What's worse: freedom of speech or controlling of freedom of speech

[Danner]

*well thought out post*

I will wholeheartedly agree to this post. I believe any power can be the agent of censorship, not just the government. Mostly, that is resolved by just dealing with some alternative. In the case of a monopoly, that isn't possible. I believe in a situation where a monopolist can shut down another opinion by pulling their monopolous weight; something is wrong. In norway, there are laws against that. I also believe the same problem applies when a near-monopoly exists. I have a hard time self-justifying laws against that. But it doesn't mean it is right when it happens. Especially if the result is the same.

I'm not a big fan of remote fringe cases just to prove your point. Honestly, none of your fringe cases make me rethink my position. If you manage to piss off the only general store manager in the vicinity, you probably deserve to either drive hundreds of miles to the next store or starve to death. I do not see how you should be treated like a special snowflake because you can't keep your mouth in check.

Free speech does not equal consequence-free speech.

I will agree on the latter point, no question. I could give you the example of that site a few days back failing to find a new DNS registrar. But let's make this cleaner and pull a real-world example that doesn't involve effing nazis shall we?

In Norway, the national newspapers have all outsourced their comment sections to Facebook. This saves them a bunch of money. But, it has the downside that you must be signed up to Facebook to comment on their stories. While I will gladly agree to any mockery of the quality of newspaper comment sections, every now and then you find big names doing rebuttals in these comment sections. Some of these are actually pretty good reads.

About a year ago, Facebook implemented a picture ban of nudity on their site. A casualty of said ban was a Norwegian author doing a bunch of research posts on the Vietnam war, using Facebook. Amongst these posts, he had an image gallery including the iconic napalm girl image. An image that if not turned, at least cemented the western opposition against the Vietnam war. Historically, that picture is incredibly significant as an anti-war symbol.

Facebook banned the author from their site. For posting nudity. In doing so, they also banned said author from participating in the Norwegian social debate, due to how the newspaper comment sections working. Said author was no longer allowed to participate, due to being banned from Facebook.

Was Facebook in their rights here? Or did they just silence an important voice in the public discourse?

I think this counts as one of those near-monopoly situations. The press and even the Norwegian PM spoke up against this situation. On how big carriers like facebook had to take the social responsibility of not silencing voices. In the end, Facebook caved. That picture was no longer banned, it seems.

Did a bunch of Norwegians bully a multinational corporation into allowing content they didn't actually want to host?
Or was this actually the morally right outcome?

You tell me.

[Endus]

Facebook banned the author from their site. For posting nudity. In doing so, they also banned said author from participating in the Norwegian social debate, due to how the newspaper comment sections working. Said author was no longer allowed to participate, due to being banned from Facebook.

Was Facebook in their rights here? Or did they just silence an important voice in the public discourse?

1> Being unable to participate in a particular newspaper's comment section is not "banning someone from participating in the Norwegian social debate". It just bans them from that particular newspaper's comment sections. They could write in, they would write an editorial, they could participate in other media, and so on.

2> That sounds like the kind of thing the author should've taken up with Facebook. Seems more than a little silly they'd permaban someone over that with no recourse or leeway. And as you noted; they could, and successfully did, so what's the issue again?

3> All you're really doing is making an argument that newspapers shouldn't farm their comment sections out to third parties whose access they cannot control.

None of this touches on freedom of speech in any way whatsoever.

[Slant]

I will wholeheartedly agree to this post. I believe any power can be the agent of censorship, not just the government. Mostly, that is resolved by just dealing with some alternative. In the case of a monopoly, that isn't possible. I believe in a situation where a monopolist can shut down another opinion by pulling their monopolous weight; something is wrong. In norway, there are laws against that. I also believe the same problem applies when a near-monopoly exists. I have a hard time self-justifying laws against that. But it doesn't mean it is right when it happens. Especially if the result is the same.



I will agree on the latter point, no question. I could give you the example of that site a few days back failing to find a new DNS registrar. But let's make this cleaner and pull a real-world example that doesn't involve effing nazis shall we?

In Norway, the national newspapers have all outsourced their comment sections to Facebook. This saves them a bunch of money. But, it has the downside that you must be signed up to Facebook to comment on their stories. While I will gladly agree to any mockery of the quality of newspaper comment sections, every now and then you find big names doing rebuttals in these comment sections. Some of these are actually pretty good reads.

About a year ago, Facebook implemented a picture ban of nudity on their site. A casualty of said ban was a Norwegian author doing a bunch of research posts on the Vietnam war, using Facebook. Amongst these posts, he had an image gallery including the iconic napalm girl image. An image that if not turned, at least cemented the western opposition against the Vietnam war. Historically, that picture is incredibly significant as an anti-war symbol.

Facebook banned the author from their site. For posting nudity. In doing so, they also banned said author from participating in the Norwegian social debate, due to how the newspaper comment sections working. Said author was no longer allowed to participate, due to being banned from Facebook.

Was Facebook in their rights here? Or did they just silence an important voice in the public discourse?

I think this counts as one of those near-monopoly situations. The press and even the Norwegian PM spoke up against this situation. On how big carriers like facebook had to take the social responsibility of not silencing voices. In the end, Facebook caved. That picture was no longer banned, it seems.

Did a bunch of Norwegians bully a multinational corporation into allowing content they didn't actually want to host?
Or was this actually the morally right outcome?

You tell me.

It wasn't Facebook actively banning the author. It was an automated software not recognizing a picture of journalistic history. As far as I recall, that ban was reverted pretty much as soon as someone in charge found out about the case. Sorry, but that example is really a super bad one for your argument.

[downnola]

Here's the thing. Neither you or I have to make that choice. But society makes it. There are opinions and views that are simply not acceptable in society. In civilised countries, nazism, fascism and genocide are generally shunned and not acceptable positions. Sure, you'll tolerate a few rallies here and there, because you have to be the good guy and live by your own rules, one of which is freedom of speech. But most countries condemn those rallies and their supporters. And people in Europe are really not having a good time going "Hey, I think Hitler was a swell dude, killing 6 million Jews? Never happened!"

In the US, however, society is getting all kinds of fucked up. Americans are so drunk on their constitution and the magical 1st amendment, that they forget that society can very well decide what it wants and doesn't want to listen to. By now, it's moved into a silly automatism where "extreme opinion X" just has to go "freedom! 1st amendment!" and suddenly it's not just okay to tolerate them, it's almost required to support them if you want to follow the hipster logic of "gosh I have to be part of it!"

And thus, American neonazism is created, which is a ridiculous copy of what Nazis truly were. Thus Trump is voted into office, with the most outrageous of lies possible, even by politicians' standards. Thus anti-vaccination punched its way into a pseudo-legitimate media coverage, thus evolution is banned from schools that want to teach creationism and so on and so forth.

Just because you have the right to say something doesn't legitimise it into being an actual, valid viewpoint. But most Americans haven't gotten that memo, yet. And they should. It's vitally important for their wellbeing, because if they keep up this idiocy, they'll lose their spot at the sun soon enough.

There are large sections of American society that believe the Bible is a document based on historical and scientific truth. A significant part of the American population thinks climate change is a hoax. Some think healing crystals work and that Astrology has something to tell you about your love life. These are the same people you're arguing should have some say in what is acceptable for me to read or hear. Thanks, but no thanks. I'm extremely grateful that the First Amendment ensures that the individual can decide which ideas and people they want to associate with, and which ideas are worth reading or listening to.

Also, nobody is saying that every viewpoint is legitimate. On the contrary, the response to Charlottesville has been overwhelming against those views. Nazi's don't hold valid views; they're littered with fallacy and falsehood, and are being soundly denounced by conservative and liberal leaders, writers, and citizens alike.

Sure, Europe may feel they don't have to deal with this issue because National Socialist views are banned from the public square. I can see why you'd think that's a victory. But like I said, Europe still has these people living among them, they just don't call themselves Nazi's in public. They exist in the National Fronts and Law and Order parties of Europe. At least Americans have an advantage in that we know who these people are, and can directly engage these people in argument. Unfortunately, Europeans don't have that luxury. In a way, they're lulled into thinking they've solved the problem, but get blindsided when lunatics like Breivik commit acts of political terrorism.

Furthermore, this idea that Americans think the First Amendment is magical, or that we're drunk on our constitution is a bunch of nonsense. The United States does not have the kind of history that most Europeans countries have. Our borders and national identity doesn't come from the legacy of empires and kings. The constitution is the historical foundation of our country, and we're more than justified in holding it's core values up as something worth taking as serious as we do. In fact, our country would be stronger if more of our citizens took the document seriously.

[Mittens]

Yes, and in this thread, people are now specifically not speaking about the Government prohibiting certain views. And that is the context I have written my response in. If you want to re-read that with that in mind, feel free to do so and then get back to me.

Then we don't disagree that Uk and Germany have authoritarian laws when it comes to freedom of speech good to know.

[Slant]

There are large sections of American society that believe the Bible is a document based on historical and scientific truth. A significant part of the American population that think climate change is a hoax. Some think healing crystals work and that Astrology has something to tell you about your love life. These are the same people you're arguing should have some say in what is acceptable for me to read or hear. Thanks, but no thanks. I'm extremely grateful that the First Amendment ensures that the individual can decide which ideas and people they want to associate with, and which ideas are worth reading or listening to.

Also, nobody is saying that every viewpoint is legitimate. On the contrary, the response to Charlottesville has been overwhelming against those views. Nazi's don't hold valid views; they're littered with fallacy and falsehood, and are being soundly denounced by conservative and liberal leaders, writers, and citizens alike.

Sure, Europe may feel they don't have to deal with this issue because National Socialist views are banned from the public square. I can see why you'd think that's a victory. But like I said, Europe still has these people living among them, they just don't call themselves Nazi's in public. They exist in the National Fronts and Law and Order parties of Europe. At least Americans have an advantage in that we know who these people are, and can directly engage these people in argument. Unfortunately, Europeans don't have that luxury. In a way, they're lulled into thinking they've solved the problem, but get blindsided when lunatics like Breivik commit acts of political terrorism.

Furthermore, this idea that Americans think the First Amendment is magical, or that we're drunk on our constitution is a bunch of nonsense. The United States does not have the kind of history that most Europeans countries have. Our borders and national identity doesn't come from the legacy of empires and kings. The constitution is the historical foundation of our country, and we're more than justified in holding it's core values up as something worth taking as serious as we do. In fact, our country would be stronger if more of our citizens took the document seriously.

The people thinking climate change is a hoax are prominent politicians. Almost exclusively it's politicians using this as a platform to gain votes. Of course people are saying their viewpoint is legitimate. Look at this fucking forum, where Edge, a moderator, supports a nazi rally because it's what the 1st amendment protects. Yes, the same rally where a dude plowed through people with his car. That is what your 1st amendment got you. People thinking their viewpoint is legitimate and they're justified in driving a car through a pile of people. Good job!

As for Europe, of course these people live among us. But we're able to critically think and call them out for what they are. This is an essential life skill that the American population has lost. Otherwise they wouldn't have voted Trump into office. So yes, we do have the luxury of not having to explicitly tell every shit extremist that his viewpoint is not acceptable, we have constitutions doing that repetitive work for us.

Lulled? Solved the problem? Far from it. But constant vigilance is something I see exclusively from Europeans, not from Americans. The only one getting blindsided is people who vote someone into office who doesn't even manage to condemn nazism after a nazi terrorist attack killed someone and injured a lot of others in the name of his ideology. THAT is what I call being blindsided.

Being surprised by sleepers is something you cannot avoid, 9/11 is the best example for that. You may want to get off your high horse, the fall could hurt.

- - - Updated - - -

Then we don't disagree that Uk and Germany have authoritarian laws when it comes to freedom of speech good to know.

Not only do we disagree on what authoritarian or freedom of speech mean, we also seem to disagree on your ability to take part in a serious conversation like this.

[Mittens]

The people thinking climate change is a hoax are prominent politicians. Almost exclusively it's politicians using this as a platform to gain votes. Of course people are saying their viewpoint is legitimate. Look at this fucking forum, where Edge, a moderator, supports a nazi rally because it's what the 1st amendment protects. Yes, the same rally where a dude plowed through people with his car. That is what your 1st amendment got you. People thinking their viewpoint is legitimate and they're justified in driving a car through a pile of people. Good job!

As for Europe, of course these people live among us. But we're able to critically think and call them out for what they are. This is an essential life skill that the American population has lost. Otherwise they wouldn't have voted Trump into office. So yes, we do have the luxury of not having to explicitly tell every shit extremist that his viewpoint is not acceptable, we have constitutions doing that repetitive work for us.

Lulled? Solved the problem? Far from it. But constant vigilance is something I see exclusively from Europeans, not from Americans. The only one getting blindsided is people who vote someone into office who doesn't even manage to condemn nazism after a nazi terrorist attack killed someone and injured a lot of others in the name of his ideology. THAT is what I call being blindsided.

Being surprised by sleepers is something you cannot avoid, 9/11 is the best example for that. You may want to get off your high horse, the fall could hurt.

- - - Updated - - -



Not only do we disagree on what authoritarian or freedom of speech mean, we also seem to disagree on your ability to take part in a serious conversation like this.

Government restrictions on certain views fits authoritarianism nicely.

[downnola]

The people thinking climate change is a hoax are prominent politicians. Almost exclusively it's politicians using this as a platform to gain votes. Of course people are saying their viewpoint is legitimate. Look at this fucking forum, where Edge, a moderator, supports a nazi rally because it's what the 1st amendment protects. Yes, the same rally where a dude plowed through people with his car. That is what your 1st amendment got you. People thinking their viewpoint is legitimate and they're justified in driving a car through a pile of people. Good job!

As for Europe, of course these people live among us. But we're able to critically think and call them out for what they are. This is an essential life skill that the American population has lost. Otherwise they wouldn't have voted Trump into office. So yes, we do have the luxury of not having to explicitly tell every shit extremist that his viewpoint is not acceptable, we have constitutions doing that repetitive work for us.

Lulled? Solved the problem? Far from it. But constant vigilance is something I see exclusively from Europeans, not from Americans. The only one getting blindsided is people who vote someone into office who doesn't even manage to condemn nazism after a nazi terrorist attack killed someone and injured a lot of others in the name of his ideology. THAT is what I call being blindsided.

Being surprised by sleepers is something you cannot avoid, 9/11 is the best example for that. You may want to get off your high horse, the fall could hurt.

If anyone came into this thread on a high horse, it's the guy pretending that Europe is being vigilant against extremism because they banned hate-speech. That's self-evidently not the case when you consider how quickly Europe skewed to the hard-right after the immigrant crisis. The craziness that lead to Trump in the U.S. hit Europe before it crossed the Atlantic.

That is what your 1st amendment got you. People thinking their viewpoint is legitimate and they're justified in driving a car through a pile of people. Good job!

Oh fucking please. The first amendment is responsible for that guy smashing his car into a bunch of people? Europe outlaws hate speech yet still deals with far-right terrorism against mosques and politicians like Jo Cox. Let me guess, those incidents are a result of deranged people, but in American we're cultivating an environment of violence. What an awesome double standard you have there.

[Mayhem]

If anyone came into this thread on a high horse, it's the guy pretending that Europe is being vigilant against extremism because they banned hate-speech. That's self-evidently not the case when you consider how quickly Europe skewed to the hard-right after the immigrant crisis. The craziness that lead to Trump in the U.S. hit Europe before it crossed the Atlantic.

What hard-right party in europe got significant gains because of the immigrant crisis?

Oh fucking please. The first amendment is responsible for that guy smashing his car into a bunch of people? Europe outlaws hate speech yet still deals with far-right terrorism against mosques and politicians like Jo Cox. Let me guess, those incidents are a result of deranged people, but in American we're cultivating an environment of violence. What an awesome double standard you have there.

Why not both? The guy smashing his car into a bunch of people was deranged but the US are also cultivating an environment of violence.

[Mittens]

What hard-right party in europe got significant gains because of the immigrant crisis?

Are you serious? Le Pen made serious gains in France and most of her rhetoric was pretty much anti-immigration, especially of those those that came from Muslim countries (refugees)

[Forogil]

Are you serious? Le Pen made serious gains in France and most of her rhetoric was pretty much anti-immigration, especially of those those that came from Muslim countries (refugees)

Sort of, but technically she is not hard-right - she is more center; and had a large following even before the present immigration crisis.

But people often use "far-right" for anti-immigration populists, and nationalist - ignoring nationalistic communistic regimes.

[downnola]

What hard-right party in europe got significant gains because of the immigrant crisis?

I don't know why you're limiting it to just political parties. Brexit is probably the best examples of how nationalistic populism has infected Europe. If you want specific examples of right-wing nationalism gaining traction because of immigration, then look no further than the National Front in France, Alternative Germany, and Geert Wilders' party that was leading in national polls last year in the Netherlands.

Why not both? The guy smashing his car into a bunch of people was deranged but the US are also cultivating an environment of violence.

You want to assign blame for political violence on a law, rather than placing the blame directly on the actions of the murderer. It doesn't stand up to logic, plain and simple.

[Mayhem]

Are you serious? Le Pen made serious gains in France and most of her rhetoric was pretty much anti-immigration, especially of those those that came from Muslim countries (refugees)

Front national has 8 seats... so thanks to the immigrant crisis they gained a whooping 6 seats in the national assembly? Damn impressive, yeah, or not.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know why you're limiting it to just political parties. Brexit is probably the best example of how nationalistic populism has infected Europe. If you want specific examples of right-wing nationalism gaining traction because of immigration, then look no further than the National Front in France, Alternative Germany, and Geert Wilders' party that was leading in national polls last year in the Netherlands.

Have you taken a look at polls and actual seats or are you just throwing, because none of them actually made significant gains if at all? Brexit is the only example that could be somehow with enough imagination be a result of the immigrant crisis.

You want to assign blame for political violence on a law, rather than placing the blame directly on the actions of the murderer. It doesn't stand up to logic, plain and simple.

No, i'm placing the blame on both, hence why i wrote "why not both?".

[Kiri]

I will wholeheartedly agree to this post. I believe any power can be the agent of censorship, not just the government. Mostly, that is resolved by just dealing with some alternative. In the case of a monopoly, that isn't possible. I believe in a situation where a monopolist can shut down another opinion by pulling their monopolous weight; something is wrong. In norway, there are laws against that. I also believe the same problem applies when a near-monopoly exists. I have a hard time self-justifying laws against that. But it doesn't mean it is right when it happens. Especially if the result is the same.

That is true. Sadly, we will have to live with some kinds of monopolies and perceived monopolies like the ISP example you gave. Ultimately, entrepreneurism is a self-selecting process. Especially when you come to the higher levels - those who manage to build big corporations tend to think in similar ways. And they always, always have an interest in trying to censor opinions that would harm their position. That is also why such things as tacit collusion can actually occur in real life. The only thing we can really do about this is to install a watchdog, usually in the form of the government. But then we have another body with self-interest.
In the end, an ideal state will never be reached, be it due to the nature of our world and that of human beings. It is commendable to strive for it nonetheless, of course, but I personally have adapted a stance to trust in democracy and thus, by extension, the government. It can be perceived as a weak stance (and depends on democracy being healthy, of course) but I have not really been able to think of a better one.

Protecting people from being offended is a sloppy justification for banning certain thoughts from being expressed. It's one of the few examples of a legitimate slippery slope. Who gets to decide what ideas should or shouldn't offend someone? I haven't come across a single person on this forum who I would entrust to make that decision for me, and I certainly don't trust a democracy that elected Donald Trump as president to decide it for me either.

Related to the above, I can see why you would think so, given that democracy in the US does not appear to be in a healthy state to me. Too much tribalism.
Anyway, the problem here is, again, that I do not really see a better alternative.
Ultimately, you have to pick between protecting people from being offended/insult/hurt (large groups of people expressing hate for you openly is hurtful, to me that is not a discussion) and not protecting them. Ultimately, it comes down to a freedom versus safety deliberation. My country has had horrendous experiences with allowing hate to be openly displayed and embraced, even by people otherwise too intelligent to do so. The USA has historically been more drawn towards freedom. That is why my country has more laws against certain kinds of hate speech for example.

But ultimately, it comes down to whether you trust your government to handle that slippery slope well. You trust them in other areas as well. Be it domestic security or international relations, you are allowing it to handle a lot of slippery slopes. That's why people get so angry about abuses of power, too. But ultimately, the problem here is not the protection itself. Just like with the police and the army, the problem is less with the institution existing but with how it is used. And that is where one should direct one's criticism to, in my opinion.

__
Look at me not offering any solutions, just trying to push people towards where I think the problems really lie. #partoftheproblem

[Felya]

Freedom of speech has an inherent control of a reply. The issue now a day, is people having trouble with the reply. People telling you to shut up or saying your opinion is invalid, is not limiting freedom of speech. It's explicitly displaying its existence.

If you are a fascist and someone tells you to fuck off, your freedom of speech is not being limited.

[downnola]

Have you taken a look at polls and actual seats or are you just throwing, because none of them actually made significant gains if at all? Brexit is the only example that could be somehow with enough imagination be a result of the immigrant crisis.

Whether or not those parties gained political power is beyond the point. That's you shifting the goal posts. Far-right parties surged in popularity in response to the crisis. That's my point.

No, i'm placing the blame on both, hence why i wrote "why not both?".

And I quite obviously disagree with you. I understand why you wrote what you did just fine.

[Mayhem]

Whether or not those parties gained political power is beyond the point. That's you shifting the goal posts. Far-right parties surged in popularity in response to the crisis. That's my point.

They surged in popularity but gained nothing? I thought your point was europe moved to the right in response to the immigrant crisis? How exactly did you conclude that if it's not shown in numbers?

And I quite obviously disagree with you. I understand why you wrote what you did just fine.

I doubt you understand it given your previous response.

[Jastall]

Long is the road and hard that out of hell leads up to light? Sorry, there is no bragging point to be found in tyranny, no virtue to be found in a government -- a tool of free people, subordinate to them, a servant -- having the power to determine which thoughts and ideas are permissible. "Total free speech" doesn't somehow impugn tangible legal acts as a consequence of free expression, and what is today's "hate" was last month's virtue, last week's compassion, and yesterday's condescending remark precisely because the ideas that transmuted them across the age have been permitted and protected from intrusion by government.

Seriously, apply two brain cells -- anything you can think of to blow off as "hate speech" today were probably in one form or another the public morals of yesterday. So why has it changed? Because people who were opposed to the public morals of yesterday were protected from restrictions on their ability to speak out against them. The fact that you are in a world today where what you call "hate speech" isn't just the overriding, state-enforced ethos of the day is because those who fought against it could not be stopped by government bureaucrats who thought their ideas were dangerous.

You'd have a point if all these ideas came from the US, but they didn't, not by a long shot. Many of them came from Europe or other places and needed no First Amendment to come to pass. Hell, on several social issues (civil rights, gay rights, women's suffrage to take examples) the US certainly budged less than countries with no 1st did, and in general the country hasn't exactly been at the forefront of progressive or anti-establishment thought. So while in theory you might be right, in practice things did not always work out the way you claim they did.

And total free speech was never a thing in any country ever, and will never be a thing. It's an absolute that cannot be reached so I find it a waste of time to debate on it.

[downnola]

They surged in popularity but gained nothing? I thought your point was europe moved to the right in response to the immigrant crisis? How exactly did you conclude that if it's not shown in numbers?

It does show in the numbers. For example, the National Front was threatening to win the last election. The fact that they lost just proves they weren't popular enough, which wasn't my point. Your argument would make more sense if I had claimed the far-right was taking over politics in Europe. But that wasn't my point; I said Europe skewed to the right and the far-right surged in popularity. In a world with hate-speech laws and "vigilant" fighting against far-right ideas, they shouldn't be gaining any traction at all.

So much for all that jazz.

I doubt you understand it given your previous response.

No, your statement wasn't strong enough to convince me. Maybe if you elaborate on why that young lady's death was partly a result of the first amendment in a convincing manner, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

[Mittens]

Front national has 8 seats... so thanks to the immigrant crisis they gained a whooping 6 seats in the national assembly? Damn impressive, yeah, or not.

- - - Updated - - -



Have you taken a look at polls and actual seats or are you just throwing, because none of them actually made significant gains if at all? Brexit is the only example that could be somehow with enough imagination be a result of the immigrant crisis.



No, i'm placing the blame on both, hence why i wrote "why not both?".

What a weird way to frame it. The national front had a serious chance at winning the election and Le Pen's positions got a platform on the national stage, that to me are serious gains.