Comment by sirsinsalot | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sirsinsalot | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Because though all voices should be spoken, I personally get to decide what I hear and how loud, and get to choose how I respond.

Across an entire population it has a democratic effect when freedom of speech is in full effect without being restricted or controlled by government for means of shaping the outcome.

If I say "Islamic fundamentalism should be the norm" I will fully expect to be boo'd at, shouted down, blocked, shunned and made unwelcome. That tells me my views are not welcome. I can choose to stay, and keep using my voice, but it'll be counter productive.

So i'll make a space where I can say that Islamic fundamentalism should be the norm, and find like minded people. And if I find enough, we might start a party and get votes. Enough people vote and my islamic fundamentalist government runs the country.

Or, people just keep telling me I am an idiot and that's OK too.

I have big issues with forcing (vs being made uncomfortable by other people's free speech) to move on, but someone's right to say something doesn't trump my right to tell them they are wrong.

> If I say "Islamic fundamentalism should be the norm" I will fully expect to be boo'd at, shouted down, blocked, shunned and made unwelcome. That tells me my views are not welcome. I can choose to stay, and keep using my voice, but it'll be counter productive.

100% agree. But it works both ways, and you cannot say that "cancel culture" is a problem: they are just doing that.

> So i'll make a space where I can say that Islamic fundamentalism should be the norm, and find like minded people. And if I find enough, we might start a party and get votes. Enough people vote and my islamic fundamentalist government runs the country.

Uh? That does not make any sense. If they get enough votes to be elected, it means that the majority of the population will not boo them in the first place. And if you argue that by organizing in a small safe place they've found strategies to convince more and more people, you are just saying that it was wrong (for a freedom of speech point of view, I'm personally in support of some moderation) to boo them in the first place: if their opinions are convincing people, when you were booing them, you were doing exactly what the concept of freedom of speech try to avoid: you were working against the freedom of idea and the possibility for new ideas to find their public.

> I have big issues with forcing (vs being made uncomfortable by other people's free speech) to move on, but someone's right to say something doesn't trump my right to tell them they are wrong.

And inversely, right? right?

I think this is the point: "How does free speech infringe on free speech, exactly?" Exactly like that.

More succinctly: Nothing about free speech requires ANYONE to hear you. If you cannot convince people to listen to you, that is not a violation of your speech.

That disengenuiously misrepresents the problem of cancel culture. Cancel culture is the propagation of a vocal minority conspiring to stop certain topics being discussed, i.e. deplatforming. What cancel culture should be is that some shill hawking defunct idea's can't sell enough tickets to a talk to cover costs and therefore stops, or they end up with no followers and no audience, not someone else taking away my ability to hear certain topics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com