Comment by dredmorbius
4 years ago
The reading I take is that Gilmore opposed censorship, and presumably was impeding actions of the EFF which might be interpreted as same, effectively exercising power through veto (see Francis Fukuyama's concept of a "vetocracy", and note that I'm not familiar enough with EFF's governance to know specifically what veto or obstruction powers exist).
The irony is that the EFF routed around Gilmore's presumed obstruction.
For the record, I'm increasingly of the view that free-speech absolutism is very badly flawed. If my reading of the situation is correct, then I'd agree with the action. That said, I'm as much in the dark as anyone whose information is the Register piece itself, so don't read too much into what I'm saying.
Why do you think free speech absolutism is very badly flawed?
For the same reason (virtually?) all absolutism is: it backs itself into a corner from which there is no escape. It discards any pragmatism or nuance.
What I'm evolving toward is a sense of interrelated, and often opposing, rights and obligations around communications.
Free expression, a right to truth, privacy in general, though some obligation for disclosure in public interest or concern, freedoms of and from association or expression, among others.
The benefit to this is that it gives a unified scope for looking at what have been a set of distinct and discrete rights. The disadvantage is that there's no simple or clear guidance, only trade-offs. Though (another benefit) at least those trade-offs are made clear, explicit, and the relationships are established.
I've found a few others thinking along similar lines, with some work out of the Berkman Klein Center (at Harvard) and UC Berkeley, the latter specifically addressing a right to the truth. I can dig up specific names if requested.
Just by saying “absolutism is bad” your post doesn’t explain why you are against free speech. The problem with anything but a simple rule for free speech (with obvious exceptions for threats, malicious lies, danger etc) is that it becomes a litigation, which is often a power struggle about who can manipulate the rules best, or a political struggle where one group captures the means of adjudicating speech.
1 reply →
OF COURSE one of the most arrogant posters on the antepenultimate subthread is an anti-free-speech fucking goon. Fuck you.