It conflates the principle free speech with a narrow legal reading of the first amendment. Whether on purpose, or accident, I cannot say. The alt-text is also only illuminating in the sense that the CCP might heartily agree with it as well, as they see their crusade against free speech as nothing more than maintaining the public order and peace. In publishing the comic and leaving it up, Munroe has done more to damage the principle of free speech in the West than any opinion article I can think of, because it chains together several fallacies in a clever and funny way.
> The alt-text is also only illuminating in the sense that the CCP might heartily agree with it as well, as they see their crusade against free speech as nothing more than maintaining the public order and peace.
Which alt-text did you read? It cannot possibly be this one:
> "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
This is saying "that your idea cannot be censored is not good enough in order to convince people that it's good". This cannot be used to censor anything -- in fact, it claims the position is legal -- neither by the CCP or anyone else. It's a judgment on the quality of the idea.
It seems to me you're trying to invoke the CCP boogeyman regardless of whether it actually fits this argument.
> that your idea cannot be censored is not good enough in order to convince people that it's good
Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking the government for redress, your speech is abhorrent. In the context of the comic it’s clearly meant to be interpreted that way.
Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism, as if anyone claims they’re correct because what they’re saying isn’t illegal. Nobody makes that argument.
> in the context of the comic it’s clearly meant to be interpreted that way.
That's just not true. The claim is that if you're censored and your only defense of your position is that you should be allowed to say it, you position is flimsy. Nobody would agree with the claim that "_in general_ if you're censored your speech is abhorrent", that's laughable.
Now, yeah, agreed, it's debatable whether this actually happens. But it sure feels like it happens.
> Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking the government for redress, your speech is abhorrent
That's your reading. Mine is that if the best you can say about a position is "it's not illegal" then you're on shaky ground. I.e. it's legal, but unconvincing. It doesn't mean you should be censored, it just means your position probably lacks merit if you can't mention anything else that's good about it.
> Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism
At this point I have to ask: you are aware I'm not the author of xkcd, aren't you?
Its worth posting Amazon's legal response here [0]. Its certainly clearly and compellingly argued to me that it was Parler who breached the contract.
Note, there is some potentially upsetting language in this document where Amazon gives examples of the type of content on Parler they deemed to be in violation of the contract. Consider yourself warned, if that sort of thing bothers you.
Hm, that fails to land as a criticism. Depends whether you're talking about (a) "free speech, the legally-protected institution" or (b) "free speech, your right to be awful and not suffer consequences". The xkcd is saying that people saying "but my free speech!" are defending (b) by describing it as (a), which it's not. That's basically true. Afaik the part xkcd definitely gets wrong is the part about "can't arrest you for what you say", which isn't really how it works (for instance https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... discusses the case of how it enters into civil suits).
Of course _philosophically_, yeah, the people who included (a) in the constitution were interested in (b). Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here. But at some point if someone is yelling Nazi stuff, I'm gonna punch them for it. It's not a legal question at all; my actions aren't governed by laws, just what I feel is right to do. That is the same point xkcd was making. I don't know enough to say whether AWS or whoever has the same right because they are operating in a legal system. But as a _person_, yeah, I can do whatever I want to you, including 'show you the door', if you're awful.
> Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here
No they aren’t, including you. I don’t trust your judgement of who is a Nazi, and even if I did, I especially don’t trust everyone who hears you say that. However, despite your endorsement of political violence (terrorism) I don’t believe that it would be right for you to be deplatformed, especially if it’s breach of contract (like what AWS is doing). Nor would I want HN taken offline despite them not moderating terrorist comments such as yours.
Edit: you’re confusing my clinical label of terrorism with name calling. I am not calling names, except insofar as I’m making a point about how easily it is to make content seem unacceptable when we strip away context, which is why due process is so necessary. We are all terrorists to some group, however disfavored... if child molestation was somehow legalized, anyone who attempted it would face severe extra-legal consequences for example.
I'm not asking you to trust my judgment of who's a nazi. I get to decide who I think is a nazi and do what I want, _as a person_, and so do you. Of course I will try to convince you that I'm right, but if someone's being a nazi and can't be convinced that they're saying nazi stuff and they get banned from society, that's their problem, not society's. They should have listened.
The point is that while free speech might be protected as a legal concept, it's not protected as a personal concept. I espouse free speech, until someone really screws up and gets super evil, and then I don't want them to talk anymore (especially not to rally people to their evil causes). I'm not a government. And that's completely consistent with wanting a government/overall society which defends free speech.
(also, you're not doing your argument any favors by for some reason calling me a terrorist. it's not even clear why you're doing that)
uh... so? two examples of things people do to vile people.
to be clear: if someone shouts nazi stuff around me and I'm driven to anger enough to punch them (which, to be clear, has never happened, but hypothetically), I obviously accept the legal consequences of that. the whole point here is that legal rules abut what you should do are not ethical ones. Ethically, don't shout nazi stuff, and also ethically if you do shout nazi stuff you might get punched and you deserve it.
I feel like you're trying to trick me into admitting I'd punch them, or something, which isn't necessary and is kinda weird. I would definitely want to punch someone who was saying nazi stuff around me. Who wouldn't? Of course, yeah, 'showing them the door' is the more dignified response, so that probably comes first. As does talking about it and trying to figure out why they persist in being awful.
Why would he? I think he's even more convinced of it today. "Free speech" is a pretty right-wing issue nowadays and people assume it's a dog whistle for hate speech. If you want to be a progressive leftist like Randall Munroe, you can't advocate for free speech without hurting your reputation in the current environment.
If this [1] is the xkcd strip we're talking about, and don't see how Randall Munroe isn't advocating for free speech, nor how it is a left vs right issue. He's simply saying "free speech means the government cannot arrest you for what you say", nothing more, nothing less. He furthermore argues that the right to free speech doesn't mean everyone else can't criticize you, have your shows/books/whatever canceled, shout you down, etc. He says "[free speech] doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences".
Now, you may or may not agree with his position (I certainly don't agree with some key aspects of it) but Randall is explaining what free speech is, not arguing for censorship.
Free speech isn't synonymous with the first amendment.
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences!" is one of the most infuriating lines I've ever had the displeasure to hear parroted.
What else could it possibly be, but the general idea of not being punished for saying things? The only thing that matters to the principle of freedom of speech is those consequences.
Who cares whether it's a government that decides that when you express a certain opinion, you lose your job- or twitter?
Funny, but not surprising, how even self-proclaimed leftists will side with capital when it's treading on the right people.
You might say "but you can't force people to platform/associate with those they find odious!", to which I reply 'of course you can'- there's laws against unlimited free association, with the argument that bulk group dynamics end up diminishing individual freedom on net.
You might say opinions are a different category from e.g. ethnicity, as they can be changed, while race can't.
In that case, in the future when we can change our bodies in a day, will it be alright if 'race', no longer existing as such, becomes as acceptably targetable as speech?
> Who cares whether it's a government that decides that when you express a certain opinion, you lose your job- or twitter?
I actually agree with you. I think the narrow definition that "only the government has the ability to censor speech" isn't useful, especially in an age where some businesses, platforms and corporations have so much power.
I was just correcting the perception that xkcd had a comic "against" free speech (and because "he is a leftist"). It's not against free speech. The author clarifies what he thinks free speech is.
Some people apparently thought because I linked to a comic to correct someone's claim about that comic, that said comic represents my opinion. Puzzling.
If one is against freedom from (in this case corporate) censorship, one is against free speech. 'Explaining' that free speech is not actually freedom from (one's particular preferred form of) censorship is de facto a attempt to excuse that particular form of censorship from the general principles of free speech that would otherwise condemn it, and is therefore in favor of censorship and against freedom from censorship, aka free speech.
While I disagree with XKCD's (and let me note, with many here on HN; I believe I first read this argument that only states can interfere with free speech defended by HN'ers) narrowing down of the concept of free speech to "only counts as censorship if the government does it" -- and it actually warms my heart that you and many others agree with me that corporate censorship is censorship, and even more important than state censorship -- I disagree that Randall Munroe is against free speech.
I think the issue is complex, but probably related to its sister concept of tolerance and with "the paradox of tolerance" [1]:
> "The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."
It's perfectly reasonable to believe Randall Munroe supports free speech and at the same time believes someone spewing hateful vitriol can be kicked out of whatever private venue by the owners/administrators of said venue. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that Randall is using a different, possibly more legalistic version of "free speech" than you. Again, you cannot claim he is against free speech because he thinks corporate censorship is ok -- first, he doesn't exactly defend corporate censorship in his comic, and second, you're begging the question! You are claiming "corporate censorship" is against free speech, which is not a foregone conclusion and is exactly what is being debated.
Finally, the whole "this is because Randall Munroe is a leftie and, like all lefties, is against free speech" angle only serves to inflame the debate with name calling. Anyone going for this "like all lefties" is not interested in honest debate at all.
I feel weird having to point all this out because I, in fact, think corporate censorship is against free speech -- my concept, not what whatever amendment says -- and in this day and age, it's even worse than state censorship.
> It's perfectly reasonable to believe Randall Munroe supports [something that he calls "free speech"] and at the same time believes someone spewing hateful vitriol can be kicked out of whatever private venue by the owners/administrators of said venue. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that Randall is using a different, possibly more legalistic [definition] of "free speech" than you.
Sure, and it's perfectly reasonable to believe someone supports, say, not destroying [something that they call "forests"] and at the same time believes rainforests can be cut down to make more room for farmland. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that they are using a definition of "forests" that does not include rainforests.
Nonetheless, that person is against not destroying forests-the-actual-thing, regardless of what definition they use for "forests"-the-english-word.
> The whole "this is because Randall Munroe is a leftie and, like all lefties, is against free speech" only serves to turn the debate into an absurd flamewar. Anyone going for this "like all lefties" is not interested in honest debate at all.
Who are you responding to? Because if I had said something like that, it would have been "Randall Munroe is either a leftie or a rightie and, like all lefties and righties, is against free speech".
You're using ridicule in order to avoid addressing my point. I'm uninterested in engaging you in those terms, particularly since I was polite in my reply to you. Your snarky reply failed to address anything of importance.
You pretty much ignored my reply, did a silly search & replace (ignoring HN's guidelines of assuming good faith and replying to the best possible interpretation) and decided to feel clever about it. Thanks, but no thanks.
> Who are you responding to?
Not you in that particular sentence, but user bonoboTP and others in this thread.
You are confusing the 1st Amendment with 'free speech'. Free speech is a value that is broadly applicable to society, far larger in scope than prohibition from the government.
> Free speech is a value that is broadly applicable to society, far larger in scope than prohibition from the government
The idea of free speech is the ideas should succed or fail based on their ability to convince private actors tomhold and relay them.
Compelling actors to relay speech they disapprove of, unless those actors are the State or agents thereof, generally violates that principal.
Free speech is not an entitlement to third-party magnification of your speech, it is indeed the opposite: the idea that such magnification must be earned by convincing the party whose magnification is sought.
“People who disagree with me aren't relaying my speech or speech I like” isn't a violation of free speech.
I have no idea why you're being downvoted because you're completely right. The petty legalism around the issue does nothing to further the conversation. The 1st amendment is about the US government censoring people. It doesn't own the concept of free speech as a whole in the same way the constitution doesn't own the idea of God given rights, or democracy, or republic, or numerous other concepts mentioned.
> You are confusing the 1st Amendment with 'free speech'
I'm not Randall Munroe, how am I confusing anything by simply explaining he doesn't claim to be against free speech but rather is clarifying what he thinks free speech is?
I'm ok if you disagree with him, but please don't make claims about what I think, when I didn't say what I think.
I was replying to a comment arguing that xkcd doesn't support free speech because the author is leftist. I showed the author does support what he believes is free speech. That's all.
This is more like what I think, thanks for posting!
I was merely correcting the misconception that Randall Munroe from xkcd doesn't advocate for free speech. I didn't say I agreed 100% with the comic itself, though I do find parts of it thought-provoking.
I'm sorry, but "guilt by association" is not a compelling argument. If the CCP agrees with something, this alone doesn't make the something they agree with automatically bad. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
> They don’t just agree with it, they explicitly use that alt text to justify their oppression.
[citation needed]
"I'm sure the CCP thinks the same" is the laziest, weakest form of objection. You're not off the hook, you must still prove the idea being criticized is wrong regardless of what the CCP thinks about it.
(Like I pointed out in another comment, I think you've misread the alt-text, because it certainly doesn't support censorship).
