
The global gag on free speech is tightening - doener
https://www.economist.com/international/2019/08/17/the-global-gag-on-free-speech-is-tightening
======
throwawaysea
This article focuses on government gags on free speech, which is a real
problem globally, but here in the United States I see free speech coming under
attack from the progressive left constituency, rather than the government. To
me it appears that the far left has abandoned the classical definitions of the
word 'liberal' for populism and extremism. This seems to have been amplified
in the last few years, since Trump's election, and you see it in things like
the social justice warrior meme mocking 'free speech' with the purposely
misspelling 'freeze peach'.

Leaving aside culture wars waged by individuals, I see institutional
tightening on free speech all over America. I see it in big tech companies,
where only a progressive monoculture exists with no psychological safety for
other viewpoints. I see it in censorship applied by defacto digital public
squares like YouTube. I see it in the left's rampant use of deplatforming to
silence opposing views. Increasingly, I also see it in universities (see this
incident at the University of Washington today
[https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-university-of-
was...](https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-university-of-washington-
should-not.html)).

I don't think it matters greatly whether it is the government or others. Free
speech is a fundamental good that must be protected. I hope a greater focus is
brought on these other means via which it has come under attack.

~~~
ebg13
> _deplatforming to silence opposing views_

I can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd
like to hear about them to broaden my views.

> _Free speech is a fundamental good that must be protected_

The freedom of speech and association comes with a corollary: the freedom to
dissociate and shun. So welcome to the consequences of being on the other side
of progress, I suppose? This is what happens.

> _progressive left_

Do you mean social democratic left?

~~~
orangecat
_I can 't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd
like to hear about them to broaden my views._

James Damore. And if you believe what he said really was hate speech, that
just illustrates the problem.

~~~
baddox
He got fired for violating his company’s code of conduct. I do not think that
qualifies as “deplatforming.”

~~~
mdorazio
No offense, but bullshit. He got fired because Google didn't want to be
associated with him due to public opinion from the left demonizing him for
things he didn't even say. They used the code of conduct violation purely as
an excuse. I'm 100% certain HN Googlers could provide 100 examples of
violations that did _not_ result in someone getting fired.

~~~
baddox
I’m not claiming that the code of conduct accusation is or isn’t justified. My
point is that he got fired from one normal job (i.e. not a role with a
significant public-facing component, like an actor or TV personality or
comedian or writer or YouTube creator) for saying things about his employer
that for one reason or another the employer very much didn’t like. Do you
genuinely think his case qualifies as “deplatforming?” I think that would be
an extremely broad application of the term “deplatforming.”

~~~
meruru
I think getting caught up in the "but does it fit the definition of
deplatforming?" is a pretty obvious distraction from the issue.

~~~
baddox
> I can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd
> like to hear about them to broaden my views.

This is the initial comment we are discussing. It’s a pretty specific choice
of words, so it’s not unreasonable to continue the discussion based on a
reasonable interpretation of those actual words.

That claim is the specific issue being discussed, so I don’t think it’s a
distraction. If you’re interested in some other issue, then by all means
openly discuss that.

If the challenge was just to name any event that has occurred that didn’t
involve hate speech, then sure, we can list many such events.

~~~
meruru
No, that's ebg13 trying to narrow the scope of the discussion so they don't
have to address the issue. The same thing that's happening in this subthread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143570](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143570)

Your quote is a response to throwawaysea's comment, which is clearly much more
general than that:

>Leaving aside culture wars waged by individuals, I see institutional
tightening on free speech all over America. I see it in big tech companies,
where only a progressive monoculture exists with no psychological safety for
other viewpoints. I see it in censorship applied by defacto digital public
squares like YouTube. I see it in the left's rampant use of deplatforming to
silence opposing views. Increasingly, I also see it in universities (see this
incident at the University of Washington today
[https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-university-of-
was...](https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-university-of-was...)).

~~~
baddox
No, I really was intentionally replying in a subthread about a clearly-worded
request for examples involving deplatforming.

~~~
meruru
Frankly, all those things that people are going "is it deplatforming?" pretty
much _are_ deplatforming, but I figured pointing out the distraction tactic
was worth more than engaging in the argument over definitions.

------
hnzix
We are entering a time of prim moral panic that echoes the temperance movement
and the prohibition era. I don't even bother discussing controversial ideas
anymore because apparently there is now a list of approved viewpoints and one
isn't allowed to play devil's advocate.

Palahniuk's recent novel Adjustment Day lampooned this state of affairs
beautifully but it's ultimately depressing, there seems no alternative but to
wait for the free speech pendulum to swing back to open discourse in another
15 years or so.

~~~
Pfhreak
This has always been the case. There have always been pressures to conform to
social norms and stiff penalties for those who did not.

What has changed is not that people are stricter, it's that what's accepted as
normal has changed. The world has turned, and some folks suddenly find
themselves in the out group for the first time.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
I would argue that nothing has significantly changed about cultural norms,
except for a widespread acceptance that sexual harassment is unacceptable in
the wake of #MeToo.

No, what’s different is that social media allows for decentralized outrage
targeting. It can come organically or it can be manufactured by the
advertisement-dependent media, autocratic states, PR firms, “social justice
warriors”, or other bad actors. That creates the perception of widespread
outrage even when its limited to a handful of twitter accounts. But when a few
dozen people are so loud you can’t hear the near-silence of everybody else,
the rational response is to stop the noise and acquiesce to the outraged,
which only gives them more power for the next Internet hate bandwagon.

~~~
Pfhreak
> I would argue that nothing has significantly changed about cultural norms

My parents told me not to get a tattoo because I'd never land a job and I'd
die destitute.

Gay people can get married and I see shoutouts to nonbinary people on the
regular.

We're seeing widespread acceptance of vegetarianism and veganism as a personal
choice that isn't subject to ridicule.

You mentioned #MeToo, which is still sweeping through various industries.

Class and race consciousness seems to be changing as well.

Neuroatypical people are getting more support and recognition. (Still have
plenty of ways to go here.)

I dunno, I'd say we've gone through a lot of changes since the 90s.

> “social justice warriors”, or other bad actors.

Caring about social justice doesn't make one a bad actor.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Perhaps I should have been more precise with my language. What I meant to say
was that I don’t think much has changed about cultural norms regarding
bandwagoning.

I put “social justice warriors” in quotation marks because there are bad
actors within any well-meaning group who in their own efforts do far more
damage to themselves and others than they do to help anybody.

------
throwaway010718
One of most surprising headlines I saw this week is that in NYC you can be
fined $250,000 for calling someone an "illegal immigrant".

I can understand that such an accusation may be slanderous under civil law.
But the criminal law seems to only apply to that specific phrase, not the
accusation.

Does anyone understand how such a seemingly unconstitutional law could get
passed ?

~~~
nickloewen
To clarify, because I wanted to know the details:

This is coming from the "NYC Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement
Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Immigration Status and National
Origin."

The relevant text is: "the use of certain language, including “illegal alien”
and “illegals,” with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or
persons constitutes discrimination." The law does not (in this context)
explicitly include the phrase "illegal immigrant."

A news article about this: [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-illegal-
alien-city-law...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-illegal-alien-city-
law-fine-hatred-freedom-of-speech/)

The original document:
[https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/...](https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/immigration-
guidance.pdf)

ETA: "The New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) prohibits discrimination
on the basis of actual or perceived “alienage and citizenship status,” and
“national origin,” among other categories, by most employers, housing
providers, and providers of public accommodations in New York City. The NYCHRL
also prohibits discriminatory harassment and bias-based profiling by law
enforcement."

~~~
arduanika
John C. Calhoun is alive and well in his beloved party. Nullification forever.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/ZKYOf](http://archive.is/ZKYOf)

