Comment by Gunax | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gunax | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There's no historic precedent until of course there is precedent.

Just like there was no historic precedent of states limiting the size and tactics of corporations until the rise of 19th century monopolies.

And no historic precedent of meddling in what wages could be paid until we decided there should be a minimum wage.

And no historic precedent of forcing businesses to serve all races and ethnicities until we decided that redlining and segregation were wrong.

I think everything you wrote is correct. But I am increasing concerned about the power of a few individuals to control what can be published.

I think it's time to discuss what we should do rather than what the law mandates. It's a difficult question, and I don't have a good answer.

Remember that actors, writers, scientists, and other professionals were blacklisted by McCarthyism--and technically no one did anything illegal, but it's not well regarded now.

I am just saying that sometimes free speech is more of an appeal to a principle than a law.

Freedom of speech means that we must not allow a person to be harassed by the government or by individuals for what they say. Nowhere does the principle say that others are required to provide dissemination of speech gratis; that would be an entirely different positive (obligatory) right instead of the negative (forbearance) right that freedom of speech is considered to be.

I nearly fully agree. I would only ask for clarification of one aspect:

> to be harassed

What is the definition of harassment being used? Because I experience more and more people who feel harassed when having their opinion critiqued in a discussion and claiming freedom of speach. While they are actually claiming that they want the right to say anything they like without consequences and don't want others to be allowed to argue against their voiced views (and in that denying the same level of freedom of speech to others).

I refer you to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, article 19 for a good modern formulation of freedom of speech: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The above goes against the desires of both the illiberal progressive left and the conservatives in their desire to deplatform those who express beliefs they don't like.

> this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference

Aren't to hold views and to express views two significantly different things?

> seek, receive and impart information

Does information include proven falsehoods like vaccination causes autism?

In general I agree, but people weaponizing this to inoculate against critique is probably not in the ideas of those who wrote this.

Call me illiberal or conservative. I don't care for these weaponized labels.

To me, having grown up in Germany, there are very clear borders to "free speech". Denying the holocaust. Insulting/denigrating/dehumanizing other people. Stating falsehoods as facts.

Exactly as our law sees this. Time and time this imho very sensible approach has proven to be healthy for society.

And freedom of association means I do not have to hire that ethnic group I don't like, right?

I guess I just find this discussion so tiring. Even if I accepted your definition, that still does not answer the difficult question that I am proposing: what do you want society to be like?

I agree with most of what you're saying here - I think it is absolutely concerning that Google in particular has the ability to basically just throw you off the modern internet. There is absolutely a conversation to be had about that, and the position that YouTube should have in it. I'm just saying that you can't make an argument from historic precedent if there is none.

Free speech is always appealed to as a principle by our own government whenever it is convenient, especially when they are, as an example, gearing up for their next middle eastern target for regime change. "They don't align with our western ideals of democracy, freedom of speech" they'll say.

This trend to strictly delineate between the principle and the law is a new fashion. Historically speaking, although it wasn't enforced by law, if you were a private organization and you did things contrary to the principle, it was enforced by society. What has changed is, as it seems to many as well as myself, is that people merely have lost their principles.

> This trend to strictly delineate between the principle and the law is a new fashion. Historically speaking, although it wasn't enforced by law, if you were a private organization and you did things contrary to the principle, it was enforced by society. What has changed is, as it seems to many as well as myself, is that people merely have lost their principles.

Can you explain this? Wouldn't something being enforced by society be an example of it being a principle rather than a law?

The laws merely reflect the principles. The Declaration of Independence outlines the principles. The Constitution codifies it into law, as an example -- a perspective much argued for by Abraham Lincoln. (This is why it's ok to amend the constitution -- because much to the chagrin of a certain political philosophy, it is not the constitution that is the unchanging doctrine, but rather, the declaration. Think creed versus canon law, as another example). From this perspective you can probably deduce the examples I would give.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com