Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
I honestly don't care to debate the merits of free speech (legal or other definition), personally, I just want people to be clear what they're talking about. Generally if you say "free speech" people are gonna believe you are using the "free from government regulation" definition. So just be clear if you're not.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
It's becoming increasingly clear to me that America needs some limiters on free speech regarding known slurs. Someone can spout their vitriol about how Hispanics are ruining the country all they want legally but mixing in the slur would be criminal. Still enables assholes to scream their views to the heavens but they have to call the ones they're insulting by their given demographic's name.
Is this thread about whether we should use the enforcement power of the State to punish some speech?
Thank you for asking, the answer is no.
The OP is basically about reddit's policies about use of racist language on their site, and I'm going to say let's limit discussion to that (and other similar online discussion places) please.
Plenty of countries out there don't have truly free speech and didn't end up with the Nazis. The UK government in particular cracked down on its own 1930s Nazis (Oswald Mosely & co), very much not respecting their free speech, because it considered them troublemakers. The German government couldn't fight the Nazis because it was weak and ineffectual, not because it didn't respect the free speech of Nazi opponents.
+23
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
It's becoming increasingly clear to me that America needs some limiters on free speech regarding known slurs. Someone can spout their vitriol about how Hispanics are ruining the country all they want legally but mixing in the slur would be criminal. Still enables assholes to scream their views to the heavens but they have to call the ones they're insulting by their given demographic's name.
Is this thread about whether we should use the enforcement power of the State to punish some speech?
Thank you for asking, the answer is no.
The OP is basically about reddit's policies about use of racist language on their site, and I'm going to say let's limit discussion to that (and other similar online discussion places) please.
I can't help but ask... how many people accuse the volunteer staff here on this forum of trampling on their 'free speech' when they get in trouble for shit they shouldn't be doing?
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
+36
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
And yet here is Reddit giving voice to the oppressive majority and shutting down the dispossessed.
What you're saying is usually the opposite of what actually happens in the real world.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
Plenty of countries out there don't have truly free speech and didn't end up with the Nazis. The UK government in particular cracked down on its own 1930s Nazis (Oswald Mosely & co), very much not respecting their free speech, because it considered them troublemakers. The German government couldn't fight the Nazis because it was weak and ineffectual, not because it didn't respect the free speech of Nazi opponents.
It's not really a realistic argument to say that suppression of speech to 'preserve public morals hasn't been a key part of most despotic regimes through the years. I'd say that suppressing speech has a much darker history than allowing it.
I don't believe that Reddit has any need to allow absolute free speech on their platform. They may set whatever regulations they wish. If people disagree with their line in the sand, they should organize boycotts or not use the site. But, if Reddit chooses to allow free speech then the government doesn't need to set in. Perhaps that makes Reddit a hateful place for minorities and women, I don't make use of it and prefer it here due to our traditional limits on speech (argue about what you like, but do so without abuse, profanity and personal attacks), but I don't believe the government has any place in limiting discussion, even on racist and hurtful topics.
It's becoming increasingly clear to me that America needs some limiters on free speech regarding known slurs. Someone can spout their vitriol about how Hispanics are ruining the country all they want legally but mixing in the slur would be criminal. Still enables assholes to scream their views to the heavens but they have to call the ones they're insulting by their given demographic's name.
Is this thread about whether we should use the enforcement power of the State to punish some speech?
Thank you for asking, the answer is no.
The OP is basically about reddit's policies about use of racist language on their site, and I'm going to say let's limit discussion to that (and other similar online discussion places) please.
I can't help but ask... how many people accuse the volunteer staff here on this forum of trampling on their 'free speech' when they get in trouble for shit they shouldn't be doing?
Not something I can answer really, and I'd rather this thread not be an airing of grievances/praises re: the PA forums and our polices.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
+23
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
The police turned fire hoses and attack dogs on peaceful protesters during the Civil Rights movement. The police arrested hundreds of those same protesters and gave them bullshit criminal charges.
During the same time, there were demonstrations put on by the KKK and the American Nazi Party. These were sometimes protected by police escort.
Having a selective memory of how our so-called "equal rights" have been unequally enforced and respected just helps create a false narrative that allows people to justify, in the current day, that actually America is special and doesn't need to consider reasonable laws that other democratic nations have passed and enforced for decades without turning into a fascist nightmare state.
I'm really not sure what free speech has to do with policing racist speech on reddit, unless reddit was recently acquired by the US government
Free speech is an ideal that exists outside of the constitution, and I feel like people are debating things here with that knowledge in mind.
I guess, I have never lived my life on the basis of being able to say whatever the fuck I want with no expected consequences. No one is saying that the racists on reddit can't say anything, just that they shouldn't be saying it in that particular venue.
I'm really not sure what free speech has to do with policing racist speech on reddit, unless reddit was recently acquired by the US government
Free speech is an ideal that exists outside of the constitution, and I feel like people are debating things here with that knowledge in mind.
I don't think free speech in the context of a specific publication business or business that serves as a meeting place has ever been much of an ideal outside of the fringes. I don't think many people expect the business that owns a local event building to let the KKK rent out their building for an event.
Real life forums are expected to set standards in ways that limit free speech.
The main exception might be things like privately owned parks that have essentially replaced publicly owned parks in some places and act like publicly owned parks for almost all intents and purposes to the point where some people might not realize they are privately owned.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
The problem is that's a self-defeating ethos.
"Pressure" or "influence" is itself free expression. And the advocacy that "one should not using pressure or influence against ideas" is a form of pressure or influence against contrary ideas.
By presenting a medium that intrinsically expresses an ideology - both of supposed content-neutrality and of some moderation of activity - they are expressing something and an unwillingness to police "explicit racism" means they believe that it is acceptable.
That's why its a wrongheaded approach to free expression. The government isn't allowed to use its police power to restrain expression specifically because it would restrain the expression of the popular will which is the intrinsic source of its authority. Reddit just doesn't want to upset bigots as a business model
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
Its not reasonable to claim that absolutist free speech is bad because Klan rallies but ignore that's its also afforded protection for all manner of worthy minority causes.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
And if they tried to use *their* constitutionally protected free speech to protest against it, I wonder how much the police would have laughed in their face? (or worse)
The USA's absolute free speech has always seemed to empower the powerful, and the powerless don't get to use their "free speech" in return. Everyone whining about being banned from a private forum for Nazi speech is also someone who would gloat at the dead career of Colin Kaepernick.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
It also mixes with the whole idea of the "open platform" where a lot of people in the tech and social media industry think it's basically there job to provide the means for people to communicate and they can basically all work out what they wanna say themselves.
The whole "free speech absolutism" thing is basically based in the idea that you shouldn't tell people using your platform what they can and cannot say.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
Its not reasonable to claim that absolutist free speech is bad because Klan rallies but ignore that's its also afforded protection for all manner of worthy minority causes.
You can ban hate speech without banning minority speech. It's rather easy in fact.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
And if they tried to use *their* constitutionally protected free speech to protest against it, I wonder how much the police would have laughed in their face? (or worse)
The USA's absolute free speech has always seemed to empower the powerful, and the powerless don't get to use their "free speech" in return. Everyone whining about being banned from a private forum for Nazi speech is also someone who would gloat at the dead career of Colin Kaepernick.
Then the problem here is the enforcement, not the ideal. But it would seem odd to me to criticize a regime of absolute free speech for mixed enforcement but also advocate for a move towards more restrictive speech codes.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
Its not reasonable to claim that absolutist free speech is bad because Klan rallies but ignore that's its also afforded protection for all manner of worthy minority causes.
You can ban hate speech without banning minority speech. It's rather easy in fact.
You assume too much good faith. One doesn't even have to be creative to see how a legal structure that allows governments to stamp down on racism against, say, African-Americans, would absolutely be used to crush discussions on white supremacy.
If ya'll think that absolutist free speech empowers the powerful too much then ooooh boy.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
And how far would the Civil Rights movement have made it without the right to speak and demonstrate? Even WITH that right the status quo brought terrible "legal" pressure using all the institutions of power that could be brought to bear.
It's becoming increasingly clear to me that America needs some limiters on free speech regarding known slurs. Someone can spout their vitriol about how Hispanics are ruining the country all they want legally but mixing in the slur would be criminal. Still enables assholes to scream their views to the heavens but they have to call the ones they're insulting by their given demographic's name.
Is this thread about whether we should use the enforcement power of the State to punish some speech?
Thank you for asking, the answer is no.
The OP is basically about reddit's policies about use of racist language on their site, and I'm going to say let's limit discussion to that (and other similar online discussion places) please.
I can't help but ask... how many people accuse the volunteer staff here on this forum of trampling on their 'free speech' when they get in trouble for shit they shouldn't be doing?
This forum is a benevolent progressive dictatorship. You can't guarantee that outcome in any reasonable system of representational government, it is a terrible analogy to try to extend to the entire nation.
I'm really not sure what free speech has to do with policing racist speech on reddit, unless reddit was recently acquired by the US government
Free speech is an ideal that exists outside of the constitution, and I feel like people are debating things here with that knowledge in mind.
I guess, I have never lived my life on the basis of being able to say whatever the fuck I want with no expected consequences. No one is saying that the racists on reddit can't say anything, just that they shouldn't be saying it in that particular venue.
Free speech has never meant "say whatever the fuck I want with no expected consequences". Free speech just means that the government putting you in jail, or confiscating your property/life/etc are not among the allowable consequences. Being ostracized by your peers, marginalized from mainstream society, disowned by your family, mocked on the internet, demonstrated against en masse, and in extreme cases punched in your stupid neo-nazi mouth? Not protected by free speech.
The free speech argument is, and always will be, smoke and mirrors. Steve Huffman provides a platform for white supremacists because he is a white supremacist.
I’ll believe that a private business is “free speech absolutist” when it takes no action against speech that risks its profit. Reddit has removed ads from hate subreddits- it is aware that can damage the brand. The fact that they continue to provide a platform for it- indeed, as others have pointed out, subsidizing it- indicates support for that speech.
I love the Constitution. I took an oath to uphold it. And I’m getting real tired of people willfully misrepresenting it to defend those who would murder me or see me a second-class citizen.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
And if they tried to use *their* constitutionally protected free speech to protest against it, I wonder how much the police would have laughed in their face? (or worse)
The USA's absolute free speech has always seemed to empower the powerful, and the powerless don't get to use their "free speech" in return. Everyone whining about being banned from a private forum for Nazi speech is also someone who would gloat at the dead career of Colin Kaepernick.
Then the problem here is the enforcement, not the ideal. But it would seem odd to me to criticize a regime of absolute free speech for mixed enforcement but also advocate for a move towards more restrictive speech codes.
Absolute free speech is impossible. Either the bigots are going to push out the dispossessed, or you have to do something about hate speech so they can speak.
It's becoming increasingly clear to me that America needs some limiters on free speech regarding known slurs. Someone can spout their vitriol about how Hispanics are ruining the country all they want legally but mixing in the slur would be criminal. Still enables assholes to scream their views to the heavens but they have to call the ones they're insulting by their given demographic's name.
Is this thread about whether we should use the enforcement power of the State to punish some speech?
Thank you for asking, the answer is no.
The OP is basically about reddit's policies about use of racist language on their site, and I'm going to say let's limit discussion to that (and other similar online discussion places) please.
Reminder. A debate on hate speech laws is outside the scope of this thread.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Tolerance and free expression aren't really linked though. Tolerance is anti-certain content that violates its ideology. Reddit is trying to claim that they are content-neutral (like the government in regard to free speech) when they clearly are not. Both can sometimes arrive at the same conclusion (people should be able to worship as they choose) but other times they are contradictory because of a different line of reasoning (pluralistic societies are good and beneficial vs the government lacks the authority to police matters of opinion from which its own authority is derived).
Reddit is a private entity that is expressing ideas through its medium (paging McLuhan). The relationship between free expression advocacy and free expression may be subtle but its definitely there and it undercuts their rationale.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
And if they tried to use *their* constitutionally protected free speech to protest against it, I wonder how much the police would have laughed in their face? (or worse)
The USA's absolute free speech has always seemed to empower the powerful, and the powerless don't get to use their "free speech" in return. Everyone whining about being banned from a private forum for Nazi speech is also someone who would gloat at the dead career of Colin Kaepernick.
Then the problem here is the enforcement, not the ideal. But it would seem odd to me to criticize a regime of absolute free speech for mixed enforcement but also advocate for a move towards more restrictive speech codes.
Absolute free speech is impossible. Either the bigots are going to push out the dispossessed, or you have to do something about hate speech so they can speak.
"Absolute" is of course always relative here.
I agree that something should be done" about hate speech. Just like I agree something should be done when Nazis march in the streets. Why anyone would think empowering a government that is frequently controlled by white supremacists is the way to go about it is beyond me.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
Its not reasonable to claim that absolutist free speech is bad because Klan rallies but ignore that's its also afforded protection for all manner of worthy minority causes.
You can ban hate speech without banning minority speech. It's rather easy in fact.
You assume too much good faith. One doesn't even have to be creative to see how a legal structure that allows governments to stamp down on racism against, say, African-Americans would absolutely be used to crush discussions on white supremacy.
If ya'll think that absolutist free speech empowers the powerful too much then ooooh boy.
Yes, if you vote for Nazis, you are doomed. Nothing will save you in that case.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
And if they tried to use *their* constitutionally protected free speech to protest against it, I wonder how much the police would have laughed in their face? (or worse)
The USA's absolute free speech has always seemed to empower the powerful, and the powerless don't get to use their "free speech" in return. Everyone whining about being banned from a private forum for Nazi speech is also someone who would gloat at the dead career of Colin Kaepernick.
Then the problem here is the enforcement, not the ideal. But it would seem odd to me to criticize a regime of absolute free speech for mixed enforcement but also advocate for a move towards more restrictive speech codes.
Oddly enough, in practice it doesn't necessarily work out as badly as you'd think. A lot of Europe has less free speech than the USA, but it generally just means you can't do anything no reasonable person would want to do, such as shout racial slurs at people or deny the holocaust in print. It doesn't lead to a slippery slope in which you can't say anything controversial. And people manage to express racist views without getting arrested, for the most part.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
Here's a suggestion:
A legal right to be free from governmental censorship, as under the First Amendment = Free Speech
A belief that private entities should take a laissez-faire approach or that speech should be free of social consequences = Freeze Peach
Reddit is pro-Freeze Peach.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
In all seriousness, despite the silly and dismissive-sounding moniker, I think we're too quick to dismiss Freeze Peach as a social value.
D&D is notably left-leaning, and in any other realm, we are generally cognizant of how private entities like corporations, employers, and landlords have just as much power to impinge on somebody's rights as the government.
This is why we have non-discrimination laws; if I'm broadly discriminated against for being gay or Islamic, then my right to be gay or Islamic is effectively impinged. Tenant's rights and worker's rights are also founded in the awareness that sometimes private entities are bigger threats to freedom than governments.
Reddit's error here is not Freeze Peach, it's the position that racists and racial minorities can share a safe space on the same platform. You can't expect Stormfront and BLM to take a respectful agree-to-disagree approach. That's why our antidiscrimination laws protect black people but not white supremacists; history has proven again and again that there is no equivalency between those groups.
But remember, while we criticize Reddit, that social opprobrium against 'bad' speech is a phenomenon that tends to work more for the (privileged and numeric) majority than it does for the minority. Penny Arcade gives me license to speak all manner of highly controversial opinions that range from things I dare not express at work (hallucinogens are generally positive experiences that most people should try though there are risks involved; wage labor is a necessary evil but an evil nonetheless) to opinions I dare not express anywhere in public (treating pedophilia as a criminal justice issue rather than a public health issue is unjust, and despite their inclinations, pedophiles are human beings and deserve our sympathies).
I appreciate the Penny Arcade upholds a broader standard of Freeze Peach than my employer. We need spaces where we are free to voice unpopular, even dangerous-sounding opinions.
I don't mean to imply that it's easy to tell when an opinion traverses the line from dangerous-sounding to actually-dangerous. A good rule of thumb that Penny Arcade occasionally illustrates is that if a particular topic repeatedly leads to bad behavior (harassment, forum raids, trolling) then that topic is verboten, or at least very carefully scrutinized. Here on PA, threads related to religion or sexual assault have repeatedly fallen under these criteria.
But that standard also requires a proactive, community-oriented modstaff. One of Reddit's problems is that, like so many other Silicon Valley endeavors, it's founded on a myth that you can build a website, open it to a crowd, and then wash your hands of the messy business of managing people. Technology scales to a big user base much more profitably than human oversight.
Healthy communities recognize that technology is just a tool; you need to hire or appoint trustworthy people to drive it.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Free speech has never meant "say whatever the fuck I want with no expected consequences". Free speech just means that the government putting you in jail, or confiscating your property/life/etc are not among the allowable consequences. Being ostracized by your peers, marginalized from mainstream society, disowned by your family, mocked on the internet, demonstrated against en masse, and in extreme cases punched in your stupid neo-nazi mouth? Not protected by free speech.
which is what I said in my post above the one you quoted. This reddit thing doesn't have anything to do with free speech because reddit is not the government
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
And how far would the Civil Rights movement have made it without the right to speak and demonstrate? Even WITH that right the status quo brought terrible "legal" pressure using all the institutions of power that could be brought to bear.
They had free speech rights during Reconstruction too. Didn't help then. It would not seem to be a decisive factor.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
And how far would the Civil Rights movement have made it without the right to speak and demonstrate? Even WITH that right the status quo brought terrible "legal" pressure using all the institutions of power that could be brought to bear.
They had free speech rights during Reconstruction too. Didn't help then. It would not seem to be a decisive factor.
That's kind of glib and ignores a lot of legal wins predicated on the current framework.
Yeah, there is a level of opression you can sink to where a theoretical right to free speech is irrelevant, but having an open ability to question a racial/sexual/class status quo has been legally important for minorities.
Reddit isn't the town square or the government so they can respect free speech while still kicking out the obvious racists like other private companies are allowed to do. Free speech has never meant private businesses being required to host speech.
You’re mixing up the legal protection of a right to free speech with the general principal that free speech is a social positive.
When tech libertarian types talk about free speech, they aren’t just talking about the government stepping in or not. They’re talking about a social principle of not using pressure or influence against ideas.
Free speech is an ideal (one I’ll admit that I’m a lot less enamored with than I was 15 years ago) that goes beyond government intervention and legal issues.
I think if that's what people mean when they post here about free speech they should be clear about that. Freedom of speech is a literal right in our Constitution, if you mean something else, better to say so.
They've always been intimately connected. Free Speech Absolutists (if that's what the term is now?) don't support free speech because of the Constitution, but rather the Constitution validates the idea and importance of free speech and enshrines it in law to protect it.
Or: we don't protect free speech from the government because it's only bad when the government curtails free speech, but because we recognize free speech is important and that the government has the most power to hurt it if they so desire. This doesn't mean we approve of any other force or group attempting to curtail free speech, but rather that we've set the safeguards we can.
Reddit taking this stance makes sense in this context. They don't just agree with the Legal idea of free speech, they agree with the idea behind the law. It's a good stance, and rare in these days.
One, they actually don't, because when push comes to shove and the bigots start causing Reddit PR to reach for the emergency handle of Jack, their rhetoric switches from "we defend free speech" to "Target Acquired. On my mark..."
Two, an environment where the dispossessed have to choose between safety and speech is not one where speech is free.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
And how far would the Civil Rights movement have made it without the right to speak and demonstrate? Even WITH that right the status quo brought terrible "legal" pressure using all the institutions of power that could be brought to bear.
They had free speech rights during Reconstruction too. Didn't help then. It would not seem to be a decisive factor.
That's kind of glib and ignores a lot of legal wins predicated on the current framework.
Yeah, there is a level of opression you can sink to where a theoretical right to free speech is irrelevant, but having an open ability to question a racial/sexual/class status quo has been legally important for minorities.
How is this relevant to the topic of reddit's policies as presented in the OP?
Posts
I honestly don't care to debate the merits of free speech (legal or other definition), personally, I just want people to be clear what they're talking about. Generally if you say "free speech" people are gonna believe you are using the "free from government regulation" definition. So just be clear if you're not.
The dispossessed will always have to choose between safety and speech, to some degree. It kind of goes with the name. They are dispossessed. They are of a lower standing in society, thrown away or abused or ignored or looked down on. Any act of drawing the spotlight to themselves is dangerous, because humans don't act well to each other. But Free Speech, both the laws and the Ideas that prop them up, gives them a voice.
They need that voice more than anyone.
Thank you for asking, the answer is no.
The OP is basically about reddit's policies about use of racist language on their site, and I'm going to say let's limit discussion to that (and other similar online discussion places) please.
And yet here is Reddit giving voice to the oppressive majority and shutting down the dispossessed.
What you're saying is usually the opposite of what actually happens in the real world.
The absolutist view of free speech actually reduces the voice of the weaks and unpopulars, since they are the ones who get intimidated by threats protected by free speech absolutism.
After all, hate speech is not a major issue for the powerfuls, and they are very few calls for the genocide of popular groups.
This is curiously ahistorical in that the US's relatively absolutist speech has protected minority views and factions throughout our history. The worst you can say is that its been a mixed bag.
It's not really a realistic argument to say that suppression of speech to 'preserve public morals hasn't been a key part of most despotic regimes through the years. I'd say that suppressing speech has a much darker history than allowing it.
I don't believe that Reddit has any need to allow absolute free speech on their platform. They may set whatever regulations they wish. If people disagree with their line in the sand, they should organize boycotts or not use the site. But, if Reddit chooses to allow free speech then the government doesn't need to set in. Perhaps that makes Reddit a hateful place for minorities and women, I don't make use of it and prefer it here due to our traditional limits on speech (argue about what you like, but do so without abuse, profanity and personal attacks), but I don't believe the government has any place in limiting discussion, even on racist and hurtful topics.
Not something I can answer really, and I'd rather this thread not be an airing of grievances/praises re: the PA forums and our polices.
I'm sure African-Americans really enjoyed the Klan free speech and how protected it was.
Free speech is an ideal that exists outside of the constitution, and I feel like people are debating things here with that knowledge in mind.
The police turned fire hoses and attack dogs on peaceful protesters during the Civil Rights movement. The police arrested hundreds of those same protesters and gave them bullshit criminal charges.
During the same time, there were demonstrations put on by the KKK and the American Nazi Party. These were sometimes protected by police escort.
Having a selective memory of how our so-called "equal rights" have been unequally enforced and respected just helps create a false narrative that allows people to justify, in the current day, that actually America is special and doesn't need to consider reasonable laws that other democratic nations have passed and enforced for decades without turning into a fascist nightmare state.
I guess, I have never lived my life on the basis of being able to say whatever the fuck I want with no expected consequences. No one is saying that the racists on reddit can't say anything, just that they shouldn't be saying it in that particular venue.
I don't think free speech in the context of a specific publication business or business that serves as a meeting place has ever been much of an ideal outside of the fringes. I don't think many people expect the business that owns a local event building to let the KKK rent out their building for an event.
Real life forums are expected to set standards in ways that limit free speech.
The main exception might be things like privately owned parks that have essentially replaced publicly owned parks in some places and act like publicly owned parks for almost all intents and purposes to the point where some people might not realize they are privately owned.
The problem is that's a self-defeating ethos.
"Pressure" or "influence" is itself free expression. And the advocacy that "one should not using pressure or influence against ideas" is a form of pressure or influence against contrary ideas.
By presenting a medium that intrinsically expresses an ideology - both of supposed content-neutrality and of some moderation of activity - they are expressing something and an unwillingness to police "explicit racism" means they believe that it is acceptable.
That's why its a wrongheaded approach to free expression. The government isn't allowed to use its police power to restrain expression specifically because it would restrain the expression of the popular will which is the intrinsic source of its authority. Reddit just doesn't want to upset bigots as a business model
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
What you're describing here is
Its not reasonable to claim that absolutist free speech is bad because Klan rallies but ignore that's its also afforded protection for all manner of worthy minority causes.
And if they tried to use *their* constitutionally protected free speech to protest against it, I wonder how much the police would have laughed in their face? (or worse)
The USA's absolute free speech has always seemed to empower the powerful, and the powerless don't get to use their "free speech" in return. Everyone whining about being banned from a private forum for Nazi speech is also someone who would gloat at the dead career of Colin Kaepernick.
It also mixes with the whole idea of the "open platform" where a lot of people in the tech and social media industry think it's basically there job to provide the means for people to communicate and they can basically all work out what they wanna say themselves.
The whole "free speech absolutism" thing is basically based in the idea that you shouldn't tell people using your platform what they can and cannot say.
You can ban hate speech without banning minority speech. It's rather easy in fact.
Then the problem here is the enforcement, not the ideal. But it would seem odd to me to criticize a regime of absolute free speech for mixed enforcement but also advocate for a move towards more restrictive speech codes.
You assume too much good faith. One doesn't even have to be creative to see how a legal structure that allows governments to stamp down on racism against, say, African-Americans, would absolutely be used to crush discussions on white supremacy.
If ya'll think that absolutist free speech empowers the powerful too much then ooooh boy.
And how far would the Civil Rights movement have made it without the right to speak and demonstrate? Even WITH that right the status quo brought terrible "legal" pressure using all the institutions of power that could be brought to bear.
This forum is a benevolent progressive dictatorship. You can't guarantee that outcome in any reasonable system of representational government, it is a terrible analogy to try to extend to the entire nation. Free speech has never meant "say whatever the fuck I want with no expected consequences". Free speech just means that the government putting you in jail, or confiscating your property/life/etc are not among the allowable consequences. Being ostracized by your peers, marginalized from mainstream society, disowned by your family, mocked on the internet, demonstrated against en masse, and in extreme cases punched in your stupid neo-nazi mouth? Not protected by free speech.
I’ll believe that a private business is “free speech absolutist” when it takes no action against speech that risks its profit. Reddit has removed ads from hate subreddits- it is aware that can damage the brand. The fact that they continue to provide a platform for it- indeed, as others have pointed out, subsidizing it- indicates support for that speech.
I love the Constitution. I took an oath to uphold it. And I’m getting real tired of people willfully misrepresenting it to defend those who would murder me or see me a second-class citizen.
Absolute free speech is impossible. Either the bigots are going to push out the dispossessed, or you have to do something about hate speech so they can speak.
Reminder. A debate on hate speech laws is outside the scope of this thread.
Tolerance and free expression aren't really linked though. Tolerance is anti-certain content that violates its ideology. Reddit is trying to claim that they are content-neutral (like the government in regard to free speech) when they clearly are not. Both can sometimes arrive at the same conclusion (people should be able to worship as they choose) but other times they are contradictory because of a different line of reasoning (pluralistic societies are good and beneficial vs the government lacks the authority to police matters of opinion from which its own authority is derived).
Reddit is a private entity that is expressing ideas through its medium (paging McLuhan). The relationship between free expression advocacy and free expression may be subtle but its definitely there and it undercuts their rationale.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
"Absolute" is of course always relative here.
I agree that something should be done" about hate speech. Just like I agree something should be done when Nazis march in the streets. Why anyone would think empowering a government that is frequently controlled by white supremacists is the way to go about it is beyond me.
Yes, if you vote for Nazis, you are doomed. Nothing will save you in that case.
Oddly enough, in practice it doesn't necessarily work out as badly as you'd think. A lot of Europe has less free speech than the USA, but it generally just means you can't do anything no reasonable person would want to do, such as shout racial slurs at people or deny the holocaust in print. It doesn't lead to a slippery slope in which you can't say anything controversial. And people manage to express racist views without getting arrested, for the most part.
Here's a suggestion:
A legal right to be free from governmental censorship, as under the First Amendment = Free Speech
A belief that private entities should take a laissez-faire approach or that speech should be free of social consequences = Freeze Peach
Reddit is pro-Freeze Peach.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
D&D is notably left-leaning, and in any other realm, we are generally cognizant of how private entities like corporations, employers, and landlords have just as much power to impinge on somebody's rights as the government.
This is why we have non-discrimination laws; if I'm broadly discriminated against for being gay or Islamic, then my right to be gay or Islamic is effectively impinged. Tenant's rights and worker's rights are also founded in the awareness that sometimes private entities are bigger threats to freedom than governments.
Reddit's error here is not Freeze Peach, it's the position that racists and racial minorities can share a safe space on the same platform. You can't expect Stormfront and BLM to take a respectful agree-to-disagree approach. That's why our antidiscrimination laws protect black people but not white supremacists; history has proven again and again that there is no equivalency between those groups.
But remember, while we criticize Reddit, that social opprobrium against 'bad' speech is a phenomenon that tends to work more for the (privileged and numeric) majority than it does for the minority. Penny Arcade gives me license to speak all manner of highly controversial opinions that range from things I dare not express at work (hallucinogens are generally positive experiences that most people should try though there are risks involved; wage labor is a necessary evil but an evil nonetheless) to opinions I dare not express anywhere in public (treating pedophilia as a criminal justice issue rather than a public health issue is unjust, and despite their inclinations, pedophiles are human beings and deserve our sympathies).
I appreciate the Penny Arcade upholds a broader standard of Freeze Peach than my employer. We need spaces where we are free to voice unpopular, even dangerous-sounding opinions.
I don't mean to imply that it's easy to tell when an opinion traverses the line from dangerous-sounding to actually-dangerous. A good rule of thumb that Penny Arcade occasionally illustrates is that if a particular topic repeatedly leads to bad behavior (harassment, forum raids, trolling) then that topic is verboten, or at least very carefully scrutinized. Here on PA, threads related to religion or sexual assault have repeatedly fallen under these criteria.
But that standard also requires a proactive, community-oriented modstaff. One of Reddit's problems is that, like so many other Silicon Valley endeavors, it's founded on a myth that you can build a website, open it to a crowd, and then wash your hands of the messy business of managing people. Technology scales to a big user base much more profitably than human oversight.
Healthy communities recognize that technology is just a tool; you need to hire or appoint trustworthy people to drive it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
which is what I said in my post above the one you quoted. This reddit thing doesn't have anything to do with free speech because reddit is not the government
They had free speech rights during Reconstruction too. Didn't help then. It would not seem to be a decisive factor.
That's kind of glib and ignores a lot of legal wins predicated on the current framework.
Yeah, there is a level of opression you can sink to where a theoretical right to free speech is irrelevant, but having an open ability to question a racial/sexual/class status quo has been legally important for minorities.
How is this relevant to the topic of reddit's policies as presented in the OP?