a large group, and many members of that group are by any
> definition racist, you're going to be called part of a racist group.

Now whether you meant that that is a case of will be vs should was not covered
but that was what the original point was.

The new point about framing would be in relation to the original point made
where all in the protest centred around protection of the statues were
labelled racist for doing so by major news organisations. At a guess there's
at least two frustrations made in that that I can immediately think of

1) the lack of nuance from the papers (probably a hopeless ask given the way
media operates in general for any story they handle but something worth
discussing)

And 2) the hypocrisy displayed. We've seen the recent riots described as
"mostly peaceful protests" time after time when a simple look at the stories
and videos coming out show anything but yet the difference in the media
descriptions of the two is pretty glaring would you agree?

~~~
DanBC
> However that's not what you were doing; you were stating the point that
> being with a group doing x means you will labelled as x.

I still say that. If you attend a demonstration organised by a far right group
(FLA), heavily promoted by other far right groups (Britain First, EDL), and
prominent members of the far right (Stephen Yaxley Lennon, Paul Golding) then
you're going to be called racist.

You're desperately trying to say these crowds were people interested in
statues and merely peacefully protesting to protect statues. That shows a
complete lack of understanding of i) who organised the demonstration ii) the
language used to organise the demonstration iii) the behaviours displayed
during the demonstration and iv) the commentary _across the political
spectrum_ condemning this demonstration as racist thuggery.

> yet the difference in the media descriptions of the two is pretty glaring
> would you agree?

At some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that in the
UK the far right pose a far greater risk of harm than the left.

The people you're desperately trying to defend were drunk, coked-up, racist,
football hooligans on a rampage. That has been fairly and accurately described
by UK news media, including those on the right.

Daily fucking Mail: [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8404751/Police-
fear...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8404751/Police-fear-
violence-erupt-London-football-hooligans-hold-counter-protests.html)

~~~
textgel
I haven't said anything about defending these crowds at all, you're welcome to
point out where I defended them; I've pointed out the likely frustrations of
op about two facedness and lack of nuance in the press.

I can perfectly see there are people in the protests making the nazi salutes
just fine and I follow the logic behind getting the label if you hang with
them, and as you'll surely agree in just the same way that those involved with
the recent floyyd protests will be labelled as opportunistic thugs looking to
destroy property and assault people.

> At some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that in
> the UK the far right pose a far greater risk of harm than the left.

No, no I don't; both sides seem significantly detrimental in different ways
and I don't have to permit free reign to one group of sociopathic bullies just
because they are the enemies of a different one.

~~~
fzeroracer
> the same way that those involved with the recent floyyd protests will be
> labelled as opportunistic thugs looking to destroy property and assault
> people

This is so disengenuous as to veer into the realm of absurdity. You seem to be
completely ignoring the actual intent of the two groups in attempt to conflate
them to defend your argument. Not to mention both side-ing them is an absolute
joke.

The intent of the floyd protests wasn't to loot and destroy property. It was
to protest his death. The fact that some took this opportunity to do so does
not affect the actual intent which was upheld in many other places and
protests.

The intent of the other group was explicitly racist. Organized by far-right
groups and quite literal Nazis.

~~~
textgel
No the intent as described many times in the comment chain was protection of
the statues; that was what spurred the counter protest. Both sides began under
good intent; both sides had bad actors who caused trouble; both sides get
labelled.

~~~
fzeroracer
And as DanBC said multiple times, that was not the real reason why they were
out there. You seem to be ignoring all context for why they were out there and
who organized it in attempt to equate the two in a disingenuous manner. At
this point it's obvious you're not here to argue in good faith.

~~~
textgel
Unfortunate as it is but neither you nor DanBC are the global authority on
other peoples "real reason" for doing things no matter how you feel on the
subject. Context is also a poorly thought out point to bring up considering
plenty was provided; numerous examples of destruction of statues given before,
no sign of slowing and future targetting given often and loudly.

------
randcraw
Free speech != hate speech. There's a big difference between stating a
reasoned point of view that some might find offensive and stating something
that's intended only to offend. The first is essential to a free society and
deserves our enthusiastic protection. The second is only destructive and
should be shunned.

Behaving offensively is _not_ strictly in the eye of the beholder. If you hate
something/someone, do _not_ share your opinion unless you're willing to
provide a reasoned argument to support your conclusion. If you're not willing
to do that, then we're done listening. That's not free speech.

Free speech should _always_ be constructive, never just opinion -- especially
a destructive one. The purpose of free speech is to make a positive
contribution, support your assertion with facts and logic (and emotion, if you
like), and then _always_ be willing to discuss to the merits and demerits of
your argument using civil discourse. Absent facts AND logic AND civil
exchange... THAT'S NOT FREE SPEECH. It's just one person sounding off, often
motivated by hate. That's not just offensive, that's intended only to offend.
It's an assault on others. And assault is a crime.

Yes, the US First Amendment defends the free exchange of ideas. But if you're
not willing to listen as well, to think, discuss, and consider alternative
points of view, then protected Free Speech should _not_ apply to you. Take
your lust to offend and go away. You're not welcome here.

~~~
toast0
These sound like guidelines for a discussion site, but I don't think there's a
basis in the law for the US freedom of speech to be freedom of constructive
speech or freedom of civil exchange.

There are plenty of hateful people and group that say reprehensible things in
public and face no government sanctions. And, as much as I dislile the
reprehensible things they say, I feel that's appropriate. The governments of
the US should not be in the business of deciding what can be said or by whom,
and historically has done a poor job when they have.

Any venue claiming to be a free speech venue but policing hate speech isn't
really a free speech venue after all. More so if the policing is ad-hoc and
capricious.

Of course, HN never claims to be a free speech venue (and certainly isn't).
And I don't think I would participate in many group discussions in a
legitimately free speech venue either --- there are a lot of opinions I don't
want to hear, and I am content for them to be voiced somewhere else, but then,
I avoid the public square in real life as well.

~~~
randcraw
Public speech has long been limited by law: slander, libel, sedition, public
nuisance, public safety, violation of NDA, violation of gag orders, indecency,
and more.

Your argument is only that no amount of hate speech is too much. But I see no
principle in civil rights that defends the repercussions that ensue from
purely bilious expression, any more than the claim that mercilessly berating
some individual unto suicide should be an act of free expression. Verbal
misconduct often leads to penalties in civil court. The question here is
whether it should also lead to criminal penalties, as speech that is intended
only to injure.

It seems to me that a civil society cannot coexist with the unfettered right
to speak hate. One of the two must win out. I hope it's civility. So far, I
think it's been hate.

------
mrfusion
Wait but why has some good articles on the value of free speech.

[https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/american-
brain.html](https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/american-brain.html)

If you have time, the whole series that article is part of is a great read.

------
didibus
In the Canadian Charter of Rights (which is like the Canadian equivalent to
the US Constitution), there is a concept of reasonable limits.

This allows a right to be limited to the extent that it is justified in a free
and democratic society.

In practice, this has been used in Canada to prevent a variety of
objectionable conduct such as hate speech and obscenity.

There's all kinds of limits on the limits themselves, and well defined tests
and criterias for what can qualify as an appropriate limitation which since
IANAL goes a little over my head.

I'm bringing it up simply because the concept of having an absolutely
applicable in all circumstances free speech right is not a concept used
everywhere. So I feel the idea that those who defend free speech should defend
it also when it's offensive isn't universal, and in Canada, the charter of
rights doesn't make it so. It's an interesting contrast I believe.

Here's a good read on other free democracies that also have certain
limitations around freedom of speech:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitation...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations)

~~~
phonypc
> _the concept of having an absolutely applicable in all circumstances free
> speech right is not a concept used everywhere._

It is as a moral concept. I'd argue (as a Canadian) the Canadian legal concept
of "free speech" doesn't really resemble the moral concept at all. Which is
shameful. Unobjectionable conduct doesn't need protection.

------
gadders
Unpopular speech is the only speech worth defending.

~~~
MaxBarraclough
You've been downvoted, but it's a fair point. You don't need freedom of speech
to express ideas already accepted by the mainstream and by the state. That's
permitted even in the most oppressive regimes. Freedom of speech is, by
definition, concerned with unpopular speech.

------
Causality1
To quote Noam Chomsky, "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for people
we despise, we do not believe in it at all." That's not to say you're entitled
to not be fired for any reason that makes you a liability to a company, but
I'm seeing far too many people applauding political violence. "Punch Nazis" is
now the standard internet response to any right-wing demonstration and those
who repeat that slogan always fail to see the incredible irony of it.

~~~
coffeeling
Punch Nazis is bankrupt in any case: Punching an ideologue makes you feel
good, but it won't change their mind. So it serves your own need for
righteousness but little else.

"But it worked in WWII", someone will say. No. They didn't punch Nazis in
WWII. They _killed_ them. They took to them with rifle and bayonet, bombed
their towns and factories, and forcibly dismantled their party and government.

You don't need to convince the person if you're unilaterally revoking their
right to live. You just shoot, bomb, and stab them. Punch a Nazi is bankrupt
because it doesn't solve the problem it purports to. You reduce Nazi headcount
by convincing them and by giving people sane alternatives so they don't end up
throwing their lot in with clowns celebrating Hitler's birthday or by straight
up killing them, and Punch does none of those.

------
zzo38computer
I support freedom of speech, whether I agree or disagree what you have to say,
or if I am offended by it (which I probably am not, but just in case). Freedom
of speech shall also include the freedom to not say if you don't want to, but
if you do want to say (or write), then you should say (or write), please.

It was a (mis)quotation of Voltaire: I may not agree what you have to say but
defend your right to say it.

------
stillbourne
You are free to speak and exercise your freedom of speech no one really
disputes that. You are not, however, anywhere guaranteed or granted the
liberty to a platform for your dialog. That is the problem that we are
encountering today, people are thinking that there are attacks to freedom of
speech and confusing that with the freedom of an establishment to defend their
property from damages. I think we can all agree that art is a medium for free
speech but if you graffiti private property without the permission of the
owner of said property than the owner of that property has the right to remove
the graffiti. Likewise the operator of a website has the same right to remove
content they may consider damaging to the value of their property. The only
thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution
by the government for statements you make. It does not preserve the right to
defame, demean, or slander others or their property or to damage the property
in a way contrary to the desires of the owner of that property. No one is
stopping you though from making your own platform to spread your own message.
Although it is also the right of those you may purchase services from to
terminate those services if they feel that it devalues their property. For
instance if a dns provider decides that website is offensive it is their
prerogative to terminate services as a private owner. Same with any content
provider, isp, hosting service or social media website. No where in the law
does anything grant you an unlimited ability to say anything you want in a
private forum and any private forum is entitled to moderating the content on
its properties. I wish people would stop conflating free speech as some sort
of absolute. It is not. The only case where a platform must provide services
outside of the strictest sense of an intended audience is in through US Code
Titles that may be applicable by law such ADA accessibilities (these codes are
of course regional and may not apply outside the region in which that service
is provided).

------
odshoifsdhfs
Can we also ban speech/hate/discrimination towards short men? I mean, it is
genetic and it is also known that short men get payed less, have less dating
options, aren't represented in top management positions, top sports,
modelling, etc.

It is even ok and funny for a good part of the population to insult them
publicly and reject them.

If you see a tinder/online post 'black men aren't real men' everyone would
jump on them and crucify them, but 'Manlets 6'0 under are just little boys' is
even shared and laughed by many.

ps: I don't want any ban, but free speech is free speech, unless inciting
violence, no amount of hurt feelings should mould what we are allowed to say,
otherwise pretty much every race/religion/physical aspect/intelligence/etc
will be somewhat offended at a point in time

------
aimor
There's a great episode of Snap Judgement with Daryl Davis where he talks
about his interactions with KKK members. I haven't seen Accidental Courtesy,
but I'm curious to see how BLM members respond to Davis in the documentary.
They have wildly different intents.

[https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/snapjudgment/episodes/r...](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/snapjudgment/episodes/real-
black-klansman-snap-classic)

------
jessaustin
Sure, and journalists should defend journalism. Meanwhile most news media
employees _celebrate_ the persecution of Assange...

------
dangoljames
The right to say what you will is absolute, and protected _from the federal
government_ by the first amendment.

However, nothing protects you from the consequences of harmful speech, and
those consequences do not approximate a violation of your rights.

------
cwhiz
Shouting people down in public and on the internet doesn’t change opinions.
People just talk more quietly or take more care with whom they share their
thoughts and opinions.

Cancel culture, outrage culture, and the general “social justice” movement is
not much more than a wide scale attempt to silence dissenting thought. Build
your own bubble, and shout down anyone who thinks or speaks differently. Yell
and call it “offensive.” The genius of it is you get to decide what’s
offensive, and move the goalposts as you see it. Brilliant!

Once you’ve successfully filled your world with only viewpoints that you don’t
find problematic, you can be shocked when a man like Donald Trump wins the
Presidency.

People in the United States need to thicken up. Learn to hear a thought
different from your own. Stop retreating into a stupid safe bubble where your
thoughts and ideas don’t have to be challenged. Grow up.

~~~
yc-kraln
I don't find it to be controversial that questioning someone's humanity or
personhood isn't simply "offensive." I find it very surprising that people
chanting anti-Semitic nonsense continue to find acceptance and defenders in
the United States.

To have a tolerant and open society you need to be intolerant to those who are
intolerant. Why is this new or subject to debate?

~~~
johnsonjo
I agree with you and right now antifa and BLM are the ones preaching
intolerant rhetoric. They can’t for the life of them figure out that we just
need to put the past behind us and see that we really have it good right now.
They don’t see how much toleration they get despite their intolerance of
American Principles, the founders of America, and capitalism. I even heard
recently from Larry Elder’s interview on Great American Thinkers (I think
that’s what it was called.) that BLM is anti Israel which shows that they are
anti Semitic themselves. BLM would have every white man or woman acknowledge
the sins of their forefathers as if they were their own.

~~~
johnsonjo
Although sometimes I like playing the keyboard warrior as I did just here in
my previous comment. I also feel there are good people that are in the
movement of BLM. I sympathize and empathize with those that are hurting right
now. I also believe BLM is not fully responsible for the rioting really I
don’t know who to blame for that but regardless lawlessness is not cool. I
believe in BLM the concept but not the movement. BLM the concept to me is that
BLM because some black people feel and at times, if not very often are
discriminated against who get nasty looks anything really. I don’t back down
with what I said though. Just as there are people in BLM that do the following
there are also people in ALM that are being intolerant, anti Semitic possibly
racist and the like. I think they too should be treated with intolerance to an
extent. They should not feel welcome making those comments, because they
should make a change. I still agree that we should defend The right to free
speech that we disagree with, but that just means to me that the _government_
shouldn’t infringe on those rights. We have the freedom to speak our words
from possible government intervention, but not a freedom to choose the social
consequences. I think people forget that part of the Republican platform in
America is standing for individual liberty. As I’ve been told recently if we
are color blind that may be bad if we are unaware of our own personal things
that make us an individual that’s also bad. Individual liberty to me means
standing up for everyone including the little guy but you can’t stand up for
the little guy at large expense of the group just as you can’t stand up for
the group at the large expense of the minority. That principle I learned from
the book Economics in One Lesson and also Our Republican Constitution. If BLM
the organization donation’s list goes through ActBlue can you really say it’s
a bipartisan movement? I believe the Republican Party still aligns with the
principle of BLM the concept but the organization and it’s movement seems to
me to drift to partisan politics.

More about ActBlue:

> Powering Democratic candidates, committees, parties, organizations, and c4s
> around the country.

[1]: [https://secure.actblue.com/](https://secure.actblue.com/) [2]:
[https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ms_blm_homepage_2019](https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ms_blm_homepage_2019)

~~~
coffeeling
> I also feel there are good people that are in the movement of BLM.

There are good people in _any_ movement, especially if it is sufficiently
large enough. And you will certainly find much virtue even in people advancing
vile causes if you take stock of their character apart from advancing the vile
cause.

Social justice itself is a pile of toxic thought patterns trying to fight for
goals that are by and large good. They just do it twelve different kinds of
wrong. If a person doesn't think there are good people protesting on the
streets and in the movement just because they genuinely care and want to see
things better, I'd posit they should go get some new eyes. They just have a
nasty brain virus infection.

------
x86_64Ubuntu
Free-Speech is a concept that governs government interference, not people
losing their jobs or having university acceptance rescinded.

~~~
marsrover
Having a university acceptance rescinded isn’t government interference?

Being protected because of your age but not because of your speech isn’t
government interference?

------
JoshTko
For free speech to work you must have an educated populace. I think America
today is a great example of what happens if you have the former without
investment in the latter.

------
patrick5151
Got this in an from gab.ai ceo,

=== Let’s review the past week of internet censorship:

The Federalist and Zerohedge were censored by Google

TMZ removed their comment section to censor “hate speech”

Gavin Mcinnes was banned from YouTube

VDARE is losing their domain registrar

Gab was blacklisted by Visa

E Michael Jones had his books censored by Amazon

Katie Hopkins was banned by Twitter

@CarpeDonktum was banned by Twitter

Trump’s tweet was censored by Twitter

===

Surprised to see E. Michael Jones get banned on Amazon, lol downvotes you
censorious jerks

~~~
tasubotadas
It's pretty impressive that HN crowd got upset just by stating some facts.

------
cat_plus_plus
For the past five years or so, I prefer discussing current events with
conservatives - not because I think they are closer to truth, but because they
are willing to be a good sport in a conversation. This has nothing to do with
political parties, which are both dumpster fires. Maybe Republicans started
earlier with Tea Party and got worse, but Democrats are heading in the same
direction after Occupy Wall Street. And I realize that conservatives are not
super tolerant of rowdy burn cars/block highway protests. But in actual
intellectual conversations, they are the champs. Sad because I though tech
liberals were supposed to be brainy and open minded.

~~~
nikanj
You might get cancelled for discussing things with the wrong people, despite
what you say. Especially if you get on a podcast to discuss things with a
conservative figure.

~~~
pnw_hazor
One might get cancelled for liking or sharing the wrong Tweet or FB post. Even
if the content of the liked or shared comment is non-controversial, if the
wrong person said it, you can get cancelled.

I remember when my left leaning daughter made one of her very first tweets, it
was a policy question related to immigration. (It was related to questioning
why the US has birthright citizenship -- a topic being covered in one of her
HS courses.)

In seconds the hate tweets and retweets started from progressives...I jumped
out of bed (it was kind of late at night) and ran into her room to
suggest/implore that she delete the tweet and her entire account and never
share anything like that again.

Saved her life that night. Though, I am thankful that she did learn her lesson
without much cost.

------
monadic2
Popper disagreed rather famously.

------
jonnypotty
Western society is moving past the ideals of tolerance and free speech.
Philosophical ideas like this are now pretty easily dismissed as artifacts of
a rasist, sexist system.

Losing your job for saying the wrong thing, makes some people us feel like we
are "making progress" but it's the capitalist PR machine protecting its
interests. We express ourselves through curated systems directly controlled by
huge corporations and the change we see is basically only in these same
systems.

------
addicted44
Free speech means you dont get put into jail, or worse, for the speech you
exercise. The right to free speech does not mean you are entitled to no
negative consequences for your speech in the private domain.

Free speech doesn't mean that you get to do opeds (otherwise clearly I'm being
repressed because this comment of mine wasn't included in the NYT on their
oped page), or that they shouldnt affect your admissions, which are
significantly based on like 10 essays you write anyways.

Anyways, the NYT Cotton op-ed example is highly disingenuous. Tom Cotton
suffered no negative consequences, and no one was unhappy with him. The NY
Times also defended the op-ed and never once said they regretted publishing it
or wouldn't in the future.

The NYT only took responsibility for egregious factual errors, that should
have been caught during an editorial process, and the opinion editor was fired
because he spent days defending the article, including in an all hands on deck
internal meeting, without having read it!

That's literally the first job of an editor. To read an article so they can
"edit" it.

~~~
neilparikh
> Free speech means you dont get put into jail, or worse, for the speech you
> exercise. The right to free speech does not mean you are entitled to no
> negative consequences for your speech in the private domain.

I'm not sure where you came up with that definition. Free speech as whole is
much more expansive than that. From Wikipedia: "Freedom of speech is a
principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to
articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship,
or legal sanction."

Free speech as legal concept means exactly what you claim (via the 1st
amendment). But there's a broader concept to consider as well. Just because
the government isn't arresting you doesn't mean your speech can't be
restricted. People in the private domain targeting you for you speech can lead
to an effective restriction on your speech.

Now, I'm in agreement with you that the NYT case isn't really a a great
example for this at all, since Tom Cotton has many other avenues for
exercising his right to speech, and it was NYT who faced the backlash, not
him. But I'd say the David Shor[0] case, and Justine Sacco case[1] is great
example for showing the effect private actions can have on restricting speech.
It's likely that both these individuals will be much more careful when they
speak in the public sphere again.

My point isn't that we should make this sort of "harassment" (for lack of a
better word) illegal. That would just be restricting the free speech of the
critics instead. But we should recognize that restrictions on free speech come
from more than just the government, and work to build a culture where these
kinds of restrictions are more rare. That would have the added benefit of
strengthening public discourse and debate.

[0] - first part of this article:
[https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-
liberalism-...](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-
tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html)

[1] -
[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/internet-...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/internet-
uproar-erupts-after-pr-woman-for-media-firm-tweets)

