zlacker

>>tosh+(OP)
Some bright spots I've noticed in the past month or so in this area, for those who care both about justice and open debate:

- John Carmack signal boosting[1] Sarah Downey's article "This PC witch-hunt is killing free speech, and we have to fight it"[2]

- The critical comments on the obligatory "BLM" post in r/askscience[3]

- Glenn Loury's response[4] to Brown University's letter to faculty/alumni about racial justice.

- The failure[5] of a group of folks to cancel Steven Pinker over accusations of racial insensitivity.

[1] https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1279105937404579841

[2] https://medium.com/@sarahadowney/this-politically-correct-wi...

[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gvc7k9/black_li...

[4] https://www.city-journal.org/brown-university-letter-racism

[5] https://mobile.twitter.com/sapinker/status/12799365902367907...

>>dnissl+Tr
The broadening circle of people willing to exercise their free speech to condemn Pinker's recurrent and insidious appeals to race-informed genetic determinism is a bright spot, as are the numerous people dunking on Pinker for cosigning an open letter that decries "ostracism and public shaming" as injuries to our culture of free expression, rather than expressions of that culture.

Ken White had some smart things to say about this today, with respect to "the problem of the preferred first speaker". Worth tracking down.

That's not to say there aren't dark spots; David Shor's firing certainly appears to be one of them. But I don't think any of those dark spots put Pinker, the T-1000 version of Charles Murray, above criticism. Which is, of course, what an open letter against "public shaming" purports to do.

>>tptace+lP1
Of course people should be free to vehemently argue against Steven Pinker's ideas. The problem is that people are instead descending to personal attacks on him, including circulating a petition (with forged signatures, to boot) to get the Linguistic Society of America to strip him of his Fellow status.

>>nokcha+d12
People are free to circulate petitions, including those making demands about someone's Linguistic Society status. People are not required to express only opinions you approve of. Though, of course, you're free to circulate a counter-petition against them!

What's less free is threatening to use a billion dollar fortune to file a defamation lawsuit against someone for expressing an opinion on Twitter, which at least one of the signatories did.

>>tptace+S22
>People are free to circulate petitions, including those making demands about someone's Linguistic Society status. [...] Though, of course, you're free to circulate a counter-petition against them!

People are free to insult others and you are free to counter-insult them. And you are also free to write an open letter asking people to try to discuss their issues, rather then insulting each other, circulating petitions against each other or getting each other fired.

>People are not required to express only opinions you approve of.

This is what you might call the "doctrine of the second speaker". Alice expresses a view Bob finds offensive. Bob calls for Alice to be fired. John says that people shouldn't be fired for expressing offensive views. Then Tom points out that "People are not required to express only opinions you approve of." After all, Bob's call for Alice to be fired is protected by the first amendment, therefore (?) it's wrong to critizise people for calling for others to be fired for offensive views.

>>amadeu+tq2
That's true. People can insult each other. There are limits: you can't intentionally and convincingly relate false facts about people (that's defamation). But calling for people's termination? That's an opinion you're unquestionably free to share.

>>tptace+8X2
Yes, calling for a company to fire someone is generally protected under the First Amendment. (There might be some edge cases, like if a state has a criminal anti-discrimination law and someone is inciting the company (to unlawfully fire a specific person specifically on the basis on a legally protected characteristic).)

But the ideal of freedom of expression is broader than limitations on the powers of government. The ideal also encompasses social norms that encourage open and honest discussion. Bad arguments made in appropriate public forums should be met with counterarguments, and certainly not with being placed on industry blacklists or getting fired. Otherwise, there are very real chilling effects on the willingness of people to engage in honest discussion. (To clarify what I mean by "appropriate public forum" above, let me give an example: Protesting someone's funeral by marching on a public sidewalk and waving signs inscribed "God hates X" is legally protected (Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)), but is outside the bounds of what most people would consider appropriate. Protesting in that place and manner rightfully subjects the protester to public scorn.)

>>nokcha+Wq4
I can't say anything about this better than Ken White did today; I cosign this in its entirety:

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1280992193591689221

>>tptace+ns4
> /6 That's because of the fundamental deal behind First Amendment values: you can't use the government to punish speech because the marketplace of ideas, the private sector, society's "more speech" is the best way to address "bad speech," not government action.

This category of "more speech", including everything from criticism to calling for someone to get fired is dishonest. The letter doesn't oppose criticism.

>>amadeu+845
Calling for people to be fired is "more speech".

>>tptace+2t5
The HN guidelines say:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Are these good guidelines? Do you think they encourage better better discussions? Do you value having a community in which these guidelines are culturally accepted? If people started violating these guidelines en masse, do you think it would make sense to defend them?

Or would that be silly, because the answer to bad speech is more speech?

The way I see it, the answer to bad speech is more speech. But that doesn't mean there can't be cultural differences in the way we use speech - some worlds in which we more often misrepresent our oppenents, interpret their statements in the worst possible light, and use that to attempt to destroy their lives, and some worlds in which we choose not to. I view the letter as an attempt to move us towards the latter world - say, to push discourse away from Twitter-style and towards HN-style debate.

>>enoch_+uQ5
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You are free to speak. You are not free to speak in my house, as I have not invited you there. If I did invite you, I could attach conditions.