Hacker News Reader

Comment by softwaredoug | Hacker News Reader

You can't stop cancel culture without harming the speech of those 'canceling'.

Those people are not speaking - they are doxxing and actively harrassing employers in order to get the wrongthinkers fired. I am sure you know the difference between speech and cancel culture.

For the most part, cancel culture has been applied to writing letters criticizing people, boycotting people/companies, and other actions consistent with 'speech'.

Of course outright harassment and doxing should be dealt with harshly.

Then it seems we are in agreement. I would guess the one gray area where we do not definitely agree is to what extent deplatforming should be a thing. I am of the view that deplatforming campaigns are a manifestation of cancel culture. What do you think?

I think deplatforming is a mistake in most cases, it make an "US vs THEM", David vs Goliath narrative that people love to follow and identify with. It make people think their opinions are more transgressive and more interesting that they really are.

But this deplatforming and this "cancel culture" is only a manifestation of what millenials heard for years: if you want change, vote with your wallet. Well, we now are able to. I'm not agreeing with everything, but boycott is the only power my generation have right now, and nobody can prevent this. Twitter and the social network allow people to explain why they're boycotting this or that, that's all.

> But this deplatforming and this "cancel culture" is only a manifestation of what millenials heard for years: if you want change, vote with your wallet. Well, we now are able to. I'm not agreeing with everything, but boycott is the only power my generation have right now, and nobody can prevent this. Twitter and the social network allow people to explain why they're boycotting this or that, that's all.

This is a very good explanation of a fair bit of it and if not a lightbulb moment then at least a "wipe the dust of the windshield moment" for me I think.

One of those comments that makes me come back to HN even if I seem to be on the other side from you politically.

> Those people are not speaking - they are doxxing and actively harrassing employers in order to get the wrongthinkers fired.

So they are both speaking true facts about people and speaking their desired outcome to people positioned to realize them. How is that not speaking?

It's opinion, mob rule and destructive, without trying better approaches first, it's toxic, immature and egotistical.

Perhaps, but it's still pure speech.

Couldn't you make exactly the same argument about trying to get someone killed? Getting someone fired isn't getting them killed, of course, but it's still significant harm. It is the sort of thing that not long ago would have been considered outrageous harassment and mob behavior. It's astonishing how much the goalposts have moved, and how people are pretending or not noticing that this is a major shift in standards.

Mob rule is assembly. Decisions have consequences and are action.

Speech always has consequences (that's rather the point of both speech in general, and the entire concept of free speech in particular: if it had no consequences, there’d be no reason to protect it), and is always a subset of action. Assembly is inseparable from speech which is why, lest the flimsy excuse that a thing is one rather than the other be used to justify a ban, it's wrapped up along with all the other speech-equivalent expressive rights in the first amendment.

Some speech is not protected, some speech is judged harshly, all along spectrums. Speech doesn't exist in a vacuum and may be criminal, inorderly, trollish, moderated away, unheard, misinterpreted, untruthful, etc. If there are better approaches, people should be steered in better directions. Sometimes a jolt is needed, but continued bullying is usually on the bully. A bully may also be bullied, but the outcome is rarely educational since some people don't bother to care. Besides, bullying works against socializing.

Just action need to follow some due process. Mob rule becomes medieval. Even because modern technology platforms enable despicable behaviour, which speech is part of, does not necessarily protect because of free speech. Freedoms to hurt others need be limited.

When people lose interest in the whole, only to fancy duality, there's no dialogue happening, only escalation.

Speech doesn't imply much consequence beyond enlightenment, when people learn to listen and appreciate diversity.

Speech seems worthless compared to right action. Principles and freedoms mean nothing in isolation.

> Some speech is not protected, some speech is judged harshly, all along spectrum

The claim I was addressing from upthread is not “these people are not engaging in goodspeak” but “these people are not speaking”, so as true as that may be it is not relevant to the discussion.

Seems like you’re making a pointless semantic debate. “Speech” in an ethical philosophical context is “expressing ideas”. Threats are not this because the intent is to intimidate or coerce somebody. To your point, there is a definition of the word “speech” that means something like “any communication at all”, but of course that’s what precisely no one is talking about in a debate about free speech.

Threats aren’t free speech, however veiled. If the speaker is intending to say “I hope this person gets fired”, that’s free speech. If the meaning is “If you continue to employ this person, I’ll take my business elsewhere”, that’s a threat. But both make you an awful person, so steer clear and you’ll be fine.

> Threats aren’t free speech

First, we were discussing speech not some limited subcategory speech.

Second, threats of unlawful violence are not free speech. Threats not to engage in economic transactions that one is under no obligation to engage in in the first place absolutely are free speech.

> Those people are not speaking - they are doxxing and actively harrassing employers in order to get the wrongthinkers fired.

This is not “speech”, this is harassment and coercion.

> Second, threats of unlawful violence are not free speech. Threats not to engage in economic transactions that one is under no obligation to engage in in the first place absolutely are free speech.

Threats are never free speech. The law might not prohibit it or it might simply not prosecute it, but it’s never free speech. It’s the same thing as telling someone she must sleep with you if you are to do business with her—it’s quid pro quo harassment, it’s morally repugnant, and it’s most definitely not free speech.

Sure you can - it does not work through speech but through actions. Either it's a big corp that fires the victim to appear more woke or it's a small business that is forced to fire through review bombing. It's only possible because victims cannot sue even though both, and especially the latter, seem like a tort. If I were an entrepreneur I'd make a fund to litigate both kinds of cases. Get money from the big corps, take loss on the review bombers, make the country better for everyone.

This is why unfettered "free speech" is nonsensical. There have to be bounds at some point.

Professionals call it 'negative PR', 'slander', 'sabotage', and other such words. Why can't we have 'disagreement culture' or 'better-alternatives suggestionism' instead?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com