Comment by slibhb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by slibhb | Hacker News Reader

> How to balance the need to restrict hate speech with the need to safeguard people’s right to express repulsive, immoral, toxic, and, yes, dangerous ideas? How to deal with evident falsehoods that poison today’s polarized electorate and undermine democracy? How to make sure that the need for new ways of including racial and social equality in our common conversation does not lead to the false innocence of hygienic “safe spaces” that preclude genuine debate? How to counter those who have been the beneficiaries of the vicious suppression of the right to speak of the enslaved, Native Americans, immigrants, and gay people and who now weaponize free speech to safeguard odious prejudices about gender and race, privilege and history? Who will be the judges of what can be disseminated without themselves becoming censors?

I wonder about this paragraph. The author is comfortable summarizing conservatives censoring left-wing ideas but he becomes flustered when dealing with the reverse. His prose suffers. Of course using free speech to "safeguard odious prejudices" isn't new, what's new is civil libertarians losing their nerve.

Why is free speech important? Is it an end in itself, a natural right? Or is it important because open debate is necessary for truth-seeking and truth-seeking is how we make the world better?

The problem with the latter justification is that it's contingent. If we decide that free speech does not lead to truth-seeking, or that truth-seeking won't lead to a better world, we can withdraw our support for free speech. I think we should keep with free speech even if it ruins us. At least we'll have learned something. If we give up our values, we'll be just another example of a culture losing a game of chicken with itself.

There is no liberal censorship in the US. The only censorship that is allowed in the US is based on ideas of obscenity, a rather conservative concept.

The major battleground seems to be school boards. And besides mentions of anything outside sexless heterosexual marriage, the only issue that will trigger the censor is… anything vaguely mentioned the possibility that Black people might exist.

"Advertiser friendliness" extends from sensibilities of what a liberal audience finds "obscene" and is private, yet far reaching, censorship.

JCS Criminal Psychology, an organization which posted FOIA'd police interrogation footage practically in full, being forced off of YouTube is a relatively wellknown non-political example of a victim of such censorship.

Speech is the mechanism of collective thought.

Can you explain your point?

It is an answer to the question “Why is free speech important?”

Nobody questions the importance of individual thought. Collective thought might even be more important. By squelching free speech we lose the ability to think collectively.

Free speech is important because thought is important.

Thanks. And I agree.

> If we decide that free speech does not lead to truth-seeking

I think this much is now obvious. Unrestricted free speech, particularly of the kind that's backed by a commercial or political agenda, is not leading us to some idealised view of a marketplace of ideas, but a torrent of bullshit where the loudest voices are often heeded regardless of merit. Many people are not seeking to find the best ideas, they are seeking tribal identity and ego reinforcement.

> I think we should keep with free speech even if it ruins us. At least we'll have learned something.

This seems ... counter intuitive. I wouldn't expect that, should society tear itself apart over such things, any significant proportion of people will learn anything much from it.

> If we give up our values, we'll be just another example of a culture losing a game of chicken with itself.

Why is "allowing motivated bad actors to destroy our society" one of "our" values?

We already have limits on speech (no yelling "Fire" etc etc), I would expect over time, and as new forms of speech arise, that those boundaries shift around.

What I find absurd is the absolutist position - if trolls aren't allowed to spew the most vile hatred on all social media with no comeback and no removal, shadowing, anything, we've lost our freedom! All moderation is censorship!

None of this is an argument for government censorship, but the ideals of a marketplace of ideas leading to advancement and intellectual progress, all fuelled by free speech, seem (to me) as busted as the idea that evolution necessarily causes advancement - the natural environment doesn't optimise for progress, but procreation. I think it's time to acknowledge that speech is subject to similar forces.

> We already have limits on speech (no yelling "Fire" etc etc)

Actually, it's falsely yelling "fire" in specific and very limited circumstances.

You're actually encouraged to yell "fire" when there actually is one and in most circumstances, you're perfectly free yell fire when there isn't one.

Sure, it's more specific than just yelling "fire". I can stand and yell "fire" in my house or the park all I like :)

The point is we already recognise that there are circumstances when expression crosses a line.

Probably worth noting that it's a metaphor for why the government can criminalize opposing a wartime draft.

(Probably worth noting why they can't.)

Interesting bit of background there, thanks.

I do believe in the free exchange of ideas, the right to oppose government etc. All the usual concerns about who watches the watchers, abuse of power if granted censorship rights etc etc etc, are perfectly valid.

But the notion that free speech necessarily promotes positive progression in an honest marketplace of ideas, or the discovery of 'truth', seems naive and really quite outdated.

I make no objection.

> But the notion that free speech necessarily promotes positive progression in an honest marketplace of ideas, or the discovery of 'truth', seems naive and really quite outdated.

Remind me - how often have censors turned out to be the good guys?

How often have censors "[promoted] an honest marketplace of ideas or the discovery of 'truth'"?

We have experience with censorship. Free speech may not be perfect but the alternatives have been worse.

Why will this time be different?

Remind me where I advocated censorship?

> Free speech may not be perfect but the alternatives have been worse.

Define free speech. Define censorship. Is the action of private citizens or businesses declining to propagate your words censorship? A lot of people seem to think so these days.

> How often have censors "[promoted] an honest marketplace of ideas or the discovery of 'truth'"?

Define who is a censor? Because if you consider (for instance) moderators on internet services 'censors' then the answer to that is "a lot", by getting rid of trolls, spammers and shitposters.

The terms of the debate are important, and trotting around saying "Free Speech! No censorship!" is not really very useful most of the time, when people are constantly changing the definition of both.

I didn't say that you specifically advocated censorship.

However, the US Govt has asked Facebook, Twitter, et al to close accounts, remove posts, etc.

To you, it's obvious that free speech does not lead to truth-seeking. Well, most of the arguments for free speech from Socrates to Mill are based on the idea that it does.

You say that government censorship is bad but I wonder why. Why is the first amendment a good thing? I gave two possible reasons: people have a natural right to say what they think, consequences be damned or free speech is necessary for truth-seeking. You rejected the latter.

What concerns me is not social media moderation (though I'm generally against it) but that people like you, who have rejected the standard arguments for free speech, actually have no rationale for supporting free speech at all.

You have two points confused -

> To you, it's obvious that free speech does not lead to truth-seeking.

> free speech is necessary for truth-seeking

These are not in conflict.

It is necessary that football-kicking be legal for football (soccer) to take place. However, football-kicking being legal does not necessarily lead to soccer, and may in fact lead to all sorts of other ball-kicking related activities.

Yes, freedom of speech is indeed necessary for the free exchange of ideas, and for the concept of a marketplace of ideas as envisaged by such philosophers to exist.

That doesn't mean that the marketplace of ideas that they envisage actually exists or functions as they would imagine. Specifically we see the public commons becomes dominated by commercial and politically driven messaging, often both made and propagated in bad faith. The idea of a functional marketplace of ideas, of "truth-seeking" as you put it, requires honest actors for whom this truth-seeking is a goal. That turns out to be fine in the context of academia, but wider public discourse doesn't operate that way.

> What concerns me is not social media moderation (though I'm generally against it) but that people like you, who have rejected the standard arguments for free speech, actually have no rationale for supporting free speech at all.

Of course it concerns you, because for you free speech is a point of religious faith. You've already said you'd rather see society fail than compromise on it. It looks like you'd rather have that than even examine what it is you mean by free speech and why that's worth protecting.

Because I absolutely believe the principles of freedom of expression are worth protecting. I just disagree that trolls and shitposters getting banned from twitter is the slightest bit relevant, or that all we can do in the face of campaigns of lies and disinformation is to throw our hands up and say "Oh well, free speech", while attempting to argue with people who are not the least bit interested in truth-seeking or arguing in good faith.

The irony of course, is we're having this discussion on a heavily moderated social media site...

> where the loudest voices are often heeded

Such as...? The only people being actively censored these days are conservatives - the least heeded voices in modern western discourse. Censoring communists in the 40's didn't stop their ideas from spreading then, either.

The idea that conservative voices in the west are the victims of censorship is hilarious. The idea that they are the least heeded, when they are in fact in power in a lot of places, is equally funny.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com