Pressure works, actually
-
A link to a previous thread on this topic (start at the top if you want the whole train of thought, but here’s the heart of the argument):
Paul Cantrell (@inthehands@hachyderm.io)
The First Amendment in the US says — wisely — that we should avoid giving the government the power to determine with the force of law what beliefs are unacceptable. That is •not• because all beliefs are acceptable, however; it is because giving the government such power opens the floodgates of authoritarianism. Here’s the thing: some beliefs •are• unacceptable. We deny the government the power to determine which ones with the understanding that we •must• do that job ourselves, through social negotiation.
Hachyderm.io (hachyderm.io)
3/
The link in the previous post starts from the question of shutting down public events by hateful groups. Here’s another thread orbiting the same core thought, this one about content moderation and institutional authority:
Paul Cantrell (@inthehands@hachyderm.io)
Re YouTube’s decision to re-allow disinformation about the 2020 election: I’ve seen comments to the effect of “lies and propaganda aren’t free speech.” That’s exactly wrong: they are. We •want• them to be. And that’s the heart of the problem here. Free speech is a social contract, and Google isn’t holding up their end of it. Huh?! Let me explain my thinking. 1/
Hachyderm.io (hachyderm.io)
4/
-
RE: https://masto.ai/@transworld/116568116267880439
Pressure works, actually
@inthehands I don’t know if you saw my post, the education department in South Carolina has given TPA permission to enter our high schools.
-
The link in the previous post starts from the question of shutting down public events by hateful groups. Here’s another thread orbiting the same core thought, this one about content moderation and institutional authority:
Paul Cantrell (@inthehands@hachyderm.io)
Re YouTube’s decision to re-allow disinformation about the 2020 election: I’ve seen comments to the effect of “lies and propaganda aren’t free speech.” That’s exactly wrong: they are. We •want• them to be. And that’s the heart of the problem here. Free speech is a social contract, and Google isn’t holding up their end of it. Huh?! Let me explain my thinking. 1/
Hachyderm.io (hachyderm.io)
4/
Institutions of higher education (like the one I work for!) have an important cultural function: they act not just as venues for exchange of ideas, but as •exemplars• of •how• to exchange ideas — and as •arbiters• of which ideas are worth exchanging. Colleges and universities are an R&D department for the Overton Window.
5/
-
Institutions of higher education (like the one I work for!) have an important cultural function: they act not just as venues for exchange of ideas, but as •exemplars• of •how• to exchange ideas — and as •arbiters• of which ideas are worth exchanging. Colleges and universities are an R&D department for the Overton Window.
5/
In classrooms and public events and private conversations, my campus regularly facilitates discussion (often heated) about the virtues and dangers of capitalism and Marxism and every economic theory you can think of, about human rights and AI and abortion access and data centers and civil wars and genocide and myriad other subjects of •extreme• controversy.
We do not, however, make space for and amplify people who believe the Earth is flat, because that would be a f***ing waste of time.
6/
-
There’s always a “bUT FrEe spEEcH” outcry about things like this, and…look, the aforementioned student outcry •is• free speech. Not only that, the •event cancellation• is free speech.
And not only that!! This part even well-meaning, democracy-minded people totally botch: this initial scheduling, the backlash, the argument over whose voice gets amplified and in what space, the ultimate cancellation? All that is the •bedrock• of free speech.
2/
@inthehands At times like this people love to trot out "free speech", but your point about amplifying voices speaks more to "freedom of the press". The rules say you are free to put to print whatever you like, but they don't say I am required to print it for you.
-
In classrooms and public events and private conversations, my campus regularly facilitates discussion (often heated) about the virtues and dangers of capitalism and Marxism and every economic theory you can think of, about human rights and AI and abortion access and data centers and civil wars and genocide and myriad other subjects of •extreme• controversy.
We do not, however, make space for and amplify people who believe the Earth is flat, because that would be a f***ing waste of time.
6/
In other words, we as a campus community have an active debate about which debates are even worth having — and we have room to exercise judgement about which voices we as a community choose to amplify.
Amplifying all voices is not a route to free society; it’s a route to total noise. Flooding the zone is just as effective a means of censorship as silencing all opposition. As people trying to foster useful discussion, we have an obligation to choose choose wisely our topics of discussion and the voices we elevate.
7/
-
In other words, we as a campus community have an active debate about which debates are even worth having — and we have room to exercise judgement about which voices we as a community choose to amplify.
Amplifying all voices is not a route to free society; it’s a route to total noise. Flooding the zone is just as effective a means of censorship as silencing all opposition. As people trying to foster useful discussion, we have an obligation to choose choose wisely our topics of discussion and the voices we elevate.
7/
We don’t make space for flat-Earthers. We also do not make space for people who argue (explicitly or implicitly) that some of our students deserve to be murdered.
The reasons for those two things are not identical — the latter also has to do, for example, with the fact that education requires physical safety — but they rest on a shared principle: free speech means freedom to ignore speech, and freedom to choose which speech we amplify and how. Making such choices is, in fact, the •duty• of upholding free speech.
/end
-
RE: https://masto.ai/@transworld/116568116267880439
Pressure works, actually
@inthehands terrific explanation!
Another thing I see the idiots screwing up about the 1st Amendment: it says "Congress shall make no law...." I think "Congress" is broadly interpreted as "the government", and that's fine. But despite often receiving government funding, universities *aren't* the government... and they're not *making laws* ... they're just rightfully choosing not to amplify domestic terrorists.
-
@inthehands I don’t know if you saw my post, the education department in South Carolina has given TPA permission to enter our high schools.
-
@inthehands At times like this people love to trot out "free speech", but your point about amplifying voices speaks more to "freedom of the press". The rules say you are free to put to print whatever you like, but they don't say I am required to print it for you.
@nivex
Yup. Or host your event at my institution, or listen to word you say. -
We don’t make space for flat-Earthers. We also do not make space for people who argue (explicitly or implicitly) that some of our students deserve to be murdered.
The reasons for those two things are not identical — the latter also has to do, for example, with the fact that education requires physical safety — but they rest on a shared principle: free speech means freedom to ignore speech, and freedom to choose which speech we amplify and how. Making such choices is, in fact, the •duty• of upholding free speech.
/end
-
@manu
A classic, always worth posting -
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topicR relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
In classrooms and public events and private conversations, my campus regularly facilitates discussion (often heated) about the virtues and dangers of capitalism and Marxism and every economic theory you can think of, about human rights and AI and abortion access and data centers and civil wars and genocide and myriad other subjects of •extreme• controversy.
We do not, however, make space for and amplify people who believe the Earth is flat, because that would be a f***ing waste of time.
6/
@inthehands "We do not, however, make space for and amplify people who believe the Earth is flat, because that would be a f***ing waste of time."
Bring it Paul!
This goes hand in hand with: “Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference”
