Comment by howlgram
9 years ago
Free speech doesn't stop a child's parents from shunning him when he swears at them, free speech doesn't mean that you get to yell in church with diplomatic immunity towards being silenced, free speech doesn't mean that you go around soliciting sex in public without possibly getting arrested. You get silenced if you act like a cunt, that's freedom, and it's not an issue.
All of the places you mentioned are places where you IMPOSE yourself to others.
A website is not such a thing.
However, a forum is.
A forum is just a kind of website. And people get banned for spamming or trolling forums where they're not welcome all the time. But they're not imposing on anybody in their likeminded forums.
Only if you didn't start the forum yourself.
All those things are contrary to the principle of free speech. There are some things we consider important enough to override that principle - the right to avoid people you don't like, or to form a private association that excludes people you don't like (I won't get into the sex one because there's no clear simple principle there, rather we have a lot of complex and entangled notions).
It's important that a small private business should have the right to not do business with someone they don't want to do business with, but that's not an absolute principle, just as free speech is not[1]. Or rather, all of our principles can come into conflict.
The idea that an entity that processes 10% of internet traffic can exclude someone from expressing their opinions - vile and hateful as they may be - via that entity, is scary. Scarier than not being able to express a given opinion in many countries, frankly. I'm not even saying CloudFlare is necessarily in the wrong here, but it's certainly not a non-issue.
[1] Not to be confused with the US First Amendment, which is very close to absolute where it applies, but does not apply to many cases where the principle of free speech is relevant.
It is a non issue.
Look, the spirit behind free speech is the principle of the bazaar of ideas.
The place where everyone can meet, exchange and learn. If someone sells something and it's distasteful, well you learn that you don't like it.
That's the spirit, which too many people don't understand, or don't go far enough to understand.
In this bazaar are now thugs, they sell wares designed to disrupt the bazaar, to addict customers, and to stop more complex goods from being sold.
They choose to disrupt the bazaar, and they count on those who repeat "free speech", to tie themselves down and not stop them.
Like a child taunting someone by saying "prove that 2+2 is not = 5."
Valid questions which have hard proofs are regularly used to tie up discussion. It's done intentionally in order to "win".
There's no victory here- the opposition isn't playing by the rules. when there is no good faith, then there is no discussion.
>n this bazaar are now thugs, they sell wares designed to disrupt the bazaar, to addict customers, and to stop more complex goods from being sold.
The problem with that example is the same thing can be used to describe MLK during the 60s. He was all of that by most of the people who lived during that time. It can be applied to pornography, or Catcher in the Rye. You either squash distasteful ideas or you don't. Here's a little secret for you younger folks. The stuff the next generation does, you might find distasteful, but it's the future. They have to be allowed to try on new ideas. If you don't those ideas become more attractive because they are forbidden fruit.
The nice thing about allowing Stormwhatever to speak, is it allows people to see them for what they are. If you squelch them, well, that just makes them stronger.
You have to be able to apply it to people who you admire and people you despise.
8 replies →
So how do we distinguish between ideas that "win" in the bazaar of ideas, and ideas that "disrupt" the bazaar of ideas?
There are some things we consider important enough to override that principle - the right to ... to form a private association that excludes people you don't like
Please cite your source for showing where a "private association" that is not a public accommodation cannot discriminate, or explain why any church can bar non-believers from membership.
You've just made an unsupported leap of logic. The question is who is silencing who and in what context. Parents may discipline their children. Church staff may eject anyone they like. Soliciting sex is a crime. None of this means a mob can rightfully silence unpopular, legal speech. And certainly not in the name of freedom.