If a someone shows up and orders 5 tons of ammonium nitrate in December and want's it shipped to Washington DC that's very much a reason to decline and possibly contact law enforcement even as a private citizen. Similarly, free speech has never been an invitation to say anything in any way at any time.
In this analogy, you're probably suspected of fruit-related crimes. Patreon isn't obligated to enable criminal behavior.
Further the entire concept of "hate Speech" is rife for abuse and is antithesis of Free Speech.
How do you objectively define "Hate Speech", do you trust government to define this, that is a scary thought if you do...
The liberal democratic nations have separation of powers: legislature, courts, law enforcement, civil society.
Through these institutions we attempt to develop laws, regulations, and codes of conduct, that attempt to define acceptable behaviour, rights and responsibilities, protections, and punishments.
This is all in a constant state of flux, there is no end-point, no "this is how it is, for all time and places and circumstances".
We should probably, at a minimum, be vocal about what we believe and support.
There is no right answer here, only opinions, and attempts at persuasive argument. That's all we have.
This is where I disagree. I am proponent of Lockean natural or self evident rights. Government's sole purpose it is protect my individual rights that I have simply because I exist. These rights are an extension of my Self Agency or Self Ownership.
Government is not to define what is "accptable behaviour" or to define what my rights are, or what codes of conduct is to be.
Law should simply be the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. This common force is to only protect persons, liberty and property.
How did it make you feel?
With that being said, having been the victim of assault multiple times in my life, once needing extensive hospitalization due to the injuries sustained, I can comfortably say that I don't view these two things as being remotely analogous and wholly reject the notion that speech, even speech that I find hurtful or distasteful, is assault.
Edit: I'll also add that while I personally disagree with your premise that speech can be categorized as assault, I don't think that your position is necessarily unreasonable. Again, I'm not in agreement but it isn't so outrageous a view that I think well meaning and thoughtful people couldn't hold those same views. However, when you start off your argument by stating that anyone holding a contrary opinion must be puerile(I'm not very smart so I had to make sure I remembered the correct definition) it doesn't lend itself to any meaningful discussion.
Individuals are free to choose the way they process the information and commentary they receive. When someone physically assaults you, there is no choice involved, and your life is legitimately and immediately threatened by such activity in the real, physical, and non-abstract sense.
It is great that we are all thinking about what we say, but speech is unequivocally not the same as physical assault, and it's farcical to suggest it should be.
The old cliche you speak of only works in a few situations. Someone calling you names or saying mean things on the street don't really hurt you if they are isolated incidents. This is the usual context when this is used. But in a broader sense? It simply doesn't pan out. It isn't the same thing, no, but I'm not sure why that matters. A slap on the rear someone should be able to get over, a punch maybe not. I'm pretty sure both can be prosecuted as physical assult in some situations yet in others, be perfectly acceptable courses of action. Same with words, it depends on how you use them to how much damage it will do.
But now we know better. How you talk changes how you think. Violent rhetoric normalizes that behavior. Refuting misbeliefs cements the falsehood. Propaganda works.
Worse, the hate speech has become a virtue signal, a tribal identifier. It's become overtly political, a bludgeon.
I now prefer to think of free speech as a form of hygiene. Sure, feel free to poop on the sidewalk, but don't expect me to accept that as permissible behavior.
> Violent rhetoric normalizes that behavior.
Consider "A Modest Proposal" where Swift normalizes eating babies http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
I see this trend as deeply disturbing where only those official journalist are allowed to write satirical essays online and common persons are banned because they become labeled as racists, mysogenists etc. Heck even PewDiePie was kicked from youtube red because some journalists blatantly mislabeled his satire as racism.
Who's right? Who's wrong? I don't care. I'm fresh out of goodwill.
My only desire is that society stop enabling the bickering. Which will continue as long as clickbaiting (selling advertisement) makes money.
It's true in the ways that are pertinent to this discussion. Another poster equated speech with assault. I would guess most with that worldview haven't spent much time being assaulted in the physical sense.
No one is saying that words don't have significance or power. The point is that, in a very literal way, words can never hurt, physically hurt, those who hear them. The listener has time to collect their thoughts, understand the circumstances, and choose an interpretation and a reaction. We hope they will choose healthy interpretations and reactions, even if the original speaker did not.
Meanwhile, a victim of a true violent crime like a mugging, carjacking, or politically-motivated beating doesn't have time to think down the road about how badly someone's words hurt their psyche, because they're busy bleeding and dying, in the literal sense that their body may permanently cease to function, if they aren't treated within minutes or hours. They were attacked without choice or option, and their body is reacting to the physical realities thrust upon it, and all the victim can really do is try to remain optimistic about things.
Yes, it is sad when someone is bullied or otherwise made to feel bad about themselves. But it isn't anywhere near the same thing as a person who has undergone an actual assault.
The saying really is not really hard to grasp, and it's widely applicable. That's why it's a tired old cliche. :)
I think that one should be clear here and distinguish between slander/defamation of a person and speech that "hurts someones feelings". If I criticize the ideas that you hold and it hurts your feelings it's is not a mental abuse if you start to interpret it that way it's your fault and should seek the psychiatrist. There is a real danger that we keep redefining words: hateful speech, mental abuse. Ideas are not people, religion is not an ethnicity, your beliefs are not sacred. What is a form of mental abuse btw is indoctrinating your (or someones) children, meaning religious schools are a form of mental abuse, sending your kids to a political party camp or enforcing your particular ideology on them is a form of mental abuse etc. But somehow everyone keeps ignoring it, it's not my kids so why should I care; I regard it as deeply hurtful for society.
Because it's false. Words can and do hurt people, and it's not necessarily a result of their choices.
You can argue that this harm is less severe, or that preventing it isn't worth limiting speech, but to suggest it doesn't exist is just myopic.
Some individuals fight tooth and nail to silence this idea because they're threatened by the implication that their own choices have any role to play in their misery. Life requires a lot less effort when everything bad is somebody else's fault.
Who gets to decide draw the line between the sincere desire for free speech, and extending the line to include disingenuous calls for "free speech" which are designed to shelter forms of toxic and manipulative behavior that people are just using as a tool to push their preferred ideology?
As to focusing on hate speech in particular, I see two major issues at play. What exactly counts as hate speech and who is protected from it. Disagreements on these lead to some people saying hate speech should because they are viewing a definition of hate speech they don't agree with.
Are there any legal precedents upholding this? Being the inciting ring-leader of a violent mob is one thing, but if someone called me a mick for spilling their Guinness, I wouldn't call that an assault
"Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group."
It times past, I'd just use LMGTFY. But now? I dunno. Maybe I've lost the will to live.
I personally love this analogy because it makes it so much easier to identify when someone is unfamiliar with how US 1st amendment law works.
Actually you likely can
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_t...
Is also illegal
It's when you yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is a fire, and that is outlawed.
"Hate speech" is a hecklers veto on telling the truth. On speaking truth to power. On criticizing, mocking, disagreeing, debating about ideas, people, groups, political policies, governments, special interests, religions etc.. that are off limits from scrutiny and insult.
It has no limiting principle, is not well defined, is subjective to an absurd degree, and essentially nullifies the 1st amendment.. because almost anything controversial can be labeled hate speech. As if hurt feelings or even deplorable points of view are the ultimate crimes to be legislated against.
Throughout human history, when totalitarian regimes have oppressed millions of people, there was no limit to what could have been labeled hate speech when professing views against the government.
Free exchange and debate in a free marketplace of ideas should allow anyones stupid point of view to be presented and defeated / opposed, supported, agreed with, or not.
Why people should be outlawed from hating things that they want to hate is beyond me. Professing an opinion or belief about something or someone in and of itself should not be restricted, as long as their actions or presentation of said ideas is consistent with allowing others to do the same. So bullying and intimidation and other forms of such...no.
Freedom above all else. Give me liberty or death..
The screaming lunatics are free to host their own bake sale at their house.
Ok, and. Do you believe only governments are a threat to free speech?
Free Speech is a concept that every person, every company, every government should work to up hold.
While governments can and have been the source of censorship, that is not the only source.
Today free speech is under massive assault not by Government but by Society at large, society it seems have lost all respect for the concept, instead of holding the position of "I disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it" people instead hold the idea "I disagree with what you say so I will boycott companies that hire you, or allow you to speak, or do anything to even tangentially associate themselves with you" and increasingly people have the position of "I disagree with you so I will punch you in the face"
This is very very scary and is direct assault on free speech.
Barring a legally binding contract or criminal activity, no one is under any obligation to protect the civil rights of those on their property. If I wanted to hold a "whites only" house party and turn away minorities at the door, I can do that. If I refuse to allow protesters to use my front lawn as a staging area, I can do that. If I own a website and someone says something I don't like, I can ban them. If someone doesn't like Patreon's policies then they are welcome to start Conservatreon.
I think the scarier prospect is people thinking that property holders should be forced to act as law enforcement within their domains, and to make determinations about civil rights. Sure it may seem rosy for free speech, but you're opening the flood gates with that one.
Free speech simply says that you can't be arrested for speaking. It doesn't say people have to listen, and forcing people to listen is only going to worsen the situation you describe.
Refusing to rebroadcast or support the opinions of someone you don't like is at present not a crime, and I sincerely hope it stays that way. Because otherwise you have to apply the same logic to other rights. And that sort of extremism leads to some crazy outcomes.
For example, in the US the 2nd amendment is, under the law, of equal importance as the 1st. So should I, as a gun owner, demand that I should be allowed to carry my firearm anywhere, on anyone's property; and claim that for them to deny me that right is a violation of my 2nd amendment rights? I'm pro-gun and even to me that sounds crazy, as it would to many pro-gunners who are usually big on personal property rights. There's a reason Full30.com exists.
Or how about the right to freedom of assembly (also part of the first amendment)? Should I be forced to allow protesters to use my property, as disallowing them violates their first amendment rights?
You do know there are many gun owners that advocate for passing laws that make signs stating a property is "gun free" to be unenforceable as a matter of law right?
And view "gun free" government buildings to be unconstitutional
For my part I see the signs as useful. If I see a "gun free" sign on a business that just tells me to spend my money elsewhere if possible.
Even when the shoe is on the other foot, e.g. a baker who does not want to disseminate interracial or same-sex wedding cake?
Deferring to "that is a crime" is no help because your argument is that it should not be a crime to refuse to disseminate speech you don't like.
There is no principled way to draw a line here. Either you don't compel speech or you do.
There are many, many gun owners who argue exactly that. That "gun free zones" are anti-Constitutional, be those zones publicly owned, or privately owned.
This shouldn't be news to you.
It's directly analogous to my previous example. It is illegal for businesses to deny service on the basis of skin color. It isn't, however, illegal for a private residence to do so.
Sure the Right of association, and I suppose property rights give them the legal ability to this.
However most of these platform publicly and loudly proclaim themselves as "Free Speech Platform", open to all points of view, open to all. Even in the public responses to the outcry over the bannings on Patreon their first statement was "See support free speech but...."
Once they add the but, they show themselves to not be supporters of free speech, instead they show themselves to be supporters of limited speech as defined by theit terms of that is acceptable speech.
Saying "We Support limited acceptable speech" however does not make for a good sound bite.
Claiming to support free speech while imposing speech codes, rules and terms is Fraud IMO.
So if platforms want to censor, want to limit speech fine, they need to stop claiming they support free speech when they do not. To do otherwise should be considered fraud
Most of these platform get to be very very large to the point of more or less monopolistic due to their claims of supporting free speech, then once they are the market dominate force they bait and switch their users and become a limited speech platform. That is a classic old as time form of fraud.
>>I think the scarier prospect is people thinking that property holders should be forced to act as law enforcement within their domains, and to make determinations about civil rights.
I am not even sure what that means or the point you are attempting to convey here, Nothing I stated indicated that property holders should be forced to act as law enforcement.....
>>Free speech simply says that you can't be arrested for speaking.
No, that is not what "free speech simply says" Free Speech is a ethical axiom. Even wikipedia does not have such a limited view of the concept, the first line in the Wikipedia entry on Freedom of Speech is "Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction" See the "or societal sanction" part.
As for the rest, it would appear I'm thinking more from an (American) legal perspective and the implications of various measures that might be taken, whereas you're thinking from a more philosophical perspective. If you have a way to prevent "societal sanction" without violating other rights in the process then I suggest you find a way to get nominated for a Nobel.
It's all well and good to state that everyone should listen to everyone else and that not to do so is a violation of free speech. I'm just not sure how that goes beyond theory. Even in the most benign case, that of time, people have to sleep. Am I violating someone's right to free speech if I refuse to listen on account of exhaustion? Would my old college dormitory's "quiet hours" be considered "societal sanction"?
No you are seeing me state that is a violation of Freedom of Speech and jump the erroneous conclusion that I desire some kind of law, or legal penalty for that violation. I do not.
I merely want to people recognize that it is infact a violation of the concept and stop defending companies when they violate the concept or at least stop saying that is "not a free speech violation" when it clearly is.
If you support the censorious actions have the balls to call them censorious and stand by them.
> Am I violating someone's right to free speech if I refuse to listen on account of exhaustion? Would my old college dormitory's "quiet hours" be considered "societal sanction"?
Aside from the fact this is strawman lets address it anyone
Inaction on your personal part of not listening would not violating the other persons right to express themselves.
You showing up where the person is speaking with a bull horn to suppress their speech is, setting fire to a building to shut down speech is, blocking the entrances to building where speech is taking place is, boycotting advertisers is, calling employers and getting people fired is.
See all of the examples I give are POSITIVE actions people use to SUPPRESS the speech of others.
As to your college dorm "quit hours", this likely would not be a free speech violation either provided the dorms where not promoted or advertised a public space where people free to express themselves and that the hours where clearly known , established and enforced uniformly. How if there were not published quite hours, and tue night there was a vegan rally that was allowed to occur, but then on wed night there was gun rights rally that was shut down because of "quite hours" then yes I would consider that to be free speech violation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it up to them who they want to do business with? What is the obligation this non-governmental entity has to act as host?
In a sense, wouldn't forcing Patreon to be open to all (again including groups with a message of hate and inciting violence) be a violation of their rights?
Personally I don't think these companies should be legally forced to support freedom of discourse on their platforms by the government.
I think that consumers should force the companies to support free speech, and they should punish companies that support censorship by boycotting those companies into bankruptcy.
The world is a better place when it is free from censorship. Censorship is still bad, even if it is legal and done by private parties. Censorship supporting people and companies should be bankrupted by the market.
This site itself is highly censored (in the form of rules and moderation) so you aren't even upholding your own ideals by commenting here.
Not sure what you mean by highly censored, I've seen plenty of unpopular opinions on HN and people that were expressing them were never banned, in fact those users were fairly rude without being personal. Not allowing personal attacks on HN is not just a common courtesy, it protects it users from defamation, falsehoods about their life and kidnapping of topics; those are all reasons that are perfectly compatible with freedom of speech. Detaching a tread is not censoring, I never seen it happen because of uncomfortable opinions but when it becomes hugely off topic it's clearly a valid thing to do.
That's not how boycotts work.
If I were able to convince millions of people to my side, THEN I would start doing the boycott stuff.
That is the only way to have boycotts work. You have to get millions of people to be on your side and everyone has to do it all at once.
But if I had a magic wand that I could wave that would make this happen, then I'd absolutely do so.
It'd be like if I criticized a dictator and you responded by saying "well, if you hate our Supreme leader so much, then why don't you form a revolutionary movement and see how THAT works for you".
now we have large mainstream internet communities like reddit that also put justifiable limits on what can be said. no one is saying you cant start a racist irc channel or bbs board, they are saying that horrible things shouldn't be said on a massive platform that millions of people see
The New York times also never publicly advertised themselves as a "Free Speech Platform" that was "open to all persons and views"
>they are saying that horrible things shouldn't be said on a massive platform that millions of people see
Well one, it is clear you yourself are not a supporter of Freedom of Speech.
Two, so do you believe that a massive platform with millions of people should be forced to sensor speech you find to be "horrible"
One of the things I always question when people start classify speech as "horrible" is who subjective it is. For example I think it is "horrible" that the christian region is given prominent placement in society. I believe the views of the Christian Region to be "horrible" and I consider indoctrinating children into said religion to be abuse. Would you support a massive platform banning all references to Christianity? And if they did would support them calling themselves "Supporters of Free Speech" while doing so?
//and before the Christians get all butt hurt, I oppose any and all organized religions, I think they are all bullshit. Christianity however is the most popular religion in America so I use it to highlight my point
i think you're wrong about christianity, and we can debate whether or not advocacy of it should be allowed on a public platform. i think comparing it to nazism, targeted harassment, child porn/revenge porn, and hate speech (really the only things banned on reddit for example) is delusional
There is no way for you to make up a rule about what should be banned besides "I don't agree with it".
I'm all in favor of that.
Do you support them?
Not to mention that doxxing and harassment are not free speech in the first place.
E.g. Anita Sarkeesian publicly calling one of her online political opponents a shithead and garbage human from the stage at a conference. He was sitting in the audience quietly. Result: he (not she) gets barred from returning on the grounds that his presence was somehow threatening, while her open vicious insults are passed over.
E.g. Zoe Quinn's crash override network had a chat log leaked where they were organizing harassment and doxing. No consequence.
Double standards everywhere.
This is why they like super vague terms like harassment and hate speech. If the term has huge flexibility, the people with power have huge arbitrary power to apply it.
As for the other one, you're gonna have to provide proof.
For one, if they were there to harass, you would expect them to have done some harassing. I have seen no examples of that. The only possible thing that could be construed as harassing behaviour was them being there in the first place - and I don't think that's a very high bar to set for harassment.
I mean, you can watch the videos[0] of the event yourself. None of it looked particularly harassing to me, until Sarkeesian started attacking the audience.
Not sure what exactly you're referring to when you say 'the story' but the articles I've seen don't seem to paint the same picture ([1] for example).
[0] First video I found, shows the whole talk. The point in question comes about 2:30 into the video.
https://youtu.be/XwcRc5LuElA?t=151
[1] https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3946095/youtuber-sargon-of-akk...
Yes, their is. Their behavior, both at the event and their prior behavior online towards her both suggest that is the entire reason for them being there.
Maybe you need to read unbiased news because they were not, nor did they do anything that could even remotely considered harassment. Attending a talk of your political opposite is not harassment
Though I do think they went WAY over board on the reaction to being called "Garbage Human" but I understand why as they are correct if the roles where reversed the SJW reaction would have been FAR FAR more dramatic...
>>and I cannot be upset that he was banned.
He was banned? From where?
This is a lie. And you don't have a fact to back it up.
https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/6/27/15880582/anita-sa...
Government is a sufficient but not necessary condition for upholding free speech.
The quotes from Alexander Hamilton and J.S. Mill in the below link sums it up well, IMHO: http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/
If it's an online platform dedicated to bake sales, then it's fine to limit it to that. But things like Youtube aren't -- they are a dominant platform and it's at least immoral or an affront to Enlightenment ideals to selectively limit from speech they disagree with based on political views.
If we reduce free speech to a binary yes/no, then almost no where has free speech because everywhere has limits on what it will allow. They might have as free of speech as legally possible. They may even allow some illegal content (stuff that is technically illegal but three letter agencies won't spend time hunting you down for hosting). But if we have it as a binary option, then no where has free speech.
Also, to somewhat contradict what I just said, most places don't even have 'as allowed to the maximum extent of the law' free speech. A really good test, would a website support nude non-pornographic images that aren't illegal (at least by federal US statute) but which most everyone will assume are illegal at first glance? I'm willing to bet they won't.
Want to talk politics from a moderate, conservative, liberal, socialist, or libertarian perspective? Sure. But advocating violent revolution is something different.
There's a lot of room between a totalitarian Ministry of Thought and enabling actively harmful extremism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_t...
free speech means everyone can participate in a marketplace of ideas, where competing perspectives challenge each other to expose the truth. i don't think you could defend targeted harassment and advocacy of violence by that measure.
Decentralized uncensorable platforms will take their place, funded by currency that cannot by blocked.
It's identical conceptually to walking up to someone and blasting an airhorn in their ear. That too is an act of physical violence, not free speech, and you're responsible for the consequences (such as hearing damage) just as with the act of shouting "Fire!".
but rather, restrictions on telling the truth, such as outlawing shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there's actually a fire.
This is what defining "right think" means, where you have to confine your discourse to what is socially acceptable, whether or not what you're saying is true.
This is the real problem, and vague corporate or government policies outlawing "hate speech" are vague, subjective, Orwellian, and don't event attempt to assess truthiness or falsiness.. they appeal to hurt feelings. Which are always and forever in the eye of the beholder. A hecklers veto to ideas one disagrees with.
It's beyond scary that so many smart people here and around the country & world are perfectly fine to go down this road...
You should probably read into the history on that one too...
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
Private organizations or communities can do whatever they want. It's frustrating to constantly see the same argument as if everyone must be allowed on every platform - that's simply not the case.