Hacker News Reader

"I've never seen anything but pro-freedom of speech from the right"

This seems a very naive or disingenuous take. Here are two examples that immediately came to mind:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Art... particularly actions against Mapplethorpe

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed#Rece... 2006 Arizona State Legislature

I don't know if deciding whether not to fund the NEA or what books can be taught in school is really anti-freedom of speech.

Someone has to decide what to teach children. Teachers and parents both influence that decision. Teachers through what books they pick and parents through who they elect. And since Teachers are to the left the population as a whole, it makes sense that they would push books to the left of center, and elected officials would rein in that impulse.

What, then, do you think is an action that is against freedom of speech?

To me these are textbook examples of censorship. Note that I don't think your summary captures the relevant facts.

NEA: the issue is not whether it should be funded but how the funds, which were already approved, were allocated. Exhibitions were cancelled after receiving funding due to political pressure, and 4 artists won a court case when their funding was vetoed due to political pressure.

Pedagogy of the oppressed. I'll just quote wikipedia here: "The book was among seven titles officially confiscated from Mexican American studies classrooms, sometimes in front of students, by the Tucson Unified School District after the passing of HB 2281." This was ruled a violation of the First Amendment: https://ncac.org/news/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-a...

I'm probably missing some context, but I'm not sure what about politician's arguing what artists the NEA should fund is against the 1st amendment.

> This was ruled a violation of the First Amendment: https://ncac.org/news/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-a...

It looks like that ruling was just because it was racist, and has since been overturned at the circuit court. Maybe I don't understand something, but the government fundamentally determines what does and does not get taught in public schools.

Two things to consider:

1. There's a difference between defining a curriculum (what needs to be taught) and banning things (what cannot be taught). The government is generally allowed to determine the first, but the second is more dubious. It's difficult to claim, for example, that banning certain books has a legitimate interest in improving academic freedom, as educators already had the freedom to not teach those books.

2. This specific example is from a university, where "defining a curriculum" is even more dubious due to the existence of elective classes. If a university wants to, in addition to its core curricula, offer a class on racial or gender studies, why is that any less legitimate than a class on water polo or whatever?

I don't think this is a productive conversation so this is my final response.

NEA: again, what do you think is an action against free speech if not someone organizing action against an art exhibition?

Ruling: I couldn't find anything about the circuit court overturning the ruling. Here is a direct quote from the article, emphasis mine: "After a lengthy trial, Judge Tashima wrote in an interim opinion yesterday, that the Arizona Superintendent’s office violated the First ... Amendment"

> how fusion of Big Tech with Big Gov to move more and more towards totalitarianism - we've seen this happen in Australia in the name of COVID

I don't know what you're referring to here, could you give some links? Thanks. (Sydney here)

edit: The link you added is about new laws that seem nothing to do with covid. What's the connection? (And you edited again. Maybe I'll wait until you stop doing that. In general, please reply to comments rather than repeatedly adding to your initial comment!)

What's your opinion on anti "critical race theory" laws that generally speaking ban teaching important aspects of civil rights history? These are basically solely pushed by the right, and have been passed in nearly a dozen states.

The economist article you cite is interesting in that it doesn't actually explain what's wrong with the progressive approach, it just describes it as bad. It says

> Individuals, not just groups, must be treated fairly for society to flourish.

But this fails to realize that favoring "individuals" over groups disfavored the invidiuals in those groups. Intersectionality suggests that you can't treat individuals fairly without understanding how the groups they're apart of impact their identity.

And this is really just disparate impact, a well understood, classically liberal, civil rights era policy that the right is slowly scratching away at!

> Generally speaking, it is indisputedly obvious to me.

When I catch myself saying things like this, I contemplate whether the availability heuristic is deceiving me. It might not be -- I haven't done a rigorous review of this topic either -- but I usually find it's worth introspection when I have this thought.

I am the same way but here it is just plain in day light. Regardless of whether left or right is more prone to censorship, I am a proponent of free speech and civil rights, and any progress in that area is a win for society IMO.

Isn't it at least a little bit embarrassing to you to start with:

"You may be right about one instance, but I've never seen anything but pro-freedom of speech from the right."

And then wind up saying sure, there are plenty of examples of right-wing censorship, but check out this article in the Economist?

Come on.

Mate, you literally linked Australian legislation that was passed by the "Right" party in Australia.

They are just called the Liberals, but they are Economic Liberals, not social, and are considered our "right wing" party with an evangelical Christian as our Prime Minister.

Exactly. And on "Vast majority of this is a push from Left, not the Right" here's the Green Party (probably the most left Australian party of any size) opposing it: https://lidia-thorpe.greensmps.org.au/articles/more-police-p...

Look at Bari Weiss, who started a right wing free speech university and cut her teeth trying to get her professors fired in college for supporting Palestine.