Hacker News Reader

Comment by jbarciauskas | Hacker News Reader

The author here seems to be a bit naive about how free speech really is in the "free market of ideas" model and how much better it is than the "communitarian" approach. His vision where everyone's opinion and speech has equal weight doesn't come close to the reality of the situation in America today, where those with financial wealth can effectively pay to amplify viewpoints they favor. No one really cares what I think, but lots of people know what Tom Steyer and the Koch brothers' opinions are.

View on HN

Good point.

Also, consider it not just in terms of the amplification effect of wealth, but the suppression effect of threats of violence.

The "free marketplace of ideas" assumes the participants act in good faith to offer their ideas to the public, and respect what they decide. But if you wish to call for systemic violence against groups, it has the effect of silencing them out of fear (E.g., Yiannopoulos calling for Leslie Jones to be doxxed, or the KKK marching through my old hometown to let blacks know they should be afraid).

In this case, the norm of debate is an illusion. And if you're not concerned with debating in good faith, there are no obstacles to using deceit and lies. Speech just becomes a tactic of oppression.

In this light, rather than treat individual speech as absolute, overall free speech can be maximized by not tolerating those whose speech silences others. Fundamentally, I think it's heterological. Quoting from Karl Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies":

> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

It's already illegal to organize criminal acts. There's no need to limit speech further to cover that case, unless you want to include crimes that didn't happen but perhaps could have.

Prior to your edit you made the claim that “violent speech doesn’t lead to violence”, which is so self-evidently false I was a bit surprised.

The claim that speech is always harmless is also self-evidently false. Volume of speech certainly matters. Doxxing certainly has a negative effect on the targets, despite the doxer not participating in any harassment or illegal action.

Given the history of racial violence in the United States, a black person certainly can’t assume that threats of lynching are idle ones that have no impact on their lives so long as the lynching never takes place. To claim otherwise is naive at best and betrays the extreme privilege of someone who has never been the target of violent, harassing, or reputation-destroying speech. That’s not a sin mind you - simply a lack of experience and perspective. I doubt you’d be so sanguine about it if your neighbors posted signs around your house with big bright arrows that said “child rapist lives here!”. That’s not an explicit call to violence but the courts would probably take your side (and rightly so).

For as long as the concept of “Free Speech” has existed there have been limits placed on it. Following someone around, pointing at them, and screaming “Rapist! Murder! Thief!” is illegal, will continue to be illegal, and should be illegal. The canonical example is shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater. Doing so has nothing to do with “organizing a criminal act” but is still illegal and you can and will be convicted of manslaughter if someone gets trampled to death. Are you arguing that people shouldn’t have legal culpability in such circumstances?

>Prior to your edit you made the claim that “violent speech doesn’t lead to violence”

I didn't make that claim, although I regret trying to trim down my comment because now I can't easily quote what I really said. Indeed, it's quite disingenuous to put those words in quotes!

I claimed that it's not calling for violence that silences people, but the resulting violence itself. As a result if we just cool down the violence then no new restrictions on speech are necessary. Indeed, if the physical world is kept safe, then no speech will be scary.

You might not think we can be trusted to keep the real world safe, but then how can you expect the same imperfect society to keep speech tamped down?

> Indeed, if the physical world is kept safe, then no speech will be scary.

We are very, VERY far from that world, so you may want to reconsider for now. If some drunkard says to your face "I'm going to beat the shit out of you!", don't you at least consider he might do it?

>Yiannopoulos calling for Leslie Jones to be doxxed

You do realize that isn't true right?

>The KKK marching through my old hometown to let blacks know they should be afraid.

That is terrible but the problem is that this is what many people thought about civil rights activists marching down their streets. Granted the people who were against the civil right marches are some of those who are marching today under a different banner but their right to march today is preferable to their right of not being offended in the 60's

>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

The funny thing is that the tolerance paradox is what essentially killed the left, they absorbed so many authoritarian groups which essentially turned it into an authoritarian machine.

Your examples are rather one sided. Don't forget the organized groups planning violence against Trump supporters during the election, or Hollywood's calls for violence after the election, or the numerous attacks on politicians and police officers.

> In this light, rather than treat individual speech as absolute, overall free speech can be maximized by not tolerating those whose speech silences others.

Taken to the extreme that allows the powerful to silence anyone they choose. You can always argue "I'm offended" by your remarks, therefore you must be silent. But as we've seen (for example, claims that "it's impossible to be racist against white people" and simultaneously defining every conservative position as racist or otherwise prejudiced) the left defines this so that they can do and say anything they like, while the right is always silenced.

Are you prepared to defend a tolerant society against leftists whose intolerance for disagreement extends even unto violence?

Ahh yes, the "minorities-are-the-real-racists/sexists" argument. I guess for those who have always been on top, attempts to curb their abuses could look like free speech violations.

And don't talk to me about violence like it's equivalent on both sides. I had the KKK try to march through my town after Trump was elected. I went to UVA and probably walked past where Heather Heyer was murdered a hundred times in school. The only killings from the left are from isolated nuts. The killings from fascists/supremacists are organized.

> Are you prepared to defend a tolerant society against leftists whose intolerance for disagreement extends even unto violence?

I'm not worried, because the left is punching Nazis and white supremacists. Ask your grandfather if you need to understand why punching Nazis rather than giving them platforms is important.

Wait: so your solution to your claimed problem of authority figures having too much power in the speech marketplace is to give authority figures... more power?

How does that work?

I'm not sure how it's supposed to work either, but plenty of authority figures with lots of power in the speech marketplace have been telling me that free speech crackdowns will somehow help the powerless, so I guess I should believe them...

>His vision where everyone's opinion and speech has equal weight doesn't come close to the reality of the situation in America today, where those with financial wealth can effectively pay to amplify viewpoints they favor.

That's absolutely correct, but let's take it to its logical conclusion: entire American sub-societies with financial wealth can effectively pay to amplify viewpoints they favor, as they can better afford the shortfall that comes when their cultural values and reality don't mesh- throwing out competent people for inconvenient political viewpoints or weird kinks is not something a society that actually had to compete could afford to do (remember, the Civil Rights Acts and Sexual Revolution happened at a time when the whole country had more jobs than people to fill them).

And every society with a surplus does the same thing- for example, China can afford to (and routinely does) kill any political dissident because of its manpower surplus.

This is why everyone in America (if not the entire world) knows the opinions and values of one or two particular anti-freedom American subcultures, but not as much what Americans (as a whole, outside of one's subsociety) value. I hope the other subcultures will be smart enough to present a common pro-freedom message, but I fear they will not.

"Free speech" is not about amplification, but about lack of forced attenuation. That is, publicly voicing an opinion should not be a crime.

It is pretty easy to connect to the freedom of religion. The original settlements in America were of various Christian sects persecuted in England and Europe. Since they were various, they had to produce a code of peaceful coexistence. It was set in stone in the US Constitution and the 1st amendment to it: no state-enforced religion and free speech.

As of late, this setup is deteriorating, both in Europe (where it never was a sacred part), and in the US. That same (quasi-)religion that gave us "political correctness" is apparently taking over the variety of other beliefs, obviating the need of a peace pact that a free speech provision is.

Fortunately, it's not (yet) strong enough to actually repeal it, but enough to stymie it here and there, for the sake of "social peace" or "security". The latter case is something that one of the founding fathers expressly warned about: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." But people seem to deeply discount any future problems, compared to an immediate gain (in power) at hand.

The "free market" isn't some sort of benevolent cognitive entity.

Your "free market" can collapse into batshit loopy eugenics as it can a wonderful academic discourse.

Cultures require grooming like any garden.

"Cultures require grooming like any garden."

Let me guess: you know exactly how it should be "groomed", right?

No, thank you.

I don't. I am willing to wager giving right wing nut bars a platform and place to "debate" their opinions on minorities and women is a great place to start trimming weeds, however.

Would you give one of those people the option to trim weeds?

And George Soros, of course.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com