[HN Gopher] War on free speech: Politicians and commentators lab...
___________________________________________________________________
War on free speech: Politicians and commentators label war critics
"traitors"
Author : curmudgeon22
Score : 31 points
Date : 2022-03-18 18:50 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (jonathanturley.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (jonathanturley.org)
| wwweston wrote:
| Turley fails to make _crucial_ distinctions of degree here.
|
| It's one thing for people to criticize your speech and problems
| with it, which is the most common case. And that's just known as
| more speech.
|
| It's another for people to withdraw private associations or
| memberships, but unless you're gonna say that people can't stop
| talking to their racist uncle if they don't like it or that a
| church can't excommunicate vocal atheists, well, you believe
| that's fine too.
|
| Things _start_ to get important when we 're talking about
| questions of economic livelihood. But then again, if you believe
| in boycotts or any form of voting with your dollars, then drawing
| a straightforward line against retaliation here is hard.
|
| The civil line that's most important is whether speech is
| _criminalized_. Whether someone can end up paying legal penalties
| _merely for something they 've said_. Even THAT line is sometimes
| walked up to with slander/libel (though those are civil not
| criminal as far as I know) or incitement. But as far as I can
| tell, we're not particularly closer to it in the last month.
|
| There's just more pointing out that people like Gabbard and
| Cawthorne and a whole lot of others are on the wrong side.
|
| Turley's _job_ is supposed to be making crucial distinctions of
| degree. Are most lawyers just really this bad at it, or is he
| avoiding making distinctions that people examining the issue in
| good faith would make for more subtle rhetorical purposes?
| gruez wrote:
| >It's another for people to withdraw private associations or
| memberships, but unless you're gonna say that people can't stop
| talking to their racist uncle if they don't like it or that a
| church can't excommunicate vocal atheists, well, you believe
| that's fine too.
|
| The article mentions people getting excluded from events due to
| their perceived associations with communism/soviet union.
| What's your position on that? Do you find McCarthyism-minus-
| government-intervention acceptable? The wikipedia article for
| McCarthyism mentions "extra-judiciary procedures, such as
| informal blacklists by employers and public institutions"[1].
|
| >Turley's job is supposed to be making crucial distinctions of
| degree. Are most lawyers just really this bad at it, or is he
| avoiding making distinctions that people examining the issue in
| good faith would make for more subtle rhetorical purposes?
|
| For someone accusing Turley of failing to make "crucial
| distinctions of degree", it's ironic that you also fail to
| recognize that the concept of "free speech" extends far beyond
| what's explicitly guaranteed by the first amendment.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Blacklists
| mint2 wrote:
| Going's step further, Are you saying it's not okay to
| blacklist neo-nazis? I get there's the issue of who decides,
| but I'd say its fair for companies to say black list a neo
| nazi from working if that's their desire. If someone walks in
| with a swastika tattooed on their forehead I wouldn't hire
| them or serve them.
|
| Same with perceived "communists" it's not a protected class,
| while I disagree with that particular instance of freedom of
| speech/association it seems totally within the rights.
|
| If the government is directing the blacklisting it's a
| different matter. Private corporations and citizens are free
| to.
| gruez wrote:
| > Going's step further, Are you saying it's not okay to
| blacklist neo-nazis? I get there's the issue of who
| decides, but I'd say its fair for companies to say black
| list a neo nazi from working if that's their desire. If
| someone walks in with a swastika tattooed on their forehead
| I wouldn't hire them or serve them.
|
| I'm not arguing an absolutist position (ie. "corporations
| should never disassociate with someone") here. If someone
| has demonstrably done a Bad Thing, I'm for proportional
| actions being levied in response. That said, the
| examples[1] given are anything but proportional.
|
| [1] ie. "This movement began by targeting Russian artists
| and athletes who were told that they will be cancelled or
| blacklisted if they do not expressly denounce the Russian
| invasion of Ukraine and President Vladimir Putin."
| juanani wrote:
| weeblewobble wrote:
| Can someone explain to me why writing an article condemning
| people for using a word to describe other people is not also part
| of the war on free speech? This whole debate has a real snake-
| eating-its-tail aspect to it that I find completely exhausting.
| [deleted]
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| This article is like a breath of fresh air for me. Silencing
| critics is about as anti-American values as it gets, in my
| opinion.
|
| It can be rough supporting free speech by those who we might
| disagree with, but life is not always easy.
|
| I am especially disappointed by Mitt Romney - I thought that he
| was a decent guy but his recent comments are untrue and
| misleading.
|
| A little off topic: I would love to see an accurate list of how
| much money each Congress person gets from defense industry
| lobbyists and I would like to also see how defense lobbying
| affects the news media. After spending half a working lifetime in
| the defense industry, I can both support my country while at the
| same time think clearly about the financial motivations for war
| and conflict.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This
| is mine', and found people naive enough to believe him, that man
| was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes,
| wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might
| not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or
| filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of
| listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget
| that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth
| itself to nobody."
|
| = Jean-Jacques Rousseau
|
| "The superior worth of simplicity of life, the enervating and
| demoralising effect of the trammels and hypocrisies of artificial
| society, are ideas which have never been entirely absent from
| cultivated minds since Rousseau wrote; and they will in time
| produce their due effect, though at present needing to be
| asserted as much as ever, and to be asserted by deeds, for words,
| on this subject, have nearly exhausted their power."
|
| = John Stuart Mill
| IceMetalPunk wrote:
| rosndo wrote:
| Tulsi Gabbard certainly does not deserve the benefit of the doubt
| after her trip with a Syrian Social Nationalist party delegation
| to meet Assad in Syria.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-18 23:02 UTC)