1. Our third apparel sale is live. New design + reprint of the athletic design. Support us and get a shirt!
  2. The moderators of this forum are shade, internet, and VonFiedler.
  3. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
  4. Click here to ensure that you never miss a new SmogonU video upload!

Free Speech: Let's do this properly

Discussion in 'Congregation of the Masses' started by Soul Fly, Feb 16, 2017.

  1. Steel With It

    Steel With It

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2014
    Messages:
    155
    So, here we have an actual, literal, dictionary-definition infringement - nay, shitting on and flushing away - of the First Amendment.

    That's a group of peaceful protestors being ripped from their wheelchairs on the orders of Trump's federal government, picked up and dragged away like sacks of potatoes.

    Are any "Free speech absolutists" going to stand up and speak out against this? Anyone? Bueller? Because so far, I've only seen a lot of humming, hawing, deflecting, denying, excusing, conspiracy mongering and flat-out lying. Speak now or forever drop the Goddamn pretense.
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2017
  2. GatoDelFuego

    GatoDelFuego Rest in peace
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    GP Co-Leader

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Messages:
    4,147
    I mean they did seem to protest...in his office. To play devil's advocate how would you feel if the NRA staged a protest inside your house?
    thesecondbest likes this.
  3. atomicllamas

    atomicllamas but then what's left of me?
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a defending SPL Champion
    RU Co-Leader

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    4,168
    How is a private home the same as an office (esp. of a govt official), I don't think that's an apt comparison.
    Taistelu likes this.
  4. GatoDelFuego

    GatoDelFuego Rest in peace
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    GP Co-Leader

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Messages:
    4,147
    Maybe not. ARE you legally allowed to protest in a senator's office, though? Has anybody been allowed to do this in the past?
    thesecondbest likes this.
  5. atomicllamas

    atomicllamas but then what's left of me?
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a defending SPL Champion
    RU Co-Leader

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    4,168
    That's a good question but the articles I've found online indicate the protesters weren't actually /in/ the office, rather in the hallway outside of it. I would assume since it's a building open to the public this would be legal.

    https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/419748001/

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.wash...ters-block-hallway-outside-mcconnells-office/

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...-mcconnell-office-health-care-bill/index.html

    not gonna link cause I don't want to give them traffic but even brietbart described them as blocking the hallway outside the office. Sorry if any of these links are bad, but I'm on my phone.
    Taistelu likes this.
  6. GatoDelFuego

    GatoDelFuego Rest in peace
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    GP Co-Leader

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Messages:
    4,147
    Steel with it's original article says:

    DC law: https://beta.code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/22-1307.html


    Interesting that DC police have the discretion to judge (pretty tame) political protests as "boisterous or disorderly conduct". That extends a pretty hefty precedent to like...literally anything, such as picketing on the capitol steps seems to be blocked by this. Guess that's why protests need permits [First time I've looked this up either, I'm genuinely surprised there's this much code on protesting]
    thesecondbest likes this.
  7. thesecondbest

    thesecondbest Just Kidding I'm First

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2014
    Messages:
    677
    What do you guys think about the #CNNBlackmail? obviously it isn't about legal boundaries of free speech, but do you think it is morally right to dox people you disagree with, or blackmail them with the threat of doxing? I think it should be illegal to doxx, anonymity is key to free speech so people can express controversial views
  8. Blazade

    Blazade
    Mafia Champion

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    2,140
    I think that last sentence is off. Free speech is about the government not restricting your right to speak, not about protecting you from the accountability of what you say in a public forum.

    That said CNN doxing this guy wouldn't be much better than any if the times trump uses his twitter account to get his supporters to sling death threats at someone. I don't think it would be ethical at a glance.
  9. Steel With It

    Steel With It

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2014
    Messages:
    155

    Well, I think that it's a lie, for starters. Because it is a lie. They didn't doxx him and didn't threaten to doxx him; they only released his Reddit username (which, as you may or may not realise, is not his real name, address or phone number) and the "Threats! Blackmail!" are pure #Pizzagate-level conspiracy theory.

    ... Please tell me you don't believe in #Pizzagate too. ಠ_ಠ
  10. Soul Fly

    Soul Fly IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,851
    except not.

    they really did put their billion dollar investigative apparatus into tracking down the IRL identity of the maker of the meme. They scared him (or her, but its likely him given the_donald crowd) shitless into making an apology, and are straight up holding the guy hostage. That's not a spin it's regrettably fact. Don't take it from Brietbart, read CNN's own statement:

    (relevant excerpt)

    CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

    CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change. (emphasis mine)
    Debate the ethicality of it but let's keep the facts straight.
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2017
  11. Soul Fly

    Soul Fly IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,851
  12. TheValkyries

    TheValkyries proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,567
    Yes the people that need to be defended right now are the fucking Nazis. Great post. Well done.
    danilo and Kingler12345 like this.
  13. faint

    faint
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,874
    [​IMG]

    don't feel like this needs words. a pretty powerful photo in many ways.
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
    Taistelu, Minus and Soul Fly like this.
  14. Soul Fly

    Soul Fly IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,851
    once you're done blowing your knee-jerk self-righteous wad all over the forum, please press 6, then proceed to actually read.

    lol.

    dark humour aside, that is a very telling picture about the commitment to civil liberties, especially in a time where there is a growing, legitimate argument for reworking what certain fundamental rights mean.

    Notwithstanding the standard argument that allowing these actions help legitimise and propagate hateful, exclusionary views; there is a legitimate discussion to be had whether holding on to objective legal standards is better for defending minorities, even if it means defending speech and liberties that assault them, and unfairly burden them.

    I understand that blind objectivity and civil order are central tenets of liberalism, which is - for reasons legitimate, if still unclear - going out of vogue, however as of this moment the US is facing a rather existential paradox: one where standard civil liberties are invoked and argued for minority rights (the definitions of the universality of rights), but then punching Spencer is cheered. The inconsistency grates, however just.

    Just wanted to know what others think of this, especially since ACLU is a darling of US progressives, and has also been the forefront of the legal movement fighting against the travel ban, for refugee rights, LGBTQIA issues, bathroom bills and a whole host of other stuff.
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
  15. Rapti

    Rapti

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    316
    While I agree that certain ideas are indeed toxic and should be rein in I find that in practice people tend to confuse fringe with toxic

    like for example; we're currently certain that vaccines are indeed necessary and that the anti-vaccination camp is spreading ideas which not only has been disproven but that by preventing children from been vaccinated they create safe havens for bacteria to incubate and not only risk the unvaccinated children lives but the population as a whole so you could easily come to the conclusion that they ideas are toxic
    but (and this is me playing devil's advocate) imagine that say 50 years down the line we found out that vaccines where causing autism somehow and that by inoculating children we where actually harming them, yes it's a ridiculous scenario but remember we once awarded a Nobel prize to the inventor of lobotomies

    and yes I-m aware this tread is mostly about Nazis taking over the USA but while that particular case is obvious something that should be abolished it's also clearly hate speach and the fact that nazi manifesters haven't been prersecuted is more indicative of a highly aberrant government that has been infiltrated by racists but the point is that for the most part (i.e. not the most recent Nazi resurgence) even ideas that sound crazy and even immoral at one time can be later accepted as correct, remember that not too long ago (150 years is actually very, very recently as far as humanity's history is concerned) women being equal to men was not only considered radical but unnatural and yes, even unscientific

    also the "punch up to power" idea is flawed because not only oppressor and oppressed are not permanent positions, in transitional periods it can justify acts of oppression by the new dominant group towards others, the Reign of Terror not only happened it-s not an isolated incident
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
    brightobject likes this.
  16. GatoDelFuego

    GatoDelFuego Rest in peace
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    GP Co-Leader

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Messages:
    4,147
    Can you explain what vaccines and lobotomies have anything to do with free speech tho?
  17. Rapti

    Rapti

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    316
    The point of free speech is to protect radical ideas i.e. anti-vaxxers from backlash from others because while those ideas can be perceived as disruptive or even evil to our current understanding, i.e. the scientific community in the 1950s having a consensus on lobotomies being helpful to patients; our understanding of how things work may be later be proven very, very wrong

    now I should clarify, I do not actually object to certain ideas being classified as harmful and thus yes, censored (pro-paedophilia, pro-anorexia groups for example and yes also white supremacy groups), but I do think that certain groups whose ideas can be classified as toxic could potentially have a point and shouldn't be censored and that identifying which group is which is not just hard but that it may be vital and yet we may never know which group is which without the benefit of hindsight

    so yeah, we should censor Neo-Nazis since we know those ideas have lead to horrible tragedy; but other groups like let's say Pro-Life guys? I dunno, maybe we can't know until it's too late
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
  18. faint

    faint
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,874
    The point of free speech is not to protect you from backlash. Where the fuck did you get that idea from? Our right to free speech means we are protected under the constitution from being arrested and shit for things we say. It doesn't protect us from disagreeing with others or being told our opinion is shit / fired from our job for being a pos / etc.
  19. Rapti

    Rapti

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    316
    I meant backlash from the official authorities like being arrested for saying something radical, sorry if that didn't came out clear
  20. GatoDelFuego

    GatoDelFuego Rest in peace
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    GP Co-Leader

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Messages:
    4,147
    I'm afraid I don't get the point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that we should censor harmful opinions (pro-pedophilia, pro-nazism), but not toxic ones that could "potentially have a point"? (anti-vaccinations, pro-life?) Who decides what makes something potentially harmful? As faint said the point of free speech is to protect any idea from arrest, but what does that have to do with 1950's psychosurgery? Humanity 60 years from now might flip on what's ok to talk about? Are you saying that psychosurgery is evil under our current moral standards, but it should be protected under free speech laws? I don't get what your central argument is
  21. Rapti

    Rapti

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    316
    What I'm trying to say is: even opinions that may seem harmful at the moment may in fact turn out to be correct so that we shouldn't censor (and by "we" I mean "our government") ideas that seem harmful or insane
    unless
    we know by prior experience of those ideas put into action that they lead to tragedy and then we should censor them

    also I want to convey that even if we do this we might screw up horribly because some of untested ideas may very well lead to tragedy, worse yet some other untested ideas might lead to tragedy if we don't listen to them and it may be impossible for any human to know which is which so we're kinda screwed whether we censor seemingly toxic ideas or whether we don't censor seemingly toxic ideas
    thus the only ideas I'm certain we should censor are those that have been proven wrong because when they were put in practice they lead to disaster

    and yes climate change deniers should be allowed (by the government) to spread their message under this premise even tough I'm certain that not combating climate change will lead our whole species to extinction very soon


    In short I believe that when it comes to free speech any stance we take will only lead to losing, so the only moral choice is to take the on in which we lose (slightly) less, free speech needs to be objective and consistent except when the ideas espoused have already been put in practice and already lead to tragedy

    disaster is inevitable but we might at least not repeat disasters
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
  22. Jellicent

    Jellicent
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Super Moderatoris a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
    Ruiner of Alph

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    that's a pretty subjective power for the gov to wield, as what constitutes a disaster might be disagreed on from one administration to the next. at the moment, you'd have guys like trump, pence, mcconnell, bannon, etc. determining what would be "disastrous", "tragic", or "wrong" for us to discuss.

    and that seems like a legitimate disaster...
  23. Rapti

    Rapti

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    316
    Fair enough, although I was more referring how a non-aberrant government should act, but if say, the Obama administration would have taken a harder stance towards the KKK or Trump's racist comments during the campaign the USA would have had a different president right now

    still yeah any government has the potential to mess things up, I just think Nazis are such a clear treat it'd be hard for even the Reagan administration to mess that up
  24. GatoDelFuego

    GatoDelFuego Rest in peace
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    GP Co-Leader

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Messages:
    4,147
    What exactly do you mean by "non-aberrant government"? A normal government? What makes a government normal?

    And what harder stance on the KKK would prevent a Trump presidency?
  25. Jellicent

    Jellicent
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Super Moderatoris a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
    Ruiner of Alph

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,369
    aberrant is also subjective. let's roll back a few years and replace those names with bush, cheney, delay, rove... this still doesn't feel any better. and frankly, no, i'd rather not have seen the obama administration with that kind of control over conversations. even if i did wind up liking what he did with it, i'd still be uneasy that the ability exists in the first place, as leaders change pretty often in america.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)