Hacker News Reader

Comment by bananapub | Hacker News Reader

why are the "free speech absolutists" so transparently awful on actual assaults on actual free speech, rather than people being socially excluded for being arseholes?

are there any notable actual free speech fans?

View on HN

Because most "free speech absolutists" don't actually care about free speech; they just want to be arseholes without consequences, and "but muh freeze peach!" is a handy rallying cry.

"Free speech absolutists" are always unpopular because they tend to be the only ones supporting the rights of detestable individuals. That's probably why you notice them and it's probably why you're seemingly critical of their character.

You seem to be suggesting that "free speech absolutists" don't care about "actual free speech". I'm not sure how you're defining "actual free speech" here, but I'll assume it's state suppression of speech. I can only speak for myself, but personally I am concerned about all suppression of speech. Perhaps where we differ is that I don't really care if it's a mega corp suppressing speech or a government. I don't care if 99% of people disagree with what's being said. I think the fact we culturally compromising our position on free speech today is what gives governments the power to suppress speech. If it's wrong to say something on Facebook, then perhaps its wrong to say it generally?

If I can't call you something derogatory on Facebook, then why should I be able allowed to say derogatory things to the police? If derogatory language is unacceptable, then it's unacceptable. This is the position European countries have now taken on speech because culturally that is now what people want. If people were tolerant of speech as a principle then this would never have happened.

> "Free speech absolutists" are always unpopular because they tend to be the only ones supporting the rights of detestable individuals. That's probably why you notice them and it's probably why you're seemingly critical of their character.

Can you please list some of these people?

A couple off the top of my head...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Silverglate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Charles_Kors

Here's an interview with Silverglate where he discusses being an "absolutist" right in the introduction to the interview (briefly): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgTjSrrf6GQ

Thanks for point them out, I hadn't heard of them. Are you sure that these two are typical of the people that OP was writing about though?

The OP, insofar as I can tell is looking at the apparent inconsistencies of a single person that claims that title and is extrapolating from there. Thus their closing question. I'm making some assumption there, but there are enough clues in the OPs text to make that a reasonable assumption. My point is that, without too much effort, you can find others that don't fit that implicit premise.

Another I just thought of is Nat Hentoff https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/309340.Free_Speech_for_M...

I think your assumptions about OPs arguments are correct. I think a more charitable way of looking at it though is that one must confront what loudest people with a following are doing with a public issue, because regardless of who is or is not the 'true' representative, the loud ones with the followings are going to end up (have ended up?) defining it.

Perhaps a better take than to limit arguing on the point of what is actually 'free speech absolutism' would be to argue that those to whom the OP refers are not actually representatives are are bad faith actors? After such one can define it, or, better yet, come up with a new set of terms not yet defined out of bounds.

If downvoting, please explain your disagreement. If I'm wrong about something I would like to understand why.

I don't have an argument, you're just wrong because I dislike your point.

But seriously: apparently the logic is that we can say almost whatever we want to the police, whom we interact with less. But we can't freely speak towards our peers, which is the larger of the two issues, because we speak to them daily. Makes no sense.

"Free speech" in relation to constitutional law, and "free speech" in the sense of what people appeal to when getting in trouble with a fellow member of civil society for something they've said have absolutely nothing to do with each other. When I encounter someone on the internet who doesn't know the difference (or, worse, doesn't think there is or should be a difference), I immediately picture that person as a teenager.

I'm confused, was he being an arsehole?

No, the point is that the "free speech absolutists" don't show up in these sorts of cases. If it isn't about left wing college students, left wing professors, or social media companies then the "free speech absolutists" are typically nowhere to be found.

Hm, reason.com is pretty free speech absolutist...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com