26 ms·

Free speech is a principle. The first amendment states that the US government shall not violate this principle. The principle and the amendment are separate thi

by boutad 7y ago

Free speech is a principle. The first amendment states that the US government shall not violate this principle. The principle and the amendment are separate things.

dangus 7y ago
Free speech is a theory that doesn’t describe anything that actually exists, and it’s used as a crutch to support weirdly political points of outrage. You can’t say what you want without consequences anywhere in life. This makes me think of “How To Win Friends and Influence People.” Saying exactly what’s on your mind will rarely get you the ideal outcome you are after.
- boutad 7y ago
  > Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - gdulli 7y ago
    Read just a little further. > the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". > Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. The real world is messy and rights can't be absolute because each could encroach on others. We try to find the right equilibrium.
    - corporate_shi11 7y ago
      All of what you say is true. And I believe that social media platforms deplatforming people according to arbitrary judgements or public pressure is unacceptable in a free society. It deviates from the "right equilibrium".
    - boutad 7y ago
      > reputation of others This sounds like slander or libel. It also seems that is what is being done to Molyneux, not by him. > protection of national security or of public order (order public) This sounds like making threats. Is Molyneux making threats against people or calling for actual violence? > of public health or morals Blasphemy or obscenity laws? I thought that we were past these things in the west. > The real world is messy and rights can't be absolute because each could encroach on others. Is Molyneux infringing on the rights of other or are others trying to infringe the rights of Molyneux?
      - viro 7y ago
        It wouldn't be very hard to argue scientific racisms very purpose is to encroach on the rights of other races. By painting them as lesser and dehumanizing them.
        boutad 7y ago
        Considering he is an anarchist, I don't think he is trying to encroach on the rights of anyone.
GaryNumanVevo 7y ago
Hate speech is anti-free speech as a principle. Hate speech, which Moleyneux is known for, is actively trying to step on the free speech of others.
- boutad 7y ago
  Can you point me to where he is trying to step on the free speech of others? That seems like what you are doing. By saying his ideas are hate, you are trying to stop him from saying them.
- corporate_shi11 7y ago
  "Hate speech" is one of the most abused terms in political discourse today, so often being used by people as a mere political cudgel. Ignoring that for a moment, how is Moleyneux preventing others from reaching an audience, which would be the definition of stifling speech? It seems the only groups actually responsible for doing that are the social media companies so fond of deplatforming people because of either capricious and arbitrary enforcement of standards or public pressure campaigns. Why don't you just come out and admit it: you don't like what Moleyneux has to say, and you are happy he is being deplatformed. Simple as that. I don't like what Moleyneux has to say either, but capricious deplatforming makes a mockery of free speech.

by boutad 7y ago

Free speech is a principle. The first amendment states that the US government shall not violate this principle. The principle and the amendment are separate things.

dangus 7y ago

Free speech is a theory that doesn’t describe anything that actually exists, and it’s used as a crutch to support weirdly political points of outrage. You can’t say what you want without consequences anywhere in life. This makes me think of “How To Win Friends and Influence People.” Saying exactly what’s on your mind will rarely get you the ideal outcome you are after.

boutad 7y ago
> Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gdulli 7y ago
  Read just a little further. > the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". > Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. The real world is messy and rights can't be absolute because each could encroach on others. We try to find the right equilibrium.
  - corporate_shi11 7y ago
    All of what you say is true. And I believe that social media platforms deplatforming people according to arbitrary judgements or public pressure is unacceptable in a free society. It deviates from the "right equilibrium".
  - boutad 7y ago
    > reputation of others This sounds like slander or libel. It also seems that is what is being done to Molyneux, not by him. > protection of national security or of public order (order public) This sounds like making threats. Is Molyneux making threats against people or calling for actual violence? > of public health or morals Blasphemy or obscenity laws? I thought that we were past these things in the west. > The real world is messy and rights can't be absolute because each could encroach on others. Is Molyneux infringing on the rights of other or are others trying to infringe the rights of Molyneux?
    - viro 7y ago
      It wouldn't be very hard to argue scientific racisms very purpose is to encroach on the rights of other races. By painting them as lesser and dehumanizing them.
      - boutad 7y ago
        Considering he is an anarchist, I don't think he is trying to encroach on the rights of anyone.

GaryNumanVevo 7y ago

Hate speech is anti-free speech as a principle. Hate speech, which Moleyneux is known for, is actively trying to step on the free speech of others.

boutad 7y ago
Can you point me to where he is trying to step on the free speech of others? That seems like what you are doing. By saying his ideas are hate, you are trying to stop him from saying them.
corporate_shi11 7y ago
"Hate speech" is one of the most abused terms in political discourse today, so often being used by people as a mere political cudgel. Ignoring that for a moment, how is Moleyneux preventing others from reaching an audience, which would be the definition of stifling speech? It seems the only groups actually responsible for doing that are the social media companies so fond of deplatforming people because of either capricious and arbitrary enforcement of standards or public pressure campaigns. Why don't you just come out and admit it: you don't like what Moleyneux has to say, and you are happy he is being deplatformed. Simple as that. I don't like what Moleyneux has to say either, but capricious deplatforming makes a mockery of free speech.