>>At its core, the quote encapsulates the spirit of tolerance, understanding, and respect for differing opinions, even when they clash with our own beliefs and values.
This is simply wrong.
"Your right to say it" addresses the principle that you are free to express your opinion.
It does not, however, entitle you to be free from the hatred of others for holding such an opinion.
Example (not sure why one is needed):
You say: "Adults should be free to engage in sex with children no matter how young"
While you have the right to hold the opinion and to try to lobby to change the laws, you are not entitled to demand a right for others to accept you a friend or want you as a co-employee, or for society not to ostrasize you.
Individuals, and society at large, has the right to reject your views and to decide that anyone who holds such views is not someone worthy of their respect.
ugh... what is a Vorführeffekt synonym for creating grammatical errors as the result of rearranging text while writing a post? It looked right when but posting then not so much 30 minutes later.
>>Individuals, and society at large, has the right...
Genuinely curious as to why this was submitted to HN, and even more so why it made it to the front page. Was it written by an AI, and is being showcased as an example of such? As a good example, or a poor one, in terms of resulting quality?
I found it completely unreadable. A lot of the first comments on any article are from people who only read the title. Which makes sense, you save a lot of time by not reading the article. Anyone who is reading the article hasn't had a chance to comment yet.
That's expected, not weird. What's weird is that defenders of free speech tend to use their own words, tailored to the circumstance, whereas hate speech apologists tend to trot this line out verbatim. (… I guess that's also what you'd expect.)
Isn't there a bit of selection bias or similar there?
What kind speech would need to be defended with such a moralistic statement?
It seems to me like phrases like this are the go-to when defending speech that many or most might be offended by. If most aren't offended by it there's really no defending needed.
It's about defending the principle of free speech rather than what someone said.
To your point, only reprehensible or unpopular speech must be defended by the principle. As you say, speech that is popular and uncontroversial would not need defending. Do you want to live in a society where you may only express approved and uncontroversial views? If you have controversial or unpopular views, then you protect your right to express them by defending the principle of free speech, even for those with whom you disagree, even abhor.
Not at all, this isn't about hate speech, its about power dynamics.
It's about how the group with power, whether they are the heroes or villains will always attempt to stifle speech.
80 years ago racists had power and tried prevent those looking for racial equality from speaking.
Now the anti-racist have power and are using that power to prevent the speech of the weaker group.
Always look at the power dynamic, not whether you agree with the speech or not.
The idea that freedom of expression shouldn't cover 'hate speech' is a recent invention that has been used to chip away at human rights. It isn't at all unusual that most pushback should be seen in that context.
Here in Germany you can see how this argument evolves. For the Green party everything which disagrees with their position is declared nowadays rated as "hate speech" because the only conceivable reason for disagreeing with the green is people hate them.
Recently (in the last few years), I've seen it used 1) to argue against misinformation bans (specifically anti-vax nonsense), 2) to argue in favor of allowing equal time to political opponents, 3) as a defense of permitting Palestinian/pro-Hamas protests and publicly fact-checking their claims, rather than banning them, and I'm sure there have been others. The third case would support your "hate speech" contention, but the other two were in the spirit of the article.
People who value a free market of ideas trot this out a lot. You also here things like "Free speech only has value when you extend it to those you disagree with" or "Free speech means people have a right to tell you things you don't want to hear."
Perhaps you only notice when it's applied to things you consider hate speech, or assume it (since I didn't see anything in the article about it)?
You may find it interesting to look into the moral philosophy of “positive” vs. “negative” rights.
In this framework, which is thoroughly baked into most of traditional Western ethics, your right to swing your fist “stops at the end of another’s nose”.
So, you do have the “negative” right to not have your expression suppressed. You do not have the “positive” right for others to pay attention.
Readit News
This is simply wrong.
"Your right to say it" addresses the principle that you are free to express your opinion.
It does not, however, entitle you to be free from the hatred of others for holding such an opinion.
Example (not sure why one is needed): You say: "Adults should be free to engage in sex with children no matter how young"
While you have the right to hold the opinion and to try to lobby to change the laws, you are not entitled to demand a right for others to accept you a friend or want you as a co-employee, or for society not to ostrasize you.
Individuals, and society at large, has the right to reject your views and to decide that anyone who holds such views is not someone worthy of their respect.
>>Individuals, and society at large, has the right...
Individuals, and society at large, have the right
Dead Comment
How the fuck do I delete my account?
What kind speech would need to be defended with such a moralistic statement?
It seems to me like phrases like this are the go-to when defending speech that many or most might be offended by. If most aren't offended by it there's really no defending needed.
To your point, only reprehensible or unpopular speech must be defended by the principle. As you say, speech that is popular and uncontroversial would not need defending. Do you want to live in a society where you may only express approved and uncontroversial views? If you have controversial or unpopular views, then you protect your right to express them by defending the principle of free speech, even for those with whom you disagree, even abhor.
80 years ago racists had power and tried prevent those looking for racial equality from speaking.
Now the anti-racist have power and are using that power to prevent the speech of the weaker group.
Always look at the power dynamic, not whether you agree with the speech or not.
Recently (in the last few years), I've seen it used 1) to argue against misinformation bans (specifically anti-vax nonsense), 2) to argue in favor of allowing equal time to political opponents, 3) as a defense of permitting Palestinian/pro-Hamas protests and publicly fact-checking their claims, rather than banning them, and I'm sure there have been others. The third case would support your "hate speech" contention, but the other two were in the spirit of the article.
People who value a free market of ideas trot this out a lot. You also here things like "Free speech only has value when you extend it to those you disagree with" or "Free speech means people have a right to tell you things you don't want to hear."
Perhaps you only notice when it's applied to things you consider hate speech, or assume it (since I didn't see anything in the article about it)?
- Criticism of COVID response
- Concerns about the medical patriarchy
- Concerns about infringement on free speech
- Concerns about election integrity
- Pick your current global armed conflict
- Pretty much anything on the Internet that isn't fully accepting of the post-capitalist post-scarcity view of the global economy
- Revolution in Bangladesh
- The seizure of HK a few years ago
- Julian Assange (I believe) has a gag order as a result of his plea deal.
- Whistleblowers in the agri/aero/chem/etc industries
The list goes on and on. Critically, one person's "hate speech" is another's "apt criticism," and vice versa.
You need to come with facts.
“I criticize [Covid|Climate change|election…]
That’s not criticism until you supply evidence.
“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” - Chomsky
While free expression of one's own views is rather nice to have, what is the use if there is nobody who is willing (or able) to actually listen?
Shouldn't there also be a right to be really listened to?
We have just one mouth but two ears: So why aren't the latter more important?
In this framework, which is thoroughly baked into most of traditional Western ethics, your right to swing your fist “stops at the end of another’s nose”.
So, you do have the “negative” right to not have your expression suppressed. You do not have the “positive” right for others to pay attention.
Absolutely not. My time and attention are my own to use or misuse as I will. I'll not diffuse my attention to any silly person with a megaphone.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment