Hacker News Reader

Comment by wwtrv | Hacker News Reader

Amongst other examples:

https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/e-s-v-a....

Not that I'm a particularly huge fan of some of the opinions that some of these people tend to express (to be fair in this case it's something that Muslims/their holy books acknowledge as well so it shouldn't be controversial at all...) but the whole idea of "balancing the rights to freedom of religion and expression" just seems extremely repulsive to me.

Of course this is a spectrum but having an (effectively) immutable constitution that guarantees freedom of speech is certainly worth something.

View on HN

The issue is when "free speech absolutists" often aren't actually that. They'll stand up to defend folks like the ones from the case you cited because "Free Speech". Yet, they'll also defend laws like the ones passed earlier in the year by the US House about codifying the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism.

> spectrum

The spectrum is far too often simply colored by the politics one's interested in, i.e. Free Speech is simply a tool to attack another and provide justification for their own opinions. Not an actual Free Speech position.

I don't believe anyone truly has a Free Speech Absolutist position. It's always just a tool. When the speech is against you, everyone conveniently turns against it.

>they'll also defend laws like the ones passed earlier in the year by the US House about codifying the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism.

Anyone who defended that isn't even close to a free-speech absolutist.

>I don't believe anyone truly has a Free Speech Absolutist position

I do. It's what makes America great. Erosions like that jewish law are slowly weakening that.

You should be allowed to say whatever you want about White people, straight people, men, Christians, etc. and I should be able to say whatever I want about jews.

You just don't want to acknowledge such a stance is possible because the people you agree with are in power, allow the speech you agree with, and censor the speech you don't disagree with, so you stand with nothing to gain by supporting free speech. That's a personal choice to have no integrity.

Should I be able to make wild claims about my product to trick you into buying it? False claims about my buisness performance to pump the stock? Lies about your character? Your kids? made up stuff that whips up entire segments of your city to commit violence or vandalism against you?

Because absolute free speech is allowing all that without consequence

Yes. The free market would solve the first two, the next two aren't even crimes currently, and with the last the crime is the violence/vandalism not someone telling a fib.

Firstly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Secondly, you're okay with someone inciting violence/vandalism/crimes, and people acting explicitly on that person's direction, as long as only the actual violence/vandalism/crime is punished?

Defamation shouldn't exist (see Alex Jones, that's an insane situation to be told to pay $1.5 BILLION for sharing an opinion) but the standards are generally higher than "someone told lies about my character" at least.

Yes. Everyone has agency, if I tell you to commit a crime it's up to you whether to do so.

Well I'm glad the vast majority of people don't agree with you and actually recognize there's nuance here.

The vast majority of people don't like being censored

“The free market would fix it” quite spiritually similar to “god will provide” or “prayer solves everything.”

Maybe, maybe with an unwieldy amount of time the rubes would all die out as they administer snake oil to themselves and their families, the pyramid schemes all collapse under the weight of their inability to produce the results their funders sought, and the collective, unorganized and ungovernmented multitudes publicly shame and criticize those industry leaders who conducted research into the effects of their products, but decided instead to make some shit up to sell more.

Maybe more likely: as the divine wisdom of the heavenly free market dictates, a few really good liars get a massive foothold and build empires on it. And maybe in the truest American free market fashion, these opportunities to profit from fraud are available to everyone! Even if you’re not clever enough to build an empire, you can at least move state to state, lying, selling more slow-burn poison, all the while with the cops backing you up when the mob forms, because fraud and the affects of lying are as protected as saying something ignorant or mean.

Poisoning people isn't speech. If I sell you a product that actually gives you cancer and say it doesn't, the crime shouldn't be that I lied, it should be that I gave you cancer.

Okay cool, so when it comes to using oil/gasoline as a fuel source should that be made non-free speech if I sell this despite the fact that there's clear evidence that it causes among other things cancer?

I don't say it doesn't I don't say it does.

And liable isn't a crime? What's then stopping people from calling each other pedophiles which in turn causes them to lose jobs/relationships/etc.

Should Alex Jones have been convicted of liable due to his claims surrounding Sandy hook?

I'm no free speech absolutist, as you'll end up eating your own tail, but I'm a 100% believer in free speech that does not legitimize malicious use (just because you lie about someone doesn't mean you will be prosecuted that if there were to be a law enacted then free speech won't protect said lie), such as no liable, no threat of violence, no willfully scamming/swindling and no abuse of authoritative/alertive speech (as in saying fire in a theater when there is no fire).

Metaphors dawg

It seems to me that a truly free speech absolutist reply would be “yes” to all of the above.

But I submit that given our current state of affairs as a species, I don’t think we could handle that “yes”.

That “yes” coexisting in a harmonious world that is safe and sound would require that speech that incites violence or vandalism isn’t acted upon, for example. That the market could and would reliably be able to detect and counter deceitful manipulation. That somehow the market would be able to do the same with lies about a product or service.

It also suggests abdicating accountability for when such a seemingly perfect system would fail and result in harm.

These things seem implausible in our current reality. A lack of accountability seems undesirable generally and is already something that we suffer enough.

> Should I be able to make wild claims about my product to trick you into buying it? False claims about my buisness performance to pump the stock?

If you also abolish the notion of intellectual property as well as trade secrets, both of which are severe limitations on free speech, then sure. Otherwise it's just another case of wanting free speech when it suits the company but wanting to restrict it when it doesn't.

> Lies about your character? Your kids? made up stuff that whips up entire segments of your city to commit violence or vandalism against you?

Sure, as long as the actual violence and vandalism is harshly punished to discourage people from acting on falsehoods. The speech was never the real problem here.

Problem is the damage is already done. You lost your job. Your kid committed suicide. The mod has murdered.

You can’t undo that, not to mention it not illegal to fire someone because if you read some false facts in the paper

Punishing someone for "bad" speech is also not going to prevent that.

Both approaches rely on punishment disincentivizing others from behaving in the same way. Except that "hate speech" laws are a bludgeon that a) can be easily circumvented by clever speech that is still going to encourage violence and b) is guaranteed to be used sooner or later as a pretense to silence dissidents whose speech would not result in violence. They are really only one tiny step removed from trying to combat thought crimes. Better to disincentivize the behavior that is actually a problem for society (i.e. violence) rather than something as vague and subjective as "hate speech" that may or may not lead to it.

> Not to mention it not illegal to fire someone because if you read some false facts in the paper

Some countries have strong worker protections that actually make it quite hard to fire someone without a good reason.

“Punishing someone for theft or murder isn’t going to prevent that”

Is basically the argument you’re making here. So I guess we shouldn’t have any punishment for any behaviour then eh?

You might try reading the rest of the comment.

>Because absolute free speech is allowing all that without consequence

Freedom of speech is absolutely not about freedom from consequences. Where and how did you ever get that idea?

Free speech means you can say anything you want, some very specific caveats aside, and you can't be prosecuted simply for saying them. But that doesn't mean you won't have to answer for what happens as a consequence.

As an example: You absolutely can go and make wild claims about your product to try and sell it, nobody can stop you from doing that. You absolutely can make bogus claims about someone, nobody can stop you from doing that either. However, you will be prosecuted for making false statements and defamation respectively by the people you harmed. Note what is prosecuted here: The effects of the false and perhaps even sinister nature of the statement, not the statement itself.

Literal people on this site arguing that people should be free from consequences. Replies to my comment here saying “defamation shouldn’t exist Alex jones did nothing wrong”

He didn't. Sharing a conspiracy theory should not be illegal just because it makes people upset. Horrifyingly anti-American precedent

Honestly, pretending that that's all he was responsible for is far more anti-American.

That is all he did.

It was proved in a court of law that no. That’s not all he did.

It was all he did yes, that was the justification for the 1.5 billion dollar fine.

No it was not. Stop lying And making up facts like Alex jones did.

> Anyone who defended that isn't even close to a free-speech absolutist.

No True Scotsman.

> You just don't want to acknowledge such a stance is possible because the people you agree with are in power, allow the speech you agree with, and censor the speech you don't disagree with, so you stand with nothing to gain by supporting free speech. That's a personal choice to have no integrity.

... I am not American, neither do I have anyone in power who supports the speech I agree with. There's no need to attack me specifically. I am talking about the wider pattern. Free Speech Absolutists exist as long as the speech they support is being oppressed. Do you support Free Speech of the person screaming obscenities at your young child? False claims about you? Whipping up entire communities to attack you physically? Do you support speech that incites genocide?

Yes, some of those are crimes but I am not sure you'd care if you'd been attacked already. The damage is done.

>No True Scotsman.

Nope. If you support laws that censor criticism of israel you are not a free speech supporter, let alone an absolutist. The term has a very clear definition and it's the opposite of what the antisemitism law entails.

>... I am not American, neither do I have anyone in power who supports the speech I agree with.

Did I say you were American? All of Europe and many parts of Asia are way worse when it comes to free speech.

>Do you support Free Speech of the person screaming obscenities at your young child? False claims about you? Whipping up entire communities to attack you physically?

Yes. If it's just words and not a direct threat it's fine.

Direct threats are a fine exception because they promise crossing over from words into physical action, at that point the NAP is violated if you want to look at it that way. No need to wait and see if they're actually going to follow through.

Aside from that I really don't see any need for further exceptions.

> >Do you support Free Speech of the person screaming obscenities at your young child? False claims about you? Whipping up entire communities to attack you physically? > > Yes. If it's just words and not a direct threat it's fine. > > Direct threats are a fine exception because they promise crossing over from words into physical action, at that point the NAP is violated if you want to look at it that way. No need to wait and see if they're actually going to follow through. > > Aside from that I really don't see any need for further exceptions.

I'd argue that someone who has effectively control over some kind of mob riling them up is quite a bit more threatening than a "direct threat" if they know that mob contains people that will (or even just are very likely to) commit violence as a result of it: instead of making one direct threat, they generate multiple (indirect and possibility silent) ones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com