"A Letter on Justice and Open Debate"

[Funcrusher]

  IMO, free speech is fine and dandy but it has consequences for all of us.  Trying to get out of being responsible for your own free speech, whilst expecting the targets of it to roll with the punches, is foolish in the extreme and completely unreasonable.

Free speech should be a given in a democratic free society. If 'the punches' are some form of speech and the 'consequences' are other speech by way of critique or reply, fine. If the consequences are someone losing their job then that's something else again.

[Zetetic]

Because it sets a precedent. What happens when they decide that what you believe in is abhorrent and can't be discussed? Or will that never happen because you'll always be on the right side and that power will never be used against what you believe in?

No, it probably will. It'll be a constant process that - if we ever do it properly - will involve taking online public spaces seriously as public spaces and dealing with the consequences of that.

(This is the case with physical public spaces, of course, where we continue to negotiate what constitutes acceptable "speech" - not always via the law.)

[jamiefairlie]

I think people should be accountable for their public actions.  And, sometimes, their private ones. 

It's so easy to treat this complex matter in a simplistic way - absolutist free speecher - without thinking about what that means.  IMO, free speech is fine and dandy but it has consequences for all of us.  Trying to get out of being responsible for your own free speech, whilst expecting the targets of it to roll with the punches, is foolish in the extreme and completely unreasonable.

Consequences are fine but they should be confined to the argument at hand. It sets a dangerous precedent when it escalates outside of the argument into real life and agitating to get people fired from their jobs and otherwise harassed.

[chveik]

people being fired from their jobs for online bullshit (which seems to happen very rarely) is mostly due to shit labour rights.

anyway I'm sure we can all agree that the answer is to log the fuck off and to engage with politics locally.

[jamiefairlie]

people being fired from their jobs for online bullshit (which seems to happen very rarely) is mostly due to shit labour rights.

anyway I'm sure we can all agree that the answer is to log the fuck off and to engage with politics locally.

Yes.

[Buelligan]

Free speech should be a given in a democratic free society. If 'the punches' are some form of speech and the 'consequences' are other speech by way of critique or reply, fine. If the consequences are someone losing their job then that's something else again.

How are you going to control it?  Are we going to say that someone working in child protection has a right to stand up for paedophilia and a right to keep their job?  Or are we going to limit the protections to people we like?  Whose views we agree are acceptable?

[Funcrusher]

How are you going to control it?  Are we going to say that someone working in child protection has a right to stand up for paedophilia and a right to keep their job?  Or are we going to limit the protections to people we like?  Whose views we agree are acceptable?

Let's just give workers no protection at all then.

[Buelligan]

That's not what I'm saying, is it?  I'm saying that if you want to protect peoples' jobs in to unlikely but possible, situation that they lose them following a cancellation, who are you going to decide to protect?  Everyone or just the good ones?

[Sin Agog]

That's not what I'm saying, is it?  I'm saying that if you want to protect peoples' jobs in to unlikely but possible, situation that they lose them following a cancellation, who are you going to decide to protect?  Everyone or just the good ones?

The good ones.  Maybe we should deal with things on a case-by-case basis, instead of just emulating the justice system and letting the people who fall through the cracks stay down there because their existence makes us look bad.  Any system which excludes people's individual nature is a lazy, half-arsed one whose scaffolding was taken down before it was anywhere near finished.

[Buelligan]

Who decides who the good ones are?

[Sin Agog]

The same ones who watch the watchmen.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

Are there videos like this currently on You Tube? If there are, you could report them and have them gone very quickly. Far right spaces are full of content well beyond what you're describing and large scale migrations there by Icke conspiracy followers or haters of the latest Star Wars films are not a good outcome in my view.

But that's suppressing free speech!

And you still haven't answered my question. What is the value of allowing people to propagate a racist conspiracy theory?

Because it sets a precedent. What happens when they decide that what you believe in is abhorrent and can't be discussed? Or will that never happen because you'll always be on the right side and that power will never be used against what you believe in?

hi yeah the current state of the Internet (and to some extent the world) is the outcome of allowing everyone to spew whatever racist conspiracy theory or bad science they want all over the Internet. In fact climate change denial was and is funded by petroleum companies. Can't ban it even though every actual scientist agrees the climate is changing and human activity is responsible because what if people ban the gays next. I have news for you - the neo-Nazis you allow to speak will lie their way to power and then stop you from speaking, violently if necessary. Look up the paradox of tolerance.

Both of you are talking about the principle of free speech and neither of you seem to realise that we are living with those consequences right now. Some "ideas" and "opinions" are actually just lies. Some are assumptions based on bullshit science or someone's own prejudices. Some of them are actively harmful. The Holocaust happened. It's not up for debate. People who deny it or even  JAQ about it have an agenda.

people being fired from their jobs for online bullshit (which seems to happen very rarely) is mostly due to shit labour rights.

Define online bullshit though. If I disagree with you on Twitter or Facebook, and then start spamming you with comments and rouse an angry mob of worms to do the same, is that any different to calling your phone a hundred times a day? If I'm foolish enough to do that under my real name and target an account where you've used your real name, and which I can use to maybe find out your address and where your mother lives, is that the same as following you?

I agree that nobody should be fired from their job for e.g. saying stupid shit on a comedy forum under a fake name next to a crudely made 3D Paint avatar. People shouldn't necessarily be fired for stuff they say on their Facebook page under their real name, depending on what they say. But some people (and sometimes the law) still treat the Internet as if it "isn't real" somehow and do things that would be considered crimes if they did them by phone or mail or in person.

[Dayraven]

Short interview with the letter's author here: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/11/890052755/thomas-chatterton-williams-on-debate-criticism-and-the-letter-in-harper-s-magazi

Someone has to look around and say, "Well actually, a lot of these people on the list I do still want to work with. I do still want to make Netflix adaptations of some of their work. I do still want them to make podcasts or report at The New York Times or The New Yorker."

[bgmnts]

Haha its all about money making opportunities sweet.

[chveik]

Define online bullshit though. If I disagree with you on Twitter or Facebook, and then start spamming you with comments and rouse an angry mob of worms to do the same, is that any different to calling your phone a hundred times a day? If I'm foolish enough to do that under my real name and target an account where you've used your real name, and which I can use to maybe find out your address and where your mother lives, is that the same as following you?

I agree that nobody should be fired from their job for e.g. saying stupid shit on a comedy forum under a fake name next to a crudely made 3D Paint avatar. People shouldn't necessarily be fired for stuff they say on their Facebook page under their real name, depending on what they say. But some people (and sometimes the law) still treat the Internet as if it "isn't real" somehow and do things that would be considered crimes if they did them by phone or mail or in person.

sorry, I wasn't clear enough, I didn't mean actual crimes, which obviously happen online.

[Dewt]

Short interview with the letter's author here: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/11/890052755/thomas-chatterton-williams-on-debate-criticism-and-the-letter-in-harper-s-magazi

I've come around to his side now. How do we solve our current social ills if not via the medium of the Netflix special?

[Barry Admin]

sorry, I wasn't clear enough, I didn't mean actual crimes, which obviously happen online.

Yeah that's what I thought, and that's also why people have been arguing against the obviously disengenous notion that this letter is all about secure, established media figures standing up for those of us who don't have the same opportunities.

[idunnosomename]

The same ones who watch the watchmen.

Coastguard?

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

Short interview with the letter's author here: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/11/890052755/thomas-chatterton-williams-on-debate-criticism-and-the-letter-in-harper-s-magazi

Lol go to his Twitter and look at the responses to the letter he's choosing to share. A bunch of people waaahing about how white people are the real oppressed groups and I can't open my mouth for fear of being labelled a bigot and liberal groupthink has gone too far

[bgmnts]

I suppose I am intolerant of pieces of shit who make life worse for people.

For me that's neo nazis, sexists, rich cunts, the police etc.

For divs its black people and transwomen using public toilets.

I suppose it is EXACTLY the same.

[evilcommiedictator]

hahahahahahhahaha grifters gotta grift.

And even better, he loves Pinker, because cancel culture is really a entirely real thing, and rape culture is a TOTALLY INVENTED THING BY FEMINISTS

[Crisps?]

That's not what I'm saying, is it?  I'm saying that if you want to protect peoples' jobs in to unlikely but possible, situation that they lose them following a cancellation, who are you going to decide to protect?  Everyone or just the good ones?

The ones whose beliefs have no bearing on their job. So if someone chooses to announce they have a dislike for a specific group of people (or a liking in the wrong way) and has a position of authority over members of that group, they should be sacked, not even because they said a bad thing, but because they can no longer be assumed to be acting impartially.

What is the value of allowing people to propagate a racist conspiracy theory?

Edit: If the above is specifically about Youtube or any other private space, disregard the below text, which is solely about legal/government bans. The value for Youtube is hits and ad views, which is why they allow/ed it.

Leaving aside that you can't prevent it, and that banning something also attracts the attention of people who otherwise might not have thought about it, the "value" is being aware of what people are saying/believing, being aware of who they are, and who is in agreement, and being able to argue that it's not true or a misrepresentation of facts.

[Buelligan]

The ones whose beliefs have no bearing on their job. So if someone chooses to announce they have a dislike for a specific group of people (or a liking in the wrong way) and has a position of authority over members of that group, they should be sacked, not even because they said a bad thing, but because they can no longer be assumed to be acting impartially.

So some people will have the right to free speech but not others, it depends on what job they have?

[Dewt]

Leaving aside that you can't prevent it, and that banning something also attracts the attention of people who otherwise might not have thought about it, the "value" is being aware of what people are saying/believing, being aware of who they are, and who is in agreement, and being able to argue that it's not true or a misrepresentation of facts.

This is a better argument in 1994

Absolutely nobody is prevented from publishing their thoughts or forming groups of like-minded people, no matter how abhorrent their views. Almost every complaint about free speech being under attack is just a gripe about somebody else not letting you use their platform for their views.

I am allowed to be naked, but I am not allowed to be naked at Asda.

[Dewt]

I've been told.

[Crisps?]

So some people will have the right to free speech but not others, it depends on what job they have?

They have the right to free speech, they don't have the right to keep a job they've shown themselves to be unfit to perform.

[Crisps?]

This is a better argument in 1994

Absolutely nobody is prevented from publishing their thoughts or forming groups of like-minded people, no matter how abhorrent their views. Almost every complaint about free speech being under attack is just a gripe about somebody else not letting you use their platform for their views.

I am allowed to be naked, but I am not allowed to be naked at Asda.

Yes, I think this was written before seeing my edit.

[Buelligan]

They have the right to free speech, they don't have the right to keep a job they've shown themselves to be unfit to perform.

And who decides that?  Who decides the line of morality that can or cannot be crossed?  Is it a panel of the Great and the Good, Chomsky and Rowling perhaps?  Or is it all of us?

[Zetetic]

I am allowed to be naked, but I am not allowed to be naked at Asda.

You're not allowed to be naked in public spaces in the UK most of the time, rightly or wrongly. (Wrongly, I reckon, on balance. The ECHR disagrees.)

You're specifically not allowed to be naked in Canary Wharf, I imagine, but that's okay because it's someone else's platform.

[popcorn]

I actually have special permission to be naked in public spaces in the UK.