Weird how this line is only ever wheeled out in relation to hate speech apologism.
How the fuck do I delete my account?
"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise."
The interesting and most important question remains. Where do you draw the line? That quote simply implies a limit exists. Which most people will agree with. You will only rarely find absolute free speech absolutist where everything goes.
"[Popper] does not however want us to silence or censor them, but to fight them back with reasonable arguments. He does however say we should have the right to be intolerant (even violently!) to them if they are not ready for a debate, as they may prevent "their followers [from listening] rational argument, because [they say] it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." [0]
The Paradox of tolerance advocates violence against those that would prevent speech, not those with intolerant views, unless those be the same group.
Using the Paradox of tolerance the idea of censoring speech you do not agree with, especially when using government authority to do so (monopoly of violence and all that), would be an intolerant view point, and as it prevents debate, should not be tolerated in a tolerant society, and in the end should be met with violence.
> Never mind. I’m wrong about everything as usual. > How the fuck do I delete my account?
Admitting you said something incorrect takes courage and it never feels great. Everyone says something incorrect about something at some point. I would have no account if I deleted it every time I said something incorrect. God knows I make mistakes on a regular basis. Just because you said something incorrect now does not mean you will have nothing positive to contribute to another discussion. Just take it as an learning opportunity.
Can I delete my account?
We try not to delete entire account histories because that would gut the threads the account had participated in. However, we care about protecting individual users and take care of privacy requests every day, so if we can help, please email hn@ycombinator.com. We don't want anyone to get in trouble from anything they posted to HN. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23623799
What kind speech would need to be defended with such a moralistic statement?
It seems to me like phrases like this are the go-to when defending speech that many or most might be offended by. If most aren't offended by it there's really no defending needed.
To your point, only reprehensible or unpopular speech must be defended by the principle. As you say, speech that is popular and uncontroversial would not need defending. Do you want to live in a society where you may only express approved and uncontroversial views? If you have controversial or unpopular views, then you protect your right to express them by defending the principle of free speech, even for those with whom you disagree, even abhor.
80 years ago racists had power and tried prevent those looking for racial equality from speaking.
Now the anti-racist have power and are using that power to prevent the speech of the weaker group.
Always look at the power dynamic, not whether you agree with the speech or not.
Recently (in the last few years), I've seen it used 1) to argue against misinformation bans (specifically anti-vax nonsense), 2) to argue in favor of allowing equal time to political opponents, 3) as a defense of permitting Palestinian/pro-Hamas protests and publicly fact-checking their claims, rather than banning them, and I'm sure there have been others. The third case would support your "hate speech" contention, but the other two were in the spirit of the article.
People who value a free market of ideas trot this out a lot. You also here things like "Free speech only has value when you extend it to those you disagree with" or "Free speech means people have a right to tell you things you don't want to hear."
Perhaps you only notice when it's applied to things you consider hate speech, or assume it (since I didn't see anything in the article about it)?
- Criticism of COVID response
- Concerns about the medical patriarchy
- Concerns about infringement on free speech
- Concerns about election integrity
- Pick your current global armed conflict
- Pretty much anything on the Internet that isn't fully accepting of the post-capitalist post-scarcity view of the global economy
- Revolution in Bangladesh
- The seizure of HK a few years ago
- Julian Assange (I believe) has a gag order as a result of his plea deal.
- Whistleblowers in the agri/aero/chem/etc industries
The list goes on and on. Critically, one person's "hate speech" is another's "apt criticism," and vice versa.
You need to come with facts.
“I criticize [Covid|Climate change|election…]
That’s not criticism until you supply evidence.