[1] https://i.postimg.cc/25LM9hZJ/7297-B1-DB-5-CB3-4019-BCF3-8-F...
> On Friday, the administration told students in an emailed statement "we have an expectation and responsibility to engage with viewpoints that we disagree with," but that "we must also respect that walkouts are a legitimate form of protest and an appropriate expression of disapproval."
I like free speech as much as the next Hacker News user, but many of the actions of these students (they have an organization and a secret group chat to coordinate stuff like this) absolutely fall into the toleration of intolerance paradox. On the other hand, walking out is just about the most polite form of protest you can conduct. Certainly better than the mob that tried to prevent the law school Boston Flag SC case debate from occurring this semester.
However, even without imposing actual consequences, the administration absolutely should have rebuked those using their free speech in favor of human rights abuses. They should have done more to defend Rizwangul NurMuhammad.
I have no love for communists (having been born in the Eastern Bloc), but that's not how free speech works. Either you're for it (and all the icky stuff that comes with it) or you're against it. There's no "splitting the difference" here. We've debated and litigated this since the Enlightenment (from J.S. Mill to Skokie, IL): if you start banning one type of speech, that's a train you won't be able to stop.
Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is highfalutin nonsense.
But since they seem to be exchange students, you could say "We don't welcome people with such views here in our country", and just send them back to the country that is ruled by their beloved government.
Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you can't select foreigners based on their beliefs and values.
Now I'm not saying being a foreign national you should have "the right" to open a US bank account, buy a house, or even get a job. But if we're talking about what we call "basic human rights," then that's a different story.
Of course, Universities are different, but I think the point still stands.
But if you act as an idiot abroad, you shouldn't be surprised when they send you back.
Blackstone's ratio is:
> It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer
This is failure design. The legal system will fail. So when it does, do you want a guilty person to be set free or an innocent person to be imprisoned. We, of course, want to minimize the failure, but we have to ask which mode of failure is preferable.
The same is true for speech here. Who decides what to censor? The people in charge change frequently and with opposing views. What is the threshold? Explicit or implicit speech? There are limits on speech in America but the limits are low because that was the mode of failure that was planned.
I think one thing to recognize though is that there's ways to stop speech we don't like without banning it[1]. You just have to be creative.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/18/neo-nazis-tric...
> Neo-Nazis are attracted to the town because Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess was once buried there. Though his remains were exhumed in 2011 and his grave was destroyed, far-right extremists still flock to the town year after year
And that's why all those dead after Nuremberg were cremated and their ashes were spread in rivers and seas. Nobody wants neo-Nazis shrines.
Ironic, considering the Pyramids at Giza are literal monuments to slavery.
Free speech -- i.e. the free exchange of ideas, ergo the natural extension of freedom of thought -- is a fundamental and transcendental ideal, and it's a hill I've died on and gotten downvoted for plenty of times. Germany, Nazis, and the USA probably won't be around 200 millennia from now, but the ideal of free speech certainly will. We think too much of ourselves and of our times.
On a more serious note, when I went to see the pyramids, the guide pointed out several rows of nearby tombs for the laborers who built the things, talked about how they were free skilled laborers, and in fact treated quite well (for the time at least).
For instance, outright neo-Nazism is forbidden in most EU countries. Same goes for stoking racial or religious hatred, etc. Even in the US with their old constitution and "textualist" interpretations of it that really want to take it to the absolute, have restrictions on free speech (e.g. "obscenity", "speech that violates intellectual property law", etc.)
Absolute free speech is incompatible with a modern society of today. Maybe it isn't with somebody's utopia, but we're not there.
The paradox of tolerance, however, is real. You can see it in work the recent rise of mis and disinformation from far-right folks, Russia, etc. For instance in France there was a presidential candidate who was convicted of inciting racial hatred more than once, and wanted to deport all Muslims and migrants from France, of course with frightening stories about why that is necessary to save France from the Muslims/Blacks/Arabs/Jews/whatever.
Free humans are not free to kill or enslave. Free speech is not free to hate.
Free speech absolutism is a pretty hardline position, but I think it's probably correct.
„The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.“
Context matters here, I think:
If I said "The president should not be allowed to say this", this would most likely not affect the president's freedom of speech.
If the president said "ls15 should not be allowed to say this", this may more likely affect my ability to express my opinions.
"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
This already fits well within the realm of free speech, free association, and the retributive justice system. The intolerant and the tolerant (both of which are in their common parlance subjective terms) are not required to associate with each other. Either party has the right to speak its mind. Only when force is involved would intolerance be justified. And even then, such intolerance should exist only in an objectively assessed proportion to the prior intolerant acts carried out and no more.
https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-...
I expect someone to deck me for saying certain things.
Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.'
ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility.
Having said that I would still defend their right to talk shit.
edit- screw cancel culture though, that shit ruins lives over even perceived slights. I don't believe any adult hasn't said something stupid or asinine we regret now. The thought that can ruin a life or career is crazy. If you don't like what someone says don't listen. If they aren't inciting violence or something.
From a legal viewpoint, even if said speech meets the Chaplinsky definition of "fighting words", that does not exonerate or justify one man's violence against another. I have a hard time seeing that most would accept hitting a person as an acceptable response to what is perceived to be distasteful speech. Millions of people lambasted Will Smith not so long ago for doing just that.
Today's awareness of mental trauma and triggers is a good thing, but it blurs the line a bit between physical and verbal attacks. Personally, I strongly believe that words should be treated fundamentally differently than physical violence. Sticks and stones, etc.
That said, if you're the one hurling insults, you're intentionally trying to evoke an emotional response, and you should not be surprised if the person you're insulting responds emotionally and violently.
For the record I'm very against what will smith did (posters above mentioned it), but I'd have felt differently if it hadn't been a comedian telling jokes, but say someone got in will's face and called him the N word with malice. I think it'd be perfectly reasonable to knock someone out over that. If the other person knows this is a good possibility, they may only use those words if they mean them enoughto accept the consequences.
I'm not saying my way is right, I'm just saying how it was growing up, and how that's shaped me.
In another thread I mentioned a friend of mine getting hurled insults at her abortion appointment. Had any of them been a man I'd have definitely gotten in some trouble that day. My belief is they have the right to say it, not protection from the consequences. But I'm also very against cancel culture. Am I weird for all of this? Alone in these beliefs? Totally wrong? Quite possibly, I know the world now confuses the shit out of me, and sometimes I feel like I am the only sane one for seeing some things (ie- trading our lives to the rich for a pittance, rules for thee but not for me, etc). Truly I could be very wrong, and if so I will accept that and try and change my views. I do try and live by the scientific method.
Wasn't that due to the fact that he acted in a way that looked as if he actually cared to defend his woman?
afaik it had nothing to do with violence but more against having personal honour or pride and thinking of one's woman as him alone and having a sacred relationship with her that anyone insulting / degrading her is directly insulting the man, and that idea triggers the feminists to the moon and back I guess.
"even if said speech meets the Chaplinsky definition of "fighting words", that does not exonerate or justify one man's violence against another." Then what is a man supposed to do? go to court over an insult? be rude and start a shitshow of exchanging insults? take it and move on? wait for the other party to initiate the fight? or what?
I am not a westerner by any means, just curious.
Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS.
There's a line when it comes to social consequences of speech and people like you are conveniently ignoring that fact to avoid having to explain why it should be drawn so cancelling falls on the acceptable side.
But the thing is, if you advocate for any personal consequences against the person expressing their opinion, then you're arguing directly against a human right.
> Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS.
OP never said any consequences were acceptable; we have laws against shooting people so clearly such a consequence is proscribed in civil society.
> But the thing is, if you advocate for any personal consequences against the person expressing their opinion, then you're arguing directly against a human right.
By that logic, if someone says something racist and then loses friends or a job because of it, that violates their human rights. But surely we cannot force people to associate with someone who says abhorrent things without in turn violating their rights.
My logic is that, in order to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, there needs to be a line. The moment the "consequences" of expressing an opinion are predominantly punitive is where it needs to stop.
So no, by my logic, you're totally allowed to not be friends with someone who says something racist. As for losing a job, in an ideal world where this person could just get another job, yes, that'd be acceptable. But when it turns into losing the right to have any job whatsoever, then no, that's definitely not okay either.
wesleywt seems to be against this too since removing a legal right like that would require government action and they are againts that as seen in:
> I am for both free speech and getting cancelled for it. In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government.
It seems like you put cancelling on the acceptable side of the line when you say:
> So no, by my logic, you're totally allowed to not be friends with someone who says something racist. As for losing a job, in an ideal world where this person could just get another job, yes, that'd be acceptable.
I normally think of cancelling as individuals deciding who they want to associate with and any consequences that flow from that. Which seems to land on the acceptable side of the line you are drawing.
While government action would not be acceptable, which I agree with, but I would not call cancelling.
Yea but lets not forget the context entirely here; we're talking about a walkout at a university, and people are insinuating that there should be some form of punishment as a consequence.
You can construct a case where social consequences for an expression of opinion do happen and no human rights are infringed, but I'm not arguing that such cases can't exist, so you aren't really proving anything meaningful there.
My point is, to put it clearly: The idea that the right to either free speech or freedom of expression does not guarantee any form of protection from social consequences is completely incorrect.
> In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government.
That's a cute way of spelling "mob rule". It sounds nice because it talks about avoiding "interference", but really, it's a way of avoiding democracy and due justice. If you can't convince the majority of society, then you take matters into your own hands. That's not a system I want to live in.
I think people are saying that:
- The university should repudiate their assertions with the university's words.
- The university should strongly seek to enforce its rules when there are harsher actions than a walkout, such as the vandalism coordinated by group chats.
> but really, it's a way of avoiding democracy and due justice. If you can't convince the majority of society, then you take matters into your own hands. That's not a system I want to live in.
If you convince everyone who would give someone a job that it's not worth the hassle to hire the super racist dude, that's hardly "avoiding democracy".
I mean, you seem to be arguing that the government should somehow force (someone?) to give the super racist person a job so they're not "cancelled."
If you put in active effort to lobby businesses (I mainly care about larger businesses like google & al. here) to not employ people of certain opinions, then that's definitely punitive action rather than personal consequence. And as I said: specifically punishing people for holding certain opinions, whether it is done through the state or not, is antithetical to freedom of opinion and expression.
I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things which have an objective quality of being immoral. Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.
Persecuting a group of people for various criteria is unethical, immoral, evil, whatever you want to call it. I also claim that it is objectively so, and I would like you to argue in good faith how I am wrong about these two facts, instead of - like you accused grand-parent - moving the goal posts.
It is easy to interrupt you argument as semantics, because you can remove 'objectively' from mariusor's statement and the intended meaning does not seem to change much:
'I am arguing that someone that supports an immoral act is immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.'
The main point of the statement does not seem to revolve around or or depend on 'objectively', so your argument can come off as arguing over an irreverent detail, which is one definition arguing over semantics.
>> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits
> I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things which have an objective quality of being immoral. Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.
> Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.
To reword a little bit, it is immoral to persecute(or support the act) a group for arbitrary and trivial detail(s).
So if you agree with that then you and mariusor would have some common ground and could build from there.
mariusor generalized their argument, tried to separate his argument form any specific group, with:
> I am arguing that someone that supports an objectively immoral act is objectively immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.
After common ground is found the next step is to apply the shared understanding or philosophy to the specifics of the issue at hand. This often allows both parties to separate themselves from their biases, at least some, and think more clearly.
Saddam is a bad guy with WMD - let's get rid of him with shock&awe. Oops, we lied to the world and caused 200k deaths, but we are really moral!
Gaddafi is a bad guy who's oppressing the Arab Spring revolution (and threatening the USD). Let's get him with air-strikes and 'freedom-fighters'. Oops Libya fell-apart from a state that had guaranteed healthcare and education to a mess of conflicting factions and a multi-million casualty count. But hey - we are the good guys doing war for 'morality' and freedom. "We came, we saw, he died!"- Hillary Clinton.
Assad is a bad guy who's killing rebels (and siding with bad Russia). Let's get rid of him by giving his opponents (Obama's moderate rebels) infinite ammo, arms and armour. So what if they chained and raped women, united and transmogrified into the ISIS and invaded Iraq - we get another opportunity to bomb the bad guys!
All these 'moral American arguments' are responsible for multi-million deaths and casualties in the world - but doing it for morality makes it OK.
It starts with your campus culture, then those same folks become members of the US state department and want to change the world by through cancelling nation states or enacting sanctions that cause economic collapse and famine.
The thought process that using various means to try to achieve human rights goals?
Oh well maybe you think the civil war was fought on a nice delightful afternoon between tea and cake, and folks shook hands after, slaves were freed and everyone went home, and the president recommend soldiers to go get some tan in the south for the photo op next year.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Emphasis mine.
There is a beautiful expansion by Blackstone. It makes me proud of this place:
> The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.
Citation: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-1/ALD...
What do you mean by this?
> It’s a shibboleth
It is known by all. What definition are you using for "shibboleth"?
> It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman...
There's not a need to refer to the rules in any game unless one participant thinks that the rules have been broken.
And as for shibboleth:
> The term can also be used pejoratively, suggesting that the original meaning of a symbol has in effect been lost and that the symbol now serves merely to identify allegiance, being described as "nothing more than a shibboleth". In 1956, Nobel Prize-laureate economist Paul Samuelson applied the term "shibboleth" in works including Foundations of Economic Analysis to an idea for which "the means becomes the end, and the letter of the law takes precedence over the spirit."[14] Samuelson admitted that "shibboleth" is an imperfect term for this phenomenon.[15]
* different enough that it matters to people who care about modern day politics
This doesn't seem right. Firstly, we generally operate under the principle that laws are created by the populace, not "one man", the censor. That seems to contradict the idea that a control on freedom of speech would be up to the whims of one person, if the censor is restricted in his activities by the voting populace and the lawmakers they elect. Secondly, this type of restriction has precedent in several other important areas of life, such as food and drugs. While many people disagree with the FDA's decisions, very few people argue for its abolition in its role as a 'censor' of which products can be sold and in what quantities on the American market.
Of course, the usual retort would be "I trust the state to regulate food and drugs more than I trust it to regulate speech", but to convince someone else of that point, you'd have to also provide evidence and reasoning that our hypothetical censor cannot be trusted to censor according to the law that the citizens vote for via their representatives. Another retort would be "Free speech is more important than food and drug availability", but that statement implicitly admits there's an issue with any food regulation, it's just not as important as speech, which leads to the question of why so few free speech absolutists care about abolishing the FDA.
I haven't really seen any convincing argument for a slippery slope when it comes to regulation of speech, nor any reasoned argument on why there ought to be an absolute constitutional protection on speech. That said, I'm not personally in love with the idea of a censor, as I've seen that censors in other countries have practiced unjustified censorship - but that seems like a problem with the democratic process and oversight rather than the idea of a censor.