Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by techrat | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

techrat

> It would just be better if people like you just admitted you don’t believe in free speech.

It would be better if people like you could realise you have no idea what free speech is.

Free speech is not free from the consequences of said speech.

If a private site feels that your words are not warranted, they're free to turn you away.

Nobody owes you a platform to say whatever you want without any responsibility due whatsoever.

Is it censorship to arrest someone for falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater? No. It isn't.

Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/

View on HN

"Shouting fire in a a crowded theater" is the most consistently overused, misunderstood, and tiresome arguments levied by censorship apologists against the ideals of free speech. It's also completely incorrect, as the actual act of shouting the word fire in a crowded theater is most assuredly protected under the first amendment. A casual reading of literature makes this obvious[1].

Thankfully the use of this argument is generally the loudest signal that can be generated by those who haven't spend much time dealing with the subject in any depth, so it's always a useful tool to gauge how much energy to spend engaging with someone on the topic.

In any case, when activists refer to Free Speech, we are generally referring to the greater principle of Freedom of Speech[2], which has a much broader philosophical and societal scope than the narrow definition of legally protected speech under the first amendment of the US constitution. Apostles for the movement like myself are in favor of greatly expanding the scope of Free Speech protections in the United States and the world at large, and are more generally committed to engineering a deeper appreciation for the broader concept of Freedom of Speech and the enormous influence it bears on our trajectory towards a free society.

1. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

I love XKCD but it is (slightly) wrong here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

First sentence:

"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."

Emphasis on principle, not on law.

There are certainly much better XKCD than this one but it isn't wrong when it describes behavior of communities. It isn't wrong when it declares the irrelevance of the first amendment of the US.

But where you are wrong is that you support free speech. You are more focused on the consequences for the people whose uttering you dislike. It is intellectual weakness if you are afraid to face opposition.

Be careful not to leave out the RELEVANT portions.

> Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

Freedom of speech has never been absolute and never been without consequence.

I have the right to tell you to get out of my house, you do not have the right to force me to listen to you.

These aren't the relevant portions, these are the portions that curtail the freedom. And I agree that there are sensible ones and not sensible ones. Lying is also free speech and I don't like it. Obscenity is extremely subjective.

But that doesn't matter because you said:

> "Free speech is not free from the consequences of said speech."

That is a contradiction to the principle of free speech and you are just moving the goalpost here.

> I have the right to tell you to get out of my house

Of course you have, my speech would not be limited by that. It is also correct that a platform can ban anyone without even stating any reason. If they do that they just plainly don't adhere to the principle of freedom of speech. There is also freedom of association. Also a very important right. I don't have to justify with whom I association in the best case. Doesn't matter if that is ignored all too often in reality.

In case of reddit it is certainly false advertising because they advocated freedom of speech for the longest time. They don't anymore, but they don't get to claim that they still do in that case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com