Comment by steego | Hacker News Reader

Comment by steego | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Here’s my counter argument:

Since the popularization of the internet, we have experienced unprecedented levels of free speech that’s never been enjoyed throughout all history and the ability to broadcast the most offensive and unpopular ideas is still magnitudes more free than it was pre-internet.

Make no mistake, as much as people loved to talk about how they championed free speech in the 80s and early 90s, the reality was that ideas that would hardly be considered offensive today got you cancelled back then.

Sinead O’Conner tore up a picture of the pope and was shunned.

Absolute free speech has never been accepted in mainstream venues and I would argue the only thing that has changed over time is what type of speech is considered fashionable.

Honestly, I think the younger generation is not as protective of free speech simply because they have lived in a world where free speech has thrived to the point to where they’re sick of it.

Not only has it thrived, it’s boosted by ad-driven social media companies to antagonize engagement.

Back in my day the saying was, “if bleeds it leads”. We should update it to: “If it enrages, it engages.”

Am I off the mark? Am I missing a more important angle? Does anyone really think we have less free speech today?

>Absolute free speech has never been accepted in mainstream venues and I would argue the only thing that has changed over time is what type of speech is considered fashionable.

Fighting words have almost always been unacceptable, though the historical response may have been a public duel. These days, people just get angry and let it fester, which is a better world but brings new challenges and opportunities.

You're hitting a good mark, that's for sure. Since you mention the Pope, let's look at the Reformation. Even today, the Pope is head of both church and state, but 500 years ago, the Holy Roman Empire covered a significant portion of Europe. At that time, the Bible was not able to be read by European natives, and the Catholic Mass was held in Latin. Essentially, Catholic churchgoers hardly knew what they were practicing.

During the Reformation, Martin Luther created the first German translation of the Bible, and more translations in different languages soon followed. The impact would have been marginal if not for the fact that the printing press had only recently been developed. The cost of bookmaking plummeted (don't need a scribe for every single copy), which allowed commoners to not only have access to the Bible in their native languages but also possess their own copies. As a result, common people read the Bible, and many eventually agreed with Luther and the other Protestants that the Papacy held no divine legitimacy to its claim as the head of the church.

This perspective created an issue: to challenge the power of the Papacy on church matters also challenged its power on state matters. This disagreement eventually led to the Thirty Years War, one of the most brutal wars in history. Yet, out of that war came the Peace of Westphalia, whose principles laid the foundation for modern international relations and the notion of inviolable borders, principles which were extended to American citizenry especially with the Fourth Amendment and were extended to the individual mind with the First Amendment.

Why did I elaborate on all that? The invention of the printing press was the biggest single advancement in the communication of ideas until the Internet came along. Many people and especially entrenched power structures were afraid of the new ideological paradigms which were developing independently, and the old power structures seem more afraid than ever before. Pray our resolution of these fears is less violent this time around.

Thank you for taking the time to elaborate. I always appreciate an historic connection.

I agree. The value of free speech when I was younger was purposeful, subjecting ideas to open critique so only the best could survive. Now the "marketplace of ideas" seems to be full of the high calorie, low nutrient variety.

Do I need to endure people like Milo Yiannopoulos or Ben Shipiro so I can be seen as supporting free speech?

Also, many of them have experienced abuse masquerading as "free speech." Or, generously, they've been influenced by those who experienced it, and are holding the same stance even if they potentially suffered less from it.

>> "Not only has it thrived, it’s boosted by ad-driven social media companies to antagonize engagement."

The love and vociferous defense of "quote dunking" on Twitter, and now Bluesky, is I think the strongest evidence that free speech is alive and well on the center and left. If they wanted to silence someone, they certainly wouldn't drag them in front of all their followers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com