Hacker News Reader

Comment by Georgelemental | Hacker News Reader

I believe in "unconditional free speech" in that I think you have the right to express any opinion*. The manner in which you communicate that opinion can be restricted; otherwise, all laws would be nullified ("but your honor, I murdered Frank to express my disapproval of the Fed's monetary policy! It was free speech!"). However, these restrictions must be agnostic to the content of the speech.

* with defamation (edit: and false advertising, perjury, etc) exception, for things you know are lies when you say them.

View on HN

>The manner in which you communicate that opinion can be restricted;

This is a direct contradiction of "unconditional free speech". Once you allow the manner of speech to be restricted, free speech is no longer unconditional. You just want to believe in "unconditional free speech" because freedom is great and being pro-freedom makes us all feel warm and fuzzy inside. That ideal can't stand up to the complexities of the real world when the rights of multiple people come into direct conflict with each other. There need to be restrictions in both the manner and the content. The only content restriction you listed was defamation, but I have a feeling you would be against at least some of the following: fraud, perjury, false advertising, copyright infringement, threats, incitement to violence, coercion, blackmail, revenge porn, child porn, and the list goes on and on. Suddenly there are a lot of conditions on that "unconditional" and it becomes less clear why some further restriction such as outlawing hate speech would be a monumental infringement on freedom of speech.

> fraud, perjury, false advertising

These, like defamation, fall under "things you know are lies when you say them." I should have phrased that differently, edited.

> copyright infringement, threats, incitement to violence, coercion, blackmail, revenge porn, child porn

Not expressions of opinion, so don't fall under my definition of free speech. (Fair use ensures that copyright law doesn't conflict with free speech/expressing opinions).

> outlawing hate speech

Unlike all the extant restrictions you mentioned, this would make it illegal to express a particular opinion or belief, that you don't know is empirically false.

> complexities of the real world

I do believe this is a nuanced issue with answers that are not always clear-cut. Specifically, it can be hard to tell where government (which has to be fair and neutral) ends, and private organizations (which have the right to their own opinions) start. Everyone interacts with the government in some way, via road system, taxes, regulation, grants, public contracts, etc.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Why would you need a special exception for "things you know are lies when you say them" if you are only categorizing opinions as speech? Seems like you would support the government making a blanket ban on all lies. That wouldn't infringe on the First Amendment according to your definition of speech only being about an expression of opinions.

Also, I don't know why you are categorizing that group as not expressions of opinions. It is certainly possible to frame opinions into those various categories. The most obvious examples are the old "it would be a shame if something happened to..." threats that you see in every bad mob movie.

> you would support the government making a blanket ban on all lies

In theory, this law, if perfectly applied, would not be incompatible with my view of free speech. In practice, such a law would be too broad, because determining whether something is true or not, and whether someone believes it or not, are hard problems that the justice system can't solve in general.

> It is certainly possible to frame opinions into those various categories.

It's possible to frame an opinion into any action, including straightforward murder. But no opinion requires an action in that group to express.

For the "it would be a shame if X" example, the crime is not the words or opinion. In fact, it's perfectly possible to use those same words legally, to express a genuine opinion that X would be bad! The crime is communicating a threat (which is not an opinion) via implication.

The only action is the speech in some of those instances. For example, I have the opinion that politician X is evil and a threat to the country. I publicly declare this opinion by saying "any person who murders politician X would be a true patriot". I have committed no action beyond speech. My speech was purely an opinion. That is still an incitement to violence as it is an encouragement for others to commit a violent crime.

My understanding is, under the precedent set by Brandenburg v. Ohio, the example you give is considered protected speech. "Anyone who murders politician X this Friday, at 4PM EST when he plans to be at this adress, would be a true patriot" is not protected, however; it goes beyond opinion to actual planning of an imminent illegal act.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com