[waynecochran]

If it is offensive because it stems from "bad ideas" then it is imperative that it is posted in the "public market of ideas" so it can be exposed and refuted.

If it is not posted then folks will not know how to refute it when it crops up again -- and it will.

Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas.

Don't be offended. That's your choice.

P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive must be posted -- there is stuff that should be illegal to post because of the harm it can cause.

Edit: downvote within 15 seconds of posting ... you are speedy in your thoughtlessness.

[varjag]

> downvote within 15 seconds of posting ... you are speedy in your thoughtlessness

that's the public market of ideas at work for you

[jakelazaroff]

> P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive must be posted -- there is stuff that should be illegal to post because of the harm it can cause.

What stuff? Using this logic, why should anything be off-limits to the "public market of ideas"? e.g. libel should be perfectly acceptable speech — that way it can be exposed and refuted!

This is a particularly insidious point of view because it frames its own line between acceptable and unacceptable speech as some sort of natural law, when really it's just as arbitrary as any other line.

[waynecochran]

I don't know how to codify this, but there does seem to be some things that are just simply harmful with no benefit. For example, libel against a private individual.

[jakelazaroff]

Sure, but recognize that the line is entirely arbitrary. The only difference between child pornography, libel, white supremacist content and being mean is that people got together and said "you know what, this seems like just a bit too far".

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't draw lines between speech we're okay with and speech we're not. Literally every human being on the planet does it! This is why I don't like "marketplace of ideas" arguments: the person making them always always always still thinks some speech should be somehow punished in the market.

[whiddershins]

I am not sure you are correct.

Libel has a pretty narrow definition and clearly leaves the realm of opinions and ideas to a different realm of willfully lying about someone with the intent to harm them personally.

The fact that we remove libel protections from public figures including politicians already makes this an extremely narrow subset of speech.

Arguing that this is just another example of an arbitrary line within a grey area seems like a rhetorical device to overemphasize the subjectivity of speech protections in pursuit of making them no longer able to be consistently protected.

[jakelazaroff]

But the point is, why is libel illegal at all? I can mislead someone in order to get someone to buy something from me, but if I lie about a person it's not okay? Why is reputational damage worse than monetary?

The fact that it's okay to libel a public figure (a fact I didn't know until now!) further underscores how arbitrary it is. At what level of renown are you a "public figure"? How is it measured?

We should be as stringent as possible in legal exceptions to freedom of speech. But there's no moral obligation to protect any given speech from social consequences (such as getting kicked from your web host). No one is actually a free speech absolutist.

[whiddershins]

Lying to someone to get them to buy something is in many if not most cases called fraud, and is illegal on those grounds.

This is where speech becomes a kind of action: misleading people in business, directing people to do harmful or illegal things. It’s actually pretty interesting how consistent the common thread is ... incitement to illegal acts or misrepresentation which results in tangible harm.

[zaarn]

Libel has different definitions in different cultures and can have fairly wide definitions.

[whiddershins]

To my knowledge few if any jurisdictions have as expansive a concept of free speech as the United States. From the standpoint of US law, other legal systems could be said to not have freedom of speech.

Therefore the United States libel definition is most directly relevant to the overall point here.

[UncleMeat]

Yes, and to lots of us we believe that certain ideas are simply harmful with no benefit. We don't disagree on the principles. We disagree on where the lines are drawn.

[waynecochran]

Some have suggested one place a line can be drawn: It's always OK to "attack" an "idea" but never to "attack" an individual.

[UncleMeat]

And others have suggested different lines or suggested that certain ideas fundamentally attack individuals by their very nature.

I've never met an actual free speech absolutist. I've just met people who tolerate certain forms of hate speech.

[jakelazaroff]

But again, there's nothing that makes this line objectively better than any other. It makes sense to me, even though it's kind of vague — but the point is that it's still subjective.

[waynecochran]

Can you give an example of what you would consider an "objective statement" in a legal context? I daresay no such thing can exist.

[iamnothere]

This isn't libel, but Robin Hanson recently put together some interesting arguments on why blackmail should be legal. I don't agree with him, but it points to the fact that there is not universal agreement on even these widely-accepted notions of what is "too harmful" to allow.

[waynecochran]

Universal agreement on pretty much anything is non-existant.

[homonculus1]

Yes, even libel should be legal. If something damaging is a lie then it should be subject to civil penalties--but the government in no way should have the power to silence ideas by declaring them lies.

[UnFleshedOne]

How would collecting a fine from all parties publishing a libel be different from silencing that particular idea?

[blackflame7000]

It wouldn't be but that's ok. The intent is for that disagreement to be adjudicated on a case by case basis in the court of law instead of legislated because one size doesn't fit all in this case.

[stronglikedan]

> Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas.

I would argue that it's more important.

> Phillip DeFranco

Edit regarding your edit: Complaining about downvotes is cringe inducing.

[waynecochran]

I don't care about downvotes -- it was the immediacy of it.

[mikestew]

That just means that a person inclined to downvote your comment saw it within seconds after posting. It’s not like there’s a shot clock for posts.

[waynecochran]

"saw it" bit did not "read it"

[UncleMeat]

It takes far less than 15 seconds to read your post.

[stcredzero]

Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas.

It's a good idea to be wary of the sneaking-in of bad ideas by packaging them with good ideas. In 2019, this applies to even some of the most reprehensible ones. (For example: Politics through intimidation and violent assault.) Ideologies and movements aren't monoliths. The bad parts of them can be teased apart and criticized, without making you an opponent of all of the overarching ideas and principles. Anyone who tries to sell you on the "all or nothing" idea is (perhaps unwittingly) engaging in this packaging of bad ideas.

downvote within 15 seconds of posting ... you are speedy in your thoughtlessness.

Here is the pattern that I often see around that: 2 or 3 rapid, thoughtless downvotes, followed by more upvotes. Be courageous, and take the long view. (Also, we're not supposed to talk about this meta stuff around here, according to the guidelines, but I'm giving you a heads up.)

[waynecochran]

Agreed.

Of course no one mentioned perhaps the most important reason for non censorship of ideas.

The censors and public at large can be wrong. Imagine living in a society where racism was the norm and the censors did not allow speech that argued for the equality of races. Instead of "hate speech" they called it "unnatural speech" or some such twisted label.

In fact, our society could be very wrong about some popular ideas. In fact, I don't think we are new or different than many societies that proceeded us -- we have been here before. We can't be so myopic that we are the generation that has discovered all the ideal points of view. Let views stand up to the test.

Also censorship is fear based. Buck up. Take on the challenge. Make sure the positive voices are heard. Don't protect adults with "safe spaces" where they will never be challenged. You are just setting them up for a fall later.

[zaarn]

The public market of ideas means that the idea of a public market of ideas can be downvoted. Don't talk about ideas being public market and then in the edit complain about someone not liking your idea.

[UncleMeat]

We've known how to refute genocidal racism for ages. The ideas aren't new and the reasons why they are garbage aren't new. Yet these ideas still exist and still spread. Why has the market of ideas not destroyed these ideas? If the market cannot destroy even the most terrible ideas that humans have ever devised, what does that really say about the market?

[rthrowayay]

There are 8 billion people in the world. I'm not surprised some of them hold terrible ideas. The idea that some people hold X view so now we need to give the state Y power is insane with our population level because it can justify anything.

[dlivingston]

And who is to be the censor? Would you be so complacent if I were the censor, dictating what you can and cannot read, see, and hear?

[root_axis]

The censor is the owner of the platform broadcasting the content. If I didn't like your censorship practices then I wouldn't use your platform.

[dlivingston]

Just to be clear, are you advocating for censorship on a platform (i.e. Facebook) level, or a governmental level as well?

[root_axis]

I am not "advocating for censorship", I am "advocating" for the freedom to determine what content is hosted on a computer you own.

A computer owned by the government is a different story since government property is paid for by the tax-payer, so it should not be able to act unilaterally in matters of removing content.

[waterhouse]

And, out of curiosity, what would you say if someone made an argument that company X, while not owned by the government, is effectively a monopoly due in significant part to government intervention? Mechanisms for this might be: patent grants, regulations that create significant barriers to entry for new competitors, lucrative contracts with a federal department, inconsistent enforcement of existing laws while the incumbent has protective connections with the enforcers, tariffs...

[jimbob45]

You have to keep refuting it for each new generation just like you have to teach each new generation the law of conservation of mass despite it having been proven over and over for centuries.

[UncleMeat]

Then it is clear that the idea that the marketplace of ideas will simply defeat evil is a fraud. We will have to spend literally forever publicly arguing that it is a bad idea to murder everybody belonging to a given race.

We don't have a "marketplace of ideas" for alternatives for the conservation of mass. We teach kids one thing in school and move on. Why do we behave differently for other topics?

[waynecochran]

It is especially important for the more abhorrent ideas like "genocidal racism" to be exposed. Silencing it and driving it underground will have the opposite effect of what we want.

The reasons racism is wrong needs to be constantly reposted -- we forget and repeat our mistakes too often. That is why we have holocaust museums. In fact the dangers of racism become more obvious when you let the racists speak! Let them. Teach your children from them. Show them the effect.

[UncleMeat]

Precisely how is an underground movement that cannot spread their ideas in public going to repeat the holocaust? How is forcing people to stay silent about their nightmarish beliefs going to possibly be worse than what we've already witnessed?

People just take it as an axiom that forcing ideas underground makes things worse but that seems like an idea that requires some support.

Racism is a security vulnerability in our brains. These ideas aren't propagated through reason. They are propagated by exploiting cognitive loopholes. Sitting down with your kid and showing them a whole bunch of fascist propaganda and then having a rational discussion with them isn't going to have the effect you want.

[waynecochran]

I'll quote Steven Pinker

    "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," according to Justice Louis Brandeis's 
     famous case for freedom of thought and expression. If an idea really is false, 
     only by examining it openly can we determine that it is false. At that point we 
     will be in a better position to convince others that it is false than if we had 
     let it fester in private, since our very avoidance of the issue serves as a 
     tacit acknowledgment that it may be true.

     https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dangerous07/dangerous07_index.html

[UncleMeat]

This is not evidence, it is merely stating it as truth.

What of ideas that we have already determined to be false? Genocidal racism is garbage. It has been known to be garbage for a long time. Yet it persists. Must we continue having public discussions about the merits of genocidal racism? Can we stop in 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years?

[komali2]

Why should some content be illegal?

[waynecochran]

This requires nuance and discussion, but things like the following are generally not productive and not protected by free speech.

    Defamation against private individual (including libel and slander)
    Child pornography
    Blackmail
    Incitement to imminent violence
    Solicitations to commit crimes

I think any discussion concerning "ideas" is fair game. It gets murky when dealing with individuals. None of the things on the list above are an "idea."

[komali2]

I admit I was playing devil's advocate, but I appreciate the good faith response.

I genuinely do have trouble unifying my instinct that nazi propaganda, for example, should be censored, against my understanding that what constitutes "solicitation to commit crimes" is relative to what a society considers "good" or "bad," which is (somewhat) arbitrary.

Take your list as an example. Any action that is damaging to the State could be considered Criminal - perhaps something as simple as developing good cryptography, for example. Some things are crimes that shouldn't be - smoking marijuana, an example. Simply saying "solicitations to commit crimes should be censored" thus doesn't jive with me.

[waynecochran]

Yes I think it is impossible to completely codify a list. I can always think of exceptions, grey areas, ways to exploit individuals, and ways individuals can create "loop holes."

I think the main problem is the human heart ... but that is a different discussion.

[Kye]

>> "Defamation against private individual (including libel and slander)"

What if it's against a group of individuals?

[zbyte64]

Asking the real questions.

[waynecochran]

Do you have specific example in mind?

[Kye]

For example: claiming gay people are pedophiles, or that trans women are men in dresses trying to sneak into bathrooms to assault people.

Claims like this--and these are the tip of the iceberg--target groups of people and affect every individual within. It's like passive libel/slander that every member of the group has to contend with.

It can even affect people outside the group. I don't think I know of a straight man under 30 who isn't afraid someone will think they're gay if they do the wrong thing. And more than a few cisgender women get run out of bathrooms because they present in a more masculine way.

[sam_lowry_]

Like commies in 50..60ies.

[waynecochran]

Publicly denouncing a group of specific folks as communists, when they were in fact not communists I believe was illegal even in the McCarthy era (that's libel if posted and slander if spoken publicly).

[xgulfie]

This attitude that "to be offended you have to allow it" is ridiculous.

You can't simply turn your emotions on and off unless you are a sociopath.

[HeroOfAges]

How old are you? I'm curious because I thought along those lines when I was a younger man. You are right that we have almost no control over our immediate emotional reactions to something we have just observed. You do control your train of thought about that observation going forward.

[xgulfie]

I'm 29. Yes I agree that you can consciously control what you do long-term in response to something, but you can't just whiff things off entirely.

If someone calls me a "fag", it will bother me whether I pretend it does or not. I'll be offended and it will probably play back in my head for a bit. I can try to let it not bother me, but it probably will at least a little.

"Words can't hurt me" is a fine personal mantra/goal/ideal but you can't apply it to everybody in every case.

[xfitm3]

Learning how to deal with emotions is literally what my teenage years were about.