The Tongue Is a Fire | Hacker News Reader

The Tongue Is a Fire

lrb.co.uk

25 pointsPetiver44 comments

This is what makes Hacker News such an astounding resource for thought provoking insight. I take the American perspective on free speech as nearly a theological imperative despite the problematic side effects. The alternatives strike me as far worse. Free speech drives faster resolution and remediation to the socially unacceptable. The ideas and behaviors highlighted by the reviewer are not new to society and collectively we do not stand in a place in a place, "never before seen." Our tools for communicating, identifying, and correcting the evils in this world are better than ever. Evil is just so damned ingenious. That isn't speech's fault.

> Our tools for communicating, identifying, and correcting the evils in this world are better than ever.

Are they really? It feels like fascist propaganda never spread so fast and so far than with social media. X is infested with neo-nazis casually discussing the jewish question or fantasizing about a coming race war on the front page. Fox News is a well-oiled oligarch-funded lie machine that never stops spinning narratives in service of power.

To me, that such a large portion of the country is gleefully cheering on ICE parting sick children from their parents [1] is proof enough of the absolute failure of our systems of information and free speech laws in addessing the rising issue of right-wing populism.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g8yj2n33yo

> I take the American perspective on free speech as nearly a theological imperative

Is this the one where books get pulled from school libraries if they mention the existence of gay people?

(as I argue lower down, the US has a whole bunch of restrictions on speech that it avoids dealing with by saying "not speech" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44029515 )

To me, the only reasonable exception that might exist to totally unrestricted speech is paid speech. If the courts really wishes to foster a state of free speech, then it should recognize that doing so requires the regulation of contractually obligated speech. Advertising, paid endorsements, Public relations firms, these are all things that obviously must be regulated, perhaps out of existence.

And as an aside, deporting people (back to their home countries) over their ideology is appropriate. The administration was recently elected to do just that. Deportations are legal, and the US public voted for them. The mandate is clear.

Deportations without due process aren't though. And what does it even mean to deport citizens?

Republicans have to stop with this "mandate" argument. Being elected doesn't make the president all-powerful, they still have to abide by the law.

You cannot deport citizens, and I believe that I am not arguing that you can, however, the process due to non-citizens is very minimal. You and your belongings are being returned to your country, where you will be free to do with them whatever you please. It's not incarceration, or a fine, we're just kicking you out, and we can basically do that at our discretion.

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

The way this administration is doing their deportations is illegal, that's all I'm saying, and at this point it is not an opinion.

I agree! But this is very different from "the first amendment protects you from deportation".

Incredible that someone might combine the American "free speech is absolutely everything" with "it's good to deport people for their speech" in two short paragraphs, but I guess that's where conservativism is at nowadays.

I don't think there's much "reconciliation" going on in the heads of a lot of folks who support modern day republicans.

As in - they don't bother to try to reconcile different thoughts and ideas into a coherent chain. There's no consideration for how the words said in this sentence might impact the words said just a sentence or two before.

It's just smushed together into canvas of "vaguely decent sounding gibberish". Each sentence by itself is somewhat coherent, but when you take the entire paragraph... it lacks internal consistency.

I'm not a conservative. I'm absolutely in favor of free speech, modulo paid speech, as I listed above.

Deportation does require some process, but you're not being charged with a crime, you're being returned to freedom in your own country. If a democratically elected government demonstrates that you are not a citizen, and judges that the country would be better off without you in it, and further gained its mandate from the position that it would deport you, I'd be hard pressed to find a legal reason why this policy should be prevented. The first amendment protects you from prosecution, not deportation. We'll see if the supreme court agrees.

So .. where are the speech rules for visa holders written down?

The important thing in rule of law is that it should be possible to comply. If visa holders were told that not engaging in political speech or holding certain views in public was a condition of their visa, then it's somewhat defensible.

What are the speech laws that apply here?

Or are you arguing that visas are pure whimsy? That they're awarded based on whether elected officials like you or not?

You're not being imprisoned, executed, or fined. You're being sent home.

Some of them very much are being imprisoned, and deportations are not all to the country of origin.

Also, if the US government is doing deportations *for speech*, that's definitely 100% a free speech issue.

Deportation is if nothing else a significant financial loss to people. And forcible deportation comes with a period of imprisonment.

Let's not forget that people being sent to El Salvador who are not from there are not being deported, they're very definitely being imprisoned.

>forcible deportation comes with a period of imprisonment.

You are at any point free to get on a plane home.

>Let's not forget that people being sent to El Salvador

Sure, but they aren't being rendered to El Salvador for their speech, which is what this particular conversation is about.

> You're not being imprisoned, executed, or fined. You're being sent home.

Why do you think this matters? Further, why do you think this isn't a punishment (often of greater impact than a fine? Nothing like paying for 3/4 of a top tier ivy diploma only to be sent home a few semesters before graduating - nifty little 100k fine right there...)

These are clear punishments applied by the admin towards a group of people making specific speech they don't like.

You are ok with that.

Ipso facto - you are not pro free speech.

I... don't really know why you're bothering to argue that you are.

Yet if a citizen of the country makes the same identical speech and has the same identical ideology, it’s now 100% acceptable and should carry no legal consequences? What is it about the specific combination of speech and citizenship, which suddenly creates a danger for society? What about speech which is done anonymously, is that more or less dangerous that the same speech made by a known citizen? Should all speech require proof of citizenship beforehand?

So speech should be totally unrestricted, unless that speech is made by someone whose ideology you don't like, who doesn't happen to be born here.

In which case that speech should be restricted by removing them, without due process and without recourse?

Am I understanding you correctly?

Not without due process, but I'm not sure what you think that means. No one is putting you in prison, you're being sent home. Do you think that by saying heinous shit, you are de facto granted citizenship?

> heinous shit

Code for - things you don't like. Check.

> No one is putting you in prison, you're being sent home.

We are breaking a valid grant of access, without recourse.

My take here is that you're basically in favor of recent attempts to try to revoke visas and deport students who are saying "heinous shit" (you know, heinous, terrible things like: "Maybe the people in Gaza are actually people" and "Maybe Israel should stop killing journalists and aide organization members trying to help those people" - absolute, utter batshit speech apparently. According to you)

But "being sent home" is a bit light. An alternative take might be "I paid 100k so far for this diploma, and you're sending me home the year before I graduate."

Or "I'm literally living with my (US citizens) family in student housing at this university, and you're deporting me now".

And... while I agree visa holders can and should probably have some clear restrictions and requirements...

I think your take is pretty fucking far away from "speech should be unrestricted".

Your stance is not coherent. This is an admin restricting speech of people they think are vulnerable, by imposing clear punishment to coerce silence. Why does that not irritate you if you think speech should be unrestricted?

Are you unable to comprehend how those are related?

Do you not care?

Are you convinced these people are saying things "heinous" enough that suddenly you don't actually want free speech at all?

Basically - help me understand how your reconcile those views internally, because they don't paint a clear picture as you've expressed them here.

>> heinous shit

>Code for - things you don't like. Check.

Do you think that saying things that I don't like should de facto grant you citizenship?

I'm saying that "free speech" means they can say things without being intentionally targeted for removal by the government.

These people aren't illegal immigrants - we're talking about revoking the visas for people here legally under visa programs.

So go answer the question (or keep desperately refusing to...):

Why should a visa holder be targeted and removed for making use of their free speech? How does that reconcile in your head with "I'm all for free speech".

---

> Do you think that saying things that I don't like should de facto grant you citizenship?

This is... gently put - A stupid fucking response. I'm saying that a visa holder shouldn't be removed or otherwise punished for making speech. I think speech shouldn't really impact their visa outside of some clear and sane limits (ex - if they advocate violently overthrowing the US government... sure, lets talk about that visa).

They are here legally with legal visa - why do you confidently proclaim that you are for free speech if you believe that their speech should result in revoked visas?

That's not free speech. That's curtailed speech. AKA - you are not pro free speech.

> I'm saying that a visa holder shouldn't be removed or otherwise punished for making speech.

You seem to think that being sent to your own country is a punishment. I do not. This is going to be a sticking point if you are trying to convince me of something.

Revoking a valid visa over speech is not a punishment?

Would the visa otherwise be valid?

I'm not trying to convince you of fuck all - I am stating that you are not pro free speech. You can tell yourself whatever you'd like...

Winning with a 49.8% popular vote is hardly a "mandate".

Winning an election in a democratic country is a mandate. I also wish Trump wasn't elected president, but he definitely was.

There are two sorts of free speech absolutists. Those without power whom merely want to be heard and those with power who would not be limited in its exercise.

Trump believes in free speech for the far-right and fascists, and deportation for students speaking against his actions.

Remarkably, the boundary between public goods and public bads, which presumably each citizen ought to be fascinated by,

Does not lie on the spectrum.

How would one redefine either of the extremal points (or, more concisely, the notion of speech itself) so that it does?

https://archive.is/D97iG

> without freedom of speech: which is the right of every man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the right of another. And this is the only check which it ought to suffer, the only bounds it ought to know.

The latter part is often ignored from free speech absolutists but only as long it’s about their free speech.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

Or as the most recent absurd social media controversy: what does "86 49" refer to and to what extent is it a threat?

I find this particular controversy to be exceptionally hypocritical, given that it was only a few months ago that the people chanting "Hang Mike Pence" at some point between standing in front of a gallows and unlawfully trespassing government premises… were pardoned by Trump.

But the point is still valid.

My stance on free speech is now that we need hate speech laws. The main argument against them, as I understand it, is always "that's a slippery slope toward authoritarianism". Truth is, when fascists get into power, whatever the law says will not save you from their potential desire to censor you. Allowing them to propagate their hateful ideas before then only serves their cause. It's the paradox of tolerance [1].

> If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.

And indeed, many of those that claimed to be "free speech absolutists" before nov. 5 2025 are now cheering on books burnings and deporting citizens without due process. They simply brandished "free speech" as a defense everytime someone rightfully pointed out how bigoted and hateful the lies they spouted were, and never believed in it as a philosophical or legal ideal. To them, this "free speech" aestethic was always a mean to an end, taking advantage of a weak opposition that believed too much in the power of institutions and law.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Hear hear!

I believe in due process of law and absolute free speech. Guess I don't exist. Honestly, that's such a relief.

Got it, no need for such abrasiveness. I tweaked my previous comment, you're right: not every free speech absolutist is a hypocrite.

> absolute free speech

So.. where's the real boundary? Fraud? CSAM? Other media deemed obscene? FOSTA/SESTA related matters? Death threats? Actions adjacent to death threats, like posting a picture of someone's face and address with a target photoshopped on them? Overt advocacy of violence against the state?

(people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here)

Fraud is illegal because it's fraud, not because it's the wrong kind of speech. I mean, yes, fraud usually involves an element of saying something. But the issue is the act of defrauding someone, not the words they used in the process.

Free speech has never been conceived as giving you a right to commit fraud, extortion, bribery, criminal conspiracy, blackmail, treason, leaking classified information... the list is long. If you're going to commit a crime, and part of the crime is implemented as communication, "free speech" is not a defense. Never has been. If you think otherwise, your understanding of what "free speech" means in the US is faulty.

Well then, aren't death threats a form of speech? Because they're clearly illegal. What about a nazi saying "death to all <insert minority>"? It's just words at the end of the day, and most of them won't act on it, right?

> people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here

Grand parent neatly predicted your response, you are trying to categorize every kind of illegal speech forms as something else than speech. Either you can say whatever you want or you can't. There's no absolutism with restrictions.

First: I'm not saying "that's not actually speech". I'm saying that the crime isn't that it's speech; the crime is that it's fraud. You can't take fraud, speak it, and now it's OK because speech. No, it's still fraud, and it's still illegal because of the fraud, not because of the speech.

Second: There's no "free speech absolutism". Not only does speech not erase other crimes, there are also certain restrictions on free speech as speech. Imminent incitement to violence is one of them.

> First, the zealots today are no longer the progressives on the left – liberals, socialists, trade unionists. Instead they are predominantly on the right: campaigners against immigration, Brexiters, the enemies of Woke, aka Anti Social Justice Warriors, or ‘Anti-SJW’, as they proclaim themselves on their black T-shirts, available online for £15. This switch-around isn’t entirely new.

It has already switched back, now that the right wing is in power. It used to be that you would get your talk cancelled for having views that challenged family values. Now you get deported for having views that challenge the war machine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com