Hacker News Reader

Comment by zamalek | Hacker News Reader

> It was truly the culture that dominated the site.

Voat is proof that we are not yet deserving of free speech.

I find beauty in the principle of FoS: we would never have e.g. legalized same-sex marriages without it - and this is why we need it for future ethical advancements, possibly (as one hypothetical example), the right to die/destiny. Advancement of the moral zeitgeist is impossible without it.

The utter impossibility of it in practice is unavoidable. There are few more willing to violate the rights of others than those who demand the right to speech.

View on HN

>Voat is proof that we are not yet deserving of free speech

It's not the we the people are not deserving of free speech, it's the idea the right to 'free speech' supersedes other rights and should go unchecked at the expense of others that undermines the concept for so many. Besides, it wasn't free speech or lack thereof that's causing Voat to fold. Apparently no one wanted to pay to hear what they had to say. Everyone has a right to free speech but everyone else has an equal right not to listen to it if they don't want to.

>'free speech' supersedes other rights and should go unchecked at the expense of others

Curious about this, what right does anti-Semite/racism rhetoric removes from others? How can words affect your rights as a person?

> How can words affect your rights as a person?

Remember the holocaust

>Remember the holocaust

I'd posit the words weren't the things affecting people, but whatever actions they took

By the time holocaust was going on, it was too late.

Are you saying without free speech it wouldn't have happened?

"We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem... We are coming neither as friends or neutrals. We come as enemies! As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we."

-- Joseph Goebbels, 1928

There is no honest way to get from the exchange above to your comment.

In any case, it would not happened without people would defend them each time they could, who would made up what may opponents said just to make opponents sound bad, who pretended that nazi are not danger, that nazi are just little misguided young men meaning well or just trolls.

Constant dehumanization of people does not eventually lead to physical violence?

someone somewhere must believe that they should do something about these bad people.

your argument at best is in bad faith

>your argument at best is in bad faith

I disagree (although this was a question more than an argument)

>Constant dehumanization of people does not eventually lead to physical violence?

What it might lead to is irrelevant, the act of speech does not impede anything and a lot of things have the potential to lead to violence, yet legalizing it is arbitrary at best

I would say that the right to human dignity is being impinged upon by most of the *phobic types of discourse.

[edit] A citation: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.asp...

This is a good point, but in my understanding of dignity was more of a physical "no slave" than a mental "respect." I'm having trouble finding a good definition of that.

Edit: i also understood the basic rights to be a property of the system rather than the actions of people; e.g. you should be free whatever people think of you; right to happiness whatever enemies you have, etc. If words can deprive you of dignity, then it seems as though the system is not giving you the feeling of safety in your rights that you should be expecting. This seems like a more logical application of the rights; since you cannot force respect out of others but can force the system to honor its promises.

It is a property of the system in as much as the system supports the individual in keeping its right. Think in terms of property and theft, and what system does to people stealing. I agree it's not a foolproof comparison, but I think the same principles apply.

On the other hand the problem is not about "thinking" hateful things (and there is a distinction about hateful and respectful that you seem to gloss over) but saying those things with the specific intention of lowering a person's (or group of persons) sense of self and dignity.

> the act of speech does not impede anything

It absolutely does. It leads to a climate of fear for those affected by it, especially once it becomes widespread.

If it becomes widespread; freedom of speech is irrelevent because the executive power bows down to populism.

I agree with words being able to elicit strong emotional response in people, but I disagree that this should serve as a basis for legislation. I do not think it is a strong enough basis to risk affecting the spread of ideas and discourse.

I think your parent stated it pretty well. You can say whatever you want, if you are willing to pay the bills. In this case, nobody wanted to pay to listen.

> Voat is proof that we are not yet deserving of free speech.

Try and avoid generalizing from one example. Free speech forums worked pretty well from 1995 to 2010.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com