Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zetice | Hacker News Reader

Sigh, every single time this comes up, people gloss over the part of freedom of speech that involves free association.

I’m free to say, “i hate <thing>”, and you’re free to refuse to associate with me as a result of that. It’s so simple. The government can’t, but you can.

As long as we all agree with that, then yeah freedom of speech is great, you just don’t get to stop applying it when you feel satisfied.

View on HN

This argument always comes up too and you end up with certain people trying to force others to bake cakes a certain way. The whole idea of “protected classes” spits in the face of free speech.

I think free speech is a noble goal but can only really exist when we don’t live in a zero sum world. Until then:

> "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more or less." Alice responded to Humpty Dumpty, "The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things?" Humpty Dumpty retorted: "The question is, which is to be master? That's all."

The cake thing isn't about speech but public accomodations.

Exactly, no one is barging into private homes and forcing people to bake cakes for strangers. It’s about what you’re required to do if you’re open for business to the public.

No it wasn’t. The issue was a custom made cake. The court ruled that the cake constituted an artistic expression (i.e. speech) on the part of the baker and they couldn’t be compelled to produce speech they disagreed with. If they just wanted a premade cake there would have been no issue.

Suppose at some point gay marriage is overturned, and some conservative group goes to a gay baker and commissions a cake saying "Hooray no more gay marriage! God is good!". Should they be compelled to bake that cake since they can't discriminate on the basis of religion?

You might disagree with that logic, but the ruling had to do with free speech, not public accommodations. Commissioning a custom work is not a public accommodation.

It's scary how many people still parrot this line, which is 100% incorrect.

The baker was happy to sell them a cake. They had many cakes in the store that they could have bought.

The baker did not want to be compelled to create a custom cake (which he considered his artistic expression), to depict something he didn't agree with.

Imagine forcing an Islamic baker to write "Mohammad was a dirty pedophile" on a cake. Same thing.

Protected classes are a whole different thing, about how what you are isn’t something someone can evaluate you by.

There are so many “exceptions” to free speech, but acting like it’s all or nothing seems silly.

Hate to have to bring up the obvious fact that free association hasn't existed since the 1960s in practice, and in certain ways much longer. I think this is almost certainly a good thing, but it's disingenuous to pretend that free association is something that we practice in the US. It simply isn't the current law and it probably shouldn't be.

It 100% exists, that’s what “cancel culture” actually is.

People also forget that freedom of expression isn't a license to go spreading harmful material that hurts people or undermines the values of democracy itself.

>Guarantee of rights and freedoms – section 1

> >1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

>...

>The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or child pornography.

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-righ...

I suppose you’d be in favor of the McCarthy era Hollywood blacklist of suspected Communists, then?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com