Comment by amadeuspagel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by amadeuspagel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>People are free to circulate petitions, including those making demands about someone's Linguistic Society status. [...] Though, of course, you're free to circulate a counter-petition against them!

People are free to insult others and you are free to counter-insult them. And you are also free to write an open letter asking people to try to discuss their issues, rather then insulting each other, circulating petitions against each other or getting each other fired.

>People are not required to express only opinions you approve of.

This is what you might call the "doctrine of the second speaker". Alice expresses a view Bob finds offensive. Bob calls for Alice to be fired. John says that people shouldn't be fired for expressing offensive views. Then Tom points out that "People are not required to express only opinions you approve of." After all, Bob's call for Alice to be fired is protected by the first amendment, therefore (?) it's wrong to critizise people for calling for others to be fired for offensive views.

That's true. People can insult each other. There are limits: you can't intentionally and convincingly relate false facts about people (that's defamation). But calling for people's termination? That's an opinion you're unquestionably free to share.

Yes, calling for a company to fire someone is generally protected under the First Amendment. (There might be some edge cases, like if a state has a criminal anti-discrimination law and someone is inciting the company (to unlawfully fire a specific person specifically on the basis on a legally protected characteristic).)

But the ideal of freedom of expression is broader than limitations on the powers of government. The ideal also encompasses social norms that encourage open and honest discussion. Bad arguments made in appropriate public forums should be met with counterarguments, and certainly not with being placed on industry blacklists or getting fired. Otherwise, there are very real chilling effects on the willingness of people to engage in honest discussion. (To clarify what I mean by "appropriate public forum" above, let me give an example: Protesting someone's funeral by marching on a public sidewalk and waving signs inscribed "God hates X" is legally protected (Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)), but is outside the bounds of what most people would consider appropriate. Protesting in that place and manner rightfully subjects the protester to public scorn.)

I can't say anything about this better than Ken White did today; I cosign this in its entirety:

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1280992193591689221

> /6 That's because of the fundamental deal behind First Amendment values: you can't use the government to punish speech because the marketplace of ideas, the private sector, society's "more speech" is the best way to address "bad speech," not government action.

This category of "more speech", including everything from criticism to calling for someone to get fired is dishonest. The letter doesn't oppose criticism.

Calling for people to be fired is "more speech".

The HN guidelines say:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Are these good guidelines? Do you think they encourage better better discussions? Do you value having a community in which these guidelines are culturally accepted? If people started violating these guidelines en masse, do you think it would make sense to defend them?

Or would that be silly, because the answer to bad speech is more speech?

The way I see it, the answer to bad speech is more speech. But that doesn't mean there can't be cultural differences in the way we use speech - some worlds in which we more often misrepresent our oppenents, interpret their statements in the worst possible light, and use that to attempt to destroy their lives, and some worlds in which we choose not to. I view the letter as an attempt to move us towards the latter world - say, to push discourse away from Twitter-style and towards HN-style debate.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You are free to speak. You are not free to speak in my house, as I have not invited you there. If I did invite you, I could attach conditions.

I'm saying there exist, in some communities, cultural norms that we treat ideas we disagree with with respect. We interpret them charitably. We don't make personal attacks on those who hold them. We assume good faith.

If you understand why someone might defend those cultural norms on Hacker News, then perhaps you can understand why someone would defend those same norms in, say, academia, or journalism, or publishing, or the arts.

No, the fact that you're not welcome to speak in my house does not enjoin you against speaking ill of me outside of my house. I can't even comprehend the argument you're trying to make. The norms of HN don't bind on the whole world.

Let me try to restate.

As I understand it, you're saying that people are advocating for the free expression of ideas - and yet, when people use that freedom to insult them call for their termination, they get mad. This seems contradictory and unfair to you. If I want the right to say whatever I want, then I have to accept that some people will choose to use that right to say things like "enoch_r is a despicable human being and his employer, family, and friends should all know about it immediately." Is that an accurate summary of your views?

In response, I am saying that norms like we have on HN (such as the principle of charity) contribute to the free expression of ideas. If we didn't have those norms, people wouldn't feel free to investigate controversial ideas, or have discussions like this one, and the intellectual climate would be impoverished.

Similar norms contribute to the free exchange of ideas in academia.

The letter advocates for such norms to be defended in academia.

It is reasonable to carve out spaces where particular norms apply, especially when those places have idiosyncratic goals, like HN's goal of "gratifying intellectual curiosity".

It is not reasonable to export those norms outside of those spaces to other spaces that don't share those idiosyncracies.

Some calls to terminate people are, in my judgement, bad. David Shor is a good example. I will use my freedom of expression to say that the people who called for his ouster made a grave and self-defeating error and should be ashamed of themselves.

Some calls to terminate people are not, in my judgement, bad.

HN might, along with the authors of this Letter, hope for a blanket norm against calling for anyone's ouster. They can ask for it; that's their right. But it's not a reasonable expectation, and they can't honestly pretend the norm already exists or that others are obligated to adhere to it because they want it.

I completely agree that some calls to terminate people are good, and others are bad.

I think you're interpreting my comments, and the letter, as saying "there should be a blanket norm against calling for anyone's ouster for their opinions, no matter how vile." I'm not, and I don't think the letter is either.

I'm saying, and I believe the letter is saying, that we have become overly quick to reach for the tools of suppression in response to opposing views. That the spectrum of views which we interpret charitably is shrinking, and the spectrum of views that we view as fireable offenses is growing. It's not simply that the overton window has shifted and previously acceptable views are no longer okay (though I think that's clearly part of it). It's that the overton window has shrunk dramatically, even as we've moved towards much more brutal enforcement of it.

Anyway: thanks for the interesting discussion - I'm glad we've carved out this space for it! ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com