Comment by hn_submit
3 hours ago
> While Tor defends free speech, not all speech is equally compatible with our mission. We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms.
I disagree with this. Free speech is in essence, absolute. As soon as you start making allowances and exceptions the entire subject is moot.
The only threshold should be calls for violence or murder. AFAIK the Mullvad founder hasn't crossed this line.
Tor isn't saying 'This speech should not be allowed', they're saying 'This speech is speech we disagree with, and don't want associated with TOR'.
I disagree with that too. Tor shouldn't choose sides in political debates.
Did all Tor developers, users and exit-node administrators get a vote in this? Or is it a small minority who decides this course?
Free speech also includes speech you may not agree with and just because you accept someone's (or some company's) donations doesn't mean you're "associated" with them.
>Tor shouldn't choose sides in political debates.
Privacy, surveillance, and censorship are political debates. According to your logic, Tor shouldn't choose sides on those either.
I don't understand this view. Tor is inherently a political project.
3 replies →
From the article:
> Members of the Tor community have asked us to explain how continued collaboration with Mullvad fits with the Tor Project's human rights mission.
> Our decision followed a thorough due diligence process that involved extensive discussions with community members, staff, and the board, a staff survey, and detailed financial analysis and scenario planning.
Tor is not a democracy and doesn't purport to be. The article outlines the due diligence they have already done, and they're writing this as notice to their community, in response to questions from it.
Free speech includes disagreeing with things people say.. Surely in your absolute model they should also be allowed to do this?
Software is politics. From the licenses you support to communities you engage with and how they are governed is all political.
Developers are not machines. They are human as well and can have stances. That’s natural.
This is esp. true for Tor. They are providing privacy services to begin with.
> Tor shouldn't choose sides in political debates.
> Did all Tor developers, users and exit-node administrators get a vote in this? Or is it a small minority who decides this course?
This is addressed in the announcement.
> Free speech also includes speech you may not agree with and just because you accept someone's (or some company's) donations doesn't mean you're "associated" with them.
Tor didn't stop taking the donations nor did they stop cooperating with Mullvad on development.
What they did is pause "joint promotional activity" and review the language of what they had published about Mullvad to avoid implying an endorsement or alignment of values.
What problem do you have with that? This seems like precisely the avoidance of side taking that you are advocating.
[flagged]
TOR shouldn’t get involved here other than denouncing it if they disagree. Not sure if that’s what you mean.
You surely recognized that your second paragraph directly contradicts your first as you wrote this?
Free speech is about government making certain forms of speech illegal. Criticism of people/ideas and freedom of association are themselves acts of free speech.
No, free speech laws are.
The principles of free speech can be held by individuals and organizations, even thought they don't have as much power as the government.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" doesn't necessarily need to be scoped to just "... from government interference".
Case in point: legal or not, people cancelling speeches and people, shutting down legal speech, do NOT stand for freedom of speech. In fact, I've often heard them say "I don't particularly care about freedom of speech", verbatim,
I agree that some forms of cancellation are illiberal and anti-free speech. But a lot of the time, what gets called "canceling" or "shutting down" are themselves forms of free speech and freedom of association. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that everyone is entitled to being taken seriously, or having their opinions broadcast in private venues and publications, or being immune from criticism, mockery, protest, or social ostracization. A lot of people who call themselves free speech absolutists think that none of this should be allowed and that all ideas deserve an equal hearing.
2 replies →
>Case in point: legal or not, people cancelling speeches and people, shutting down legal speech, do NOT stand for freedom of speech.
Except that heckling and shouting down a speaker is speech too. And thus your argument is incoherent: do you want to restrict speech that impedes other's freedom of speech? If no, then the hecklers must be given free rein; if yes, then the case can be made to restrict racists' freedom of speech as they try to restrict some other people's freedoms, including the latter's freedom of speech.
1 reply →
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from all consequences, like disapproval and discontinuation of business relationships. If, for example, you advocate for the legalization of making CSAM, expect to be made a social pariah.
Ah yeah, like Voltaire said "I have no opinion about what you've said, that would mean I'm against free speech, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
>The only threshold should be calls for violence or murder.
Not very absolute though, and why are calls for violence somehow different from other icky things like sharing AI-generated nude images or selling people dangerous weapons?
I respect the moxie of the free speech absolutists and I'm glad there are some of them in the world. I personally tend to think things are a bit more complex than that, but if you're going to be an absolutist, then be an absolutist and allow all speech, including calls for violence.
> I disagree with this.
you disagree with freedom of association?
> Free speech is in essence, absolute.
Your point is moot. If speech is entirely absolute until violence is threatened, some of the most destructive crimes in modern society would become entirely legal.
Even under U.S. law, free speech has well-defined limits.
You’re already making concessions to non absolute free speech in your comment about free speech being absolute.
I have yet to meet a free speech absolutist who was actually absolutist. At best they still struggle with violent speech and at worst they buy out a large social media platform and start censoring shit they don’t like.
True, but you have to draw a line somewhere. The U.S. is one of the staunchest defenders of free speech but even there the line in the sand is calls for violence.
> As soon as you start making allowances and exceptions the entire subject is moot.
> you have to draw a line somewhere.
So the entire subject is now moot, I gather.
1 reply →
The thing is: freedom of speech (Like all other freedoms), is a two-way street.
You're free to say whatever messed up stuff you want to me, and I'm free to tell you to "Go F*CK Yourself"
People just forget consequences for your actions exist lol, hilarious to see and kinda sad
> The only threshold should be calls for violence or murder.
There are other universal exceptions which I'm guessing you are forgetting:
What about disinformation that causes serious harm? What if I tell people that snickerdoodles prevent shellfish allergies, and they try it and some die?
Unfortunately, real life always has grey areas; no simple algorithm can address it.
"disinformation" is problematic if it presupposes an arbiter of truth. We've seen time and again that people and organizations in such positions will abuse them rather than uphold their principles.
At the end of the day, you either engage with the speech and argue against the idea, or you appeal to authority and hope it is worthy of your trust. Personally, I'm a little too jaded for that.
That's not reality: Every court case has to decide on truth. That's why we have laws, court procedure (including rules of evidence), and judges and juries. Juries specifically are tasked with deciding the facts of the case. Fraud and slander depend on determinations of truth.
It's not always simple; it's not always perfect; but practically we do it all the time as a matter of course. Everyone makes decisions like that every day; every authority makes those decisions - managers at work, politicians in hearings; the public does it listening to political messages, parents do it listening to teenagers explaining where they were all night ...