Comment by somenameforme | Hacker News Reader

Comment by somenameforme | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

They're not vague in the least, but pointing this out drives anger and cognitive dissonance in people because people want to imagine that they support these values, particularly if they did so when they were younger. For the most unambiguously and plainly obvious - free speech means free speech, not approved speech. You can actually see this cognitive dissonance play out most overtly in Wikipedia's definition of authoritarianism. [1] The meaning of the term has been edited to the point of completely redefining it, relative to its definition of 20 years ago [2], even though the definition of authoritarianism has itself not really changed in that time frame, and the older definition matches the normal definition (and connotation) of it vastly more than the 'modern' version.

The study you mentioned was, even at the time of its publication, quite dubious - finding a negligible correlation (0.23) in amygdalae size in a very non-representative sampling. In a replication attempt that correlation was found to overstate it by more than 3x, finding a correlation of 0.068, which is essentially statistical noise. There's nothing there except clickbait media doing their thing. I'd also add that framing the amygdala as the 'fear center' is itself also quite ridiculous. There also remains the question of identity. I consider myself liberal. I imagine you would object. Who's right? Ah modern 'science', but there I go again challenging that hierarchy.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authoritarianism&...

> You can actually see this cognitive dissonance play out most overtly in Wikipedia's definition of authoritarianism.

I'd say a more overt example is playing out on the national stage, where protests in support of (murdered, raped, and starving) Palestinians in Gaza are crushed, because the alternative is to have the executive branch try to extort a $Billion dollars from the host campus, putting universities in peril, to help buy another gold-plated plane or something.

"Free speech means free speech" is a tautology and does absolutely nothing to counter the idea that it could mean either freedom to oppose the government, freedom to spam, or freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater. In fact it's very conspicuously a purely emotional statement with zero logical content; anyone who uses this response is conspicuously asserting that they don't care about logical argument.

The assertion that Wikipedia has more content than it did in 2004 is also logically void.

The 'freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater' argument against free speech is such a perfect illustration of the issue. That was an argument made by Mr. Eugenics himself, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, in a famous case Schneck vs United States. [1]

In it Charles Schneck was convicted for an absolutely abhorrent crime. He sent out fliers to men drafted for WW1 informing them of a legal defense against the draft - of it constituting involuntary servitude, which was prohibited by the 13th Amendment, and encouraging them to consequently assert their legal rights and work to resist the draft.

For this, he was arrested and put in prison, with the government claiming that his mailed fliers were akin to 'shouting fire in a crowded theater.' This is why free speech means free speech. Limitations are invariably weaponized by authoritarian forces to shoehorn essentially everything into that limitation.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

When I say "freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater" I mean "freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater" and not "freedom to hand out fliers informing people that the draft is illegal involuntary servitude".

https://x.com/raffysoanti/status/1403093629086965760

It doesn't matter what you think such a restriction means. What matters is what politicians would use it for. That's why this is such a beautifully ironic quote, because when I say the right to ban such speech would open the door to abuse, I don't need to draw on hypotheticals.

The quote is literally part of the government's [successful] argument that their right to imprison somebody for shouting fire in a crowded theater naturally grants them the right to imprison somebody for handing out informative fliers that run contrary to warmonger interests.

There's no stronger argument for free speech means free speech than the quote you chose.

So you do believe everyone should have the right to walk into a crowded theater and yell FIRE! and this should be constitutionally protected, because if there's any speech that isn't constitutionally protected, no speech is constitutionally protected?

What about the speech of "I will pay you $50 to stab that guy right now"? Constitutionally protected or do you believe that should be past a limit?

The consequences of an action can be prohibited without touching the action itself. For instance most of every state has laws against signaling a false alarm. It doesn't matter whether you do that by triggering a fire alarm, playing an extremely loud fire alarm type sound, shouting fire, or whatever else - it's all illegal.

Not only does this prevent trampling on speech and minimize abuse, but it's also far more to the point. Because why is shouting fire uniquely awful while shouting penis is just some kids being annoying that should simply be kicked out of a theater? It's not because of the words obviously, but because of the consequence created.

If there was a law against forming a suicide cult you'd still count it as a first amendment violation since cults are formed using speech, right?

I think it should be illegal to spread Nazism, but Nazism is spread using speech so people keep telling me that would be a first amendment violation.

Absolutely, those are great examples of things that are protected by free speech. When the ACLU was at the height of its reputation, and the US at the height of its soft power, we even had things like the ACLU defending the right of a literal nazi group to stage a march. And the various death cults the US has had were also all operating completely legally.

The paradox of tolerance is largely nonsensical, because the key to a free society is free speech but stringent, and blind, enforcement against actions. Somebody can larp out with their swastikas and roman salutes all they want, but the second they lay hands on anybody - they're going to have a few years in a cage to rethink their life decisions. If they repeat this onto a third time, the key gets thrown away.

In general I think that the liberties of the worst of society work in many ways like a canary in the coalmine for the rest of us. As soon as that canary dies it's not long before your government, with its 29% approval rating, is trying to do things like ban the highest polling party in the country under ridiculous mental gymnastics that, in reality, come down to little more than 'we want to stay in power.'

I would also add that, once they do lay their hands on someone (or actively conspire to), I think it's perfectly fine to respond with heftier penalties if the motivation for it is Nazi ideology or other similar stuff. It's not a free speech matter at that point.

Absolutely. The situation where a couple of guys get into a relatively normal fight, and one where a guy seeks somebody out because of any reason are obviously very different - and should be treated differently under the law.

In this regard I also think hate crimes miss the mark, because is something like 'the knockout game' a hate crime? Probably not, but I think it should be treated in a similar fashion because it's essentially the same problem - of some ideology driving somebody to violence, as opposed to a normal personal conflict.

So you believe it should be legal to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre as long as you don't physically batter anyone?

If all you have is a ridiculous strawman, why bother posting?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44908426

Reply on news.ycombinator.com