- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Strange Ideas About Freedom of Speech
|
|
|
Comments (56)
Cr@p
21 earlier comments in the full thread.
The internet is an interesting new social phenomenon which leads at times to rather extreme and unproductive social interactions.
In the days of the writing of the US constitution freedom of speech really meant the ability to say in a public place anything on your mind (within the limits of profanity).
It never meant the right to tell someone they were wrong in their own home or the right to cause social disruption at a private gathering.
The problem with the internet is that this divide has blurred somewhat so that sites like Lxer have the character of a public place even though they are actually private property.
In my opinion every internet forum should have a set of rules (terms of service) which prevent social disruption. If they don't then the site will have a limited future because only people who "fit in" will frequent it.
I really don't see that as a "chilling" effect on free speech since there are many alternative fora with different rules. If you wish to discuss (for example) libertarian philosophy as it pertains to FOSS, there are many places where that is possible. Usually they are places where the same basic philosophy is shared by participants so that every conversation does not end up in angry incomprehension.
In the days of the writing of the US constitution freedom of speech really meant the ability to say in a public place anything on your mind (within the limits of profanity).
It never meant the right to tell someone they were wrong in their own home or the right to cause social disruption at a private gathering.
The problem with the internet is that this divide has blurred somewhat so that sites like Lxer have the character of a public place even though they are actually private property.
In my opinion every internet forum should have a set of rules (terms of service) which prevent social disruption. If they don't then the site will have a limited future because only people who "fit in" will frequent it.
I really don't see that as a "chilling" effect on free speech since there are many alternative fora with different rules. If you wish to discuss (for example) libertarian philosophy as it pertains to FOSS, there are many places where that is possible. Usually they are places where the same basic philosophy is shared by participants so that every conversation does not end up in angry incomprehension.
I agree with montezuma's last post wholeheartedly.
tuxchick, it's interesting that you describe yourself as waffling on free speech issues. I will freely admit that my views on some aspects of this issue (and of issues pertaining to other civil liberties) have been evolving in recent years. In the case of free speech in some cases my views are now 180 degrees opposite of what they were for a very long time.
Even if I accepted dinotrac's argument (which I obviously don't), opening up the comments completely and removing editorial control would allow more of certain types of speech but would almost certainly deny publishers (including web publishers) their own freedom of speech and expression. Could a group of satanists then hijack Christian websites or vice versa? In general the noise could and would drown out the message. Many websites are either narrow in scope (like this one) or are a means of promoting specific ideas. I feel that there is no free speech guarantee for private space nor should there be. That isn't what free speech, as defined by the laws of various free countries around the world, is.
Even if we expand the definition of free speech to include dinotrac's ideas then it becomes an issue of allowing one sort of free speech at the expense of another. There are good reasons free speech is defined the way it is.
If we define free speech in absolute terms (as dinotrac attempts to do) then there is no real free speech anywhere. It is always limited in some way or another. If we stick with legal definitions that make sense it's a lot easier to draw lines around what clearly should be protected speech and the limited cases where free speech does more harm than good. I don't think even the most ardent civil libertarian would argue for the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded room when there is no fire.
tuxchick, it's interesting that you describe yourself as waffling on free speech issues. I will freely admit that my views on some aspects of this issue (and of issues pertaining to other civil liberties) have been evolving in recent years. In the case of free speech in some cases my views are now 180 degrees opposite of what they were for a very long time.
Even if I accepted dinotrac's argument (which I obviously don't), opening up the comments completely and removing editorial control would allow more of certain types of speech but would almost certainly deny publishers (including web publishers) their own freedom of speech and expression. Could a group of satanists then hijack Christian websites or vice versa? In general the noise could and would drown out the message. Many websites are either narrow in scope (like this one) or are a means of promoting specific ideas. I feel that there is no free speech guarantee for private space nor should there be. That isn't what free speech, as defined by the laws of various free countries around the world, is.
Even if we expand the definition of free speech to include dinotrac's ideas then it becomes an issue of allowing one sort of free speech at the expense of another. There are good reasons free speech is defined the way it is.
If we define free speech in absolute terms (as dinotrac attempts to do) then there is no real free speech anywhere. It is always limited in some way or another. If we stick with legal definitions that make sense it's a lot easier to draw lines around what clearly should be protected speech and the limited cases where free speech does more harm than good. I don't think even the most ardent civil libertarian would argue for the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded room when there is no fire.
Caitlyn -
Nobody has argued for abandoning rules. Again, a simple reading would reveal that:
Freedom is more complicated than you try to make it and certainly more complicated than the view you keep trying to pin on me.
I suppose I should not expect honesty from somebody who can't comprehend freedom.
Nobody has argued for abandoning rules. Again, a simple reading would reveal that:
Quoting: Yes, a private site has every right to restrict the conversation. Sometimes, a site is all but obligated to do so.
Freedom is more complicated than you try to make it and certainly more complicated than the view you keep trying to pin on me.
I suppose I should not expect honesty from somebody who can't comprehend freedom.
dinotrac: Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that you argued for abandoning rules. I said that you had a non-standard definition of freedom of speech, one which strong differs from the legal use of the term.
I comprehend freedom. I'm not sure you do. I've been nothing if not honest.
I know, I should stop feeding the two trolls in this thread.
I comprehend freedom. I'm not sure you do. I've been nothing if not honest.
I know, I should stop feeding the two trolls in this thread.
Perhaps you're using non-standard english:
Quoting: If we define free speech in absolute terms (as dinotrac attempts to do)
Nope.
By stating there are no distinctions you are defining it in absolute terms.
Quoting:There are no distinctions as to what constitutes freedom of speech, only the conditions under which it is protected and/or permitted.
If Lxer editors decide that certain topics or certain manners of speech are not to be allowed on the site, they are indeed restricting freedom of speech.
By stating there are no distinctions you are defining it in absolute terms.
Just to add .02 FRNs to the discussion,
It is important to realize that the 1st Amendment, where the _Constitutional_ right of freedom of speech is enumerated, is a restriction upon _government_. Congress, specifically, although it's arguable that it applies to all governments.
There is no _Constitutional_ free speech where private property is concerned. Only public.
And so far, web sites are private property.
It is important to realize that the 1st Amendment, where the _Constitutional_ right of freedom of speech is enumerated, is a restriction upon _government_. Congress, specifically, although it's arguable that it applies to all governments.
There is no _Constitutional_ free speech where private property is concerned. Only public.
And so far, web sites are private property.
Bob -
Yes. When referring to Constitutionally protected free speech, that is absolutely the case.
Yes. When referring to Constitutionally protected free speech, that is absolutely the case.
Caitlyn -
Now you've got me intrigued. How would you define free speech other than relying on, ahem, freedom and speech?
And I do apologize for misunderstanding you. I presumed your use of the word absolute to mean without limit or restriction.
My bad.
Now you've got me intrigued. How would you define free speech other than relying on, ahem, freedom and speech?
And I do apologize for misunderstanding you. I presumed your use of the word absolute to mean without limit or restriction.
My bad.
Just remember folks-- if you can't cut the mustard, then cut the cheese.
@dinotrac: Apology accepted. Good to be back on civil terms. An intelligent debate is always something I'm usually up for.
First, let me start by doing something I rarely do: agreeing with Bob_Robertson 100%. To answer Bob's point: for the sake of discussion we are talking about free societies, all of which, AFAIK, have some sort of free speech protection in their basic law. Obviously it doesn't apply to all governments.
Comment moderation (which is what I initially wrote about) doesn't restrict your ability to freely speak and express your ideas. It restricts *WHERE* you can express those ideas but not your ability to effectively express them. The example I used in the blog post, Thomas Holbrook's disagreement with the LXer.com TOS, is a perfect example. The editors here may restrict such a discussion but that didn't stop him from putting his opinion out there in a way that was pretty darned easy to find. If LXer.com or the government or anyone could somehow prevent Thomas Holbrook from voicing that opinion that would be censorship and would be infringing on his freedom of speech. Restricting the ability to place it in a private media, whether online or print or broadcast or whatever, is not preventing him from speaking and making his opinion known. That is my point.
So, in fairness, I am still defining free speech in terms of freedom and speech. You are correct there is no other way to do it. However there is nothing about location in the definition of freedom or speech.
First, let me start by doing something I rarely do: agreeing with Bob_Robertson 100%. To answer Bob's point: for the sake of discussion we are talking about free societies, all of which, AFAIK, have some sort of free speech protection in their basic law. Obviously it doesn't apply to all governments.
Comment moderation (which is what I initially wrote about) doesn't restrict your ability to freely speak and express your ideas. It restricts *WHERE* you can express those ideas but not your ability to effectively express them. The example I used in the blog post, Thomas Holbrook's disagreement with the LXer.com TOS, is a perfect example. The editors here may restrict such a discussion but that didn't stop him from putting his opinion out there in a way that was pretty darned easy to find. If LXer.com or the government or anyone could somehow prevent Thomas Holbrook from voicing that opinion that would be censorship and would be infringing on his freedom of speech. Restricting the ability to place it in a private media, whether online or print or broadcast or whatever, is not preventing him from speaking and making his opinion known. That is my point.
So, in fairness, I am still defining free speech in terms of freedom and speech. You are correct there is no other way to do it. However there is nothing about location in the definition of freedom or speech.
caitlyn -
Re: comments on comment moderation --
That is completely consistent with the very first sentence of my very first comment.
But...
The fact that I can turn around and speak freely to my wife has no impact on the quality of discourse at LXer. Good communication and good conversation depends on the speakers feeling free to express their thoughts. Control the conversation too tightly, and that sense of freedom dies, taking the quality of discourse with it.
This is not rocket science and it is not new news.
Re: comments on comment moderation --
That is completely consistent with the very first sentence of my very first comment.
But...
The fact that I can turn around and speak freely to my wife has no impact on the quality of discourse at LXer. Good communication and good conversation depends on the speakers feeling free to express their thoughts. Control the conversation too tightly, and that sense of freedom dies, taking the quality of discourse with it.
This is not rocket science and it is not new news.
Dino,
Conversely control the conversation too laxly and again the quality of conversation drops due to unproductive abuse hurling.
A good balance is always needed.
A good balance is always needed.
M ---
Yup, though tis usually better to risk controlling too lightly than too tightly. Messiness ensues, but little of what is interesting in life is all that tidy.
Yup, though tis usually better to risk controlling too lightly than too tightly. Messiness ensues, but little of what is interesting in life is all that tidy.
The difference between "government" and "governance".
Governance of your own actions, moderation whether personal or "site", is a very good thing.
The other, is a TOS violation.
Governance of your own actions, moderation whether personal or "site", is a very good thing.
The other, is a TOS violation.
Bob --
Yup.
Yup.
Dino, you might (and, indeed you might not) be surprised just how many otherwise highly intelligent people do NOT understand that there is a difference.
B_R -
Nope. Long past being surprised by such things.
Nope. Long past being surprised by such things.
Quoting:Yup, though tis usually better to risk controlling too lightly than too tightly. Messiness ensues, but little of what is interesting in life is all that tidy.
You know, I used to believe that. However, my life experience and the development of the internet and the way it is used and abused have changed my views drastically over the years. I used to be quite the civil libertarian and was a defender of any and all free speech. I'm treading awfully close to a TOS violation here, but... It might surprise you to know that I defended the ACLU's position regarding the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, IL when most of my Jewish peers felt that permit should have been denied. Many quit the ACLU in protest. I've come to believe I was completely wrong at the time, FWIW, but back then I saw free speech as paramount.
I've recently become convinced that more regulation of speech, not less, is necessary due largely to some rather extreme situations which do exist on the 'net. I think the Wild West mentality which permeates the net is due, in part, to the fact that the laws which regulate speech, ones which you might well agree with, have not kept up with technology and the new media. The problem, as I see it, is to add regulation which does not impede legitimate discussion and debate and does not trample on the First Amendment or the equivalent guarantees in other free countries, yet which prevents the net from being used for things which would not be tolerated in other media or in society in general.
I don't want to wander too far off topic and I will be writing more about this in my blog and possibly for O'Reilly as a follow-up to the article I did on hate speech (white supremacists and racism, Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism) on Facebook.
How is this story about GNU/Linux or Free/Open Software?
Speaking of choices, why IS LXer posting stuff like this that is clearly off-topic?
I am open-minded about what's on-topic, but this is not even close.
And isn't it more than a bit ironic that a philosophical debate about who controls the podium was posted to LXer, putatively an outlet for "Linux News" ("The world is talking about GNU/Linux and Free/Open Source Software")?
Let me guess... the only responses I'll get to this post is chastisement from the thought police, (and at some point, some troll will drag gender into it and I'll be abused because I dared to criticize a woman).
I am open-minded about what's on-topic, but this is not even close.
And isn't it more than a bit ironic that a philosophical debate about who controls the podium was posted to LXer, putatively an outlet for "Linux News" ("The world is talking about GNU/Linux and Free/Open Source Software")?
Let me guess... the only responses I'll get to this post is chastisement from the thought police, (and at some point, some troll will drag gender into it and I'll be abused because I dared to criticize a woman).
The last paragraph sounds like an attempt to attack me and the editors of LXer.com. The article was, in part, about LXer.com and is therefore, IMNSHO, on topic. You disagree and that's fine. The last paragraph isn't.
cubrewer, the subject is absolutely on-topic for Linux and FOSS-- freedom and freedom of speech are core FOSS values. Some folks even assert that coding and software freedom are part and parcel of free speech. Everyone who admins a forum, mailing list, or IRC channel struggles with how to allow the free flow of ideas and discussions without getting drowned in useless noise.
Friendly hint: the 'Submit story' link is up there, and I encourage everyone who, out of the hundreds of stories posted on LXer each week sees only the ones that annoy them, to make use of that link.
**edit** Yeah I'm touchy about 'why is this story posted here' comments. I get boatloads of 'em at brand x. It's like this joke:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=pr...
Friendly hint: the 'Submit story' link is up there, and I encourage everyone who, out of the hundreds of stories posted on LXer each week sees only the ones that annoy them, to make use of that link.
**edit** Yeah I'm touchy about 'why is this story posted here' comments. I get boatloads of 'em at brand x. It's like this joke:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=pr...
@tc:
It is law, not merely an assertion; the 9th Circuit ruled for Daniel J. Bernstein.
It is law, not merely an assertion; the 9th Circuit ruled for Daniel J. Bernstein.
I'm a tad iffy on total freedom as a concept. If someone submitted an article titled "Linux in China: Chinks Suck At FOSS", I should bloody hope it does not get published here, but on the other hand, I guess that's just fine on the KKK's* web site.
But re cubrewer's post. This issue always comes up on news-wire type sites, so in that respect it is relevant.
* Ku Klux Klan, that is, not Kubuntu Karmic Koala. ;)
But re cubrewer's post. This issue always comes up on news-wire type sites, so in that respect it is relevant.
* Ku Klux Klan, that is, not Kubuntu Karmic Koala. ;)
Quoting: The last paragraph isn't.
Why am I not surprised to see that reaction?
Whoops! That's probably unacceptable, too. Darn.
Uh, mods?
You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
> I am open-minded about what's on-topic, but this is not even close.
Since it's about what's appropriate on a moderated site, I'd say it is.
> The last paragraph sounds like an attempt to attack me and the editors of LXer.com.
No, the first paragraph was an attempt to criticize (not attack) the editors. The last paragraph was a comment regarding the comments and posters on LXer, based on the writers analysis of past conversations. However, if you actually consider it an attack, there's an old saying which seems applicable: If the shoe fits...
> Whoops! That's probably unacceptable, too.
Almost certainly.
> If someone submitted an article titled "Linux in China: Chinks Suck At FOSS"
Well, that would depend on how factual the article was, wouldn't it? I haven't researched the contributions of China to FOSS recently.
Since it's about what's appropriate on a moderated site, I'd say it is.
> The last paragraph sounds like an attempt to attack me and the editors of LXer.com.
No, the first paragraph was an attempt to criticize (not attack) the editors. The last paragraph was a comment regarding the comments and posters on LXer, based on the writers analysis of past conversations. However, if you actually consider it an attack, there's an old saying which seems applicable: If the shoe fits...
> Whoops! That's probably unacceptable, too.
Almost certainly.
> If someone submitted an article titled "Linux in China: Chinks Suck At FOSS"
Well, that would depend on how factual the article was, wouldn't it? I haven't researched the contributions of China to FOSS recently.
@jdixon:
Re-read his title, very carefully.
It's OK, it took me a couple times to see it, too.
Re-read his title, very carefully.
It's OK, it took me a couple times to see it, too.
gus3 --
A little help. Some of us aren't as smart as you are.
A little help. Some of us aren't as smart as you are.
Oh -- that title.
I thought you were talking about the title of the thread.
Quoting: You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
At least I have a mother!
TC --
No spontaneous generation?
No spontaneous generation?
Comments on this story are closed.
Waffles. Love 'em. I know what you mean, though. The internet seems to be an unsafe place for free speech, which contrary to some conceptions, is not equal to bile.