
The “free speech debate” isn’t about free speech - jonny_eh
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/7/22/21325942/free-speech-harpers-letter-bari-weiss-andrew-sullivan
======
ColanR
> 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."

~~~
ReedJessen
word. This construction they have provided suggest the author doesn't really
understand what "Free as in Speech" means.

~~~
lern_too_spel
The author specifically points out that speech is restricted everywhere and
has always been.

~~~
novembermike
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.

~~~
uniqueid
I don't follow. Why draw a distinction between the "mode" of speech, and its
"content", and what exactly is the difference?

With apologies, it sounds like a "no true Scotsman" position, where censorship
is only real when it bolsters one side of the argument.

------
suizi
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.

------
themacguffinman
> 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.

[1] [https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/nyt-opinion-
bennet-...](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/nyt-opinion-bennet-
resigns-cotton-op-ed-306317)

------
ThrowawayR2
Dupe; previous discussion is at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23940625](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23940625)

------
kilo_bravo_3
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."

~~~
0_gravitas
> 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.

~~~
kilo_bravo_3
What rules?

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?

~~~
0_gravitas
As I said, things are not so black and white. You clearly seem frustrated, but
I don't think you're making the point you intend to be making.

