Comment by ipython | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ipython | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Why is it that we have to ignore nuances in these arguments? We never had unrestricted free speech in this country. There is a whole Wikipedia article about it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex...

In addition other democratic states have strict limits on free speech such as Singapore: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constituti...

After all even “democracy” is nuanced here in the states. Obvious examples from our past include the wholesale disenfranchisement of women until 100 years ago, Jim Crow era laws, poll taxes, and more. Did we have democracy then? Do we have democracy now?

Did we have free speech when broadcasters in the USA had to abide by the Fairness Doctrine? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine. Our system has it’s faults. But one can’t say that we ever had unfettered democracy or free speech, ever.

At what point is speech considered abuse? If you make the analogy between speech and network traffic, we intentionally censor “abusive” traffic to save our networks from collapse. Could one make the argument that entities with an interest in destabilizing our democracy should not be able to inject propaganda into our discourse because “free speech”? I think it’s a valid argument to have and a nuance that we have to contend with.

There are no absolutes. Trivializing this with a snappy trope of “democracy can’t survive without free speech” is disingenuous IMO.

I wouldn't call Singapore a democracy. It's an authoritarian one-party state that happens to hold elections. These elections are always won by the same party.

The democracy index rates Singapore at 6.02/10. About 0.03 away from being a "hybrid regime" and currently rated a "flawed democracy." It's ranked as worse than places such as Ukraine (currently in a civil war), Thailand (run by a military dictatorship), etc.

Having been stuck in the lockdown they imposed earlier this year, which was widely unpopular with the city's residents and which lead to the biggest support for the opposition in the country's history, I would not at all call Singapore a democracy.

Canada has limits in free speech and seems to be doing just fine as a democracy. At least, it’s muuuuch better than the American one.

Singapore is essentially an extremely well-run, technocratic police state.

Lovely place, but I definitely wouldn't want to live there.

Interesting that Singapore also is the 4th least corrupt country per the Corruption Perceptions Index - one of the biggest discrepancies with the Democracy Index.

> Could one make the argument that entities with an interest in destabilizing our democracy should not be able to inject propaganda into our discourse because “free speech”?

One could also argue that censoring one side of politics deepens divisions and drives people to polical extremes. I would rephrase "democracy can’t survive without free speech" as "democracy can’t survive without free political speech"

This is an extremely bizzare argument.

Firstly, the op like myself would have been against all those disasters of democracy as well.

Secondly, you're using things we deemed reprehensible enough to stop doing, outlaw, or repeal as an excuse to now do something in kind.

Op seems to have learned from those mistakes, why are you trying to use them to justify making new ones?

> Why is it that we have to ignore nuances in these arguments?

I very much agree. Why can't you understand that just because we've never had perfectly free speech, that maybe it's still worth fighting for most of the time. And that a few counter examples do not therefore equate to free speech being something unworthy of protecting.

Making analogies requires that the two ideas come from the same class of ideas. In what way is traffic and speech in the same class?

The reason this becomes an absolute is, unlike with traffic, the decision about which speech is abusive is objective and itself easy to abuse. When there's no way to talk about the abuse (a situation the abuser would create) then it will continue until the abuser's ability to censor speech is removed. In the real world this ability is often removed as the result of some serious violence and so most people don't like to create conditions that could lead to such a situation.

People sometimes say that speech in a democracy is a nicer alternative to violence.

I think you meant "subjective".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com