Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What if someone followed you around and just kept saying "You're a cunt. You're a cunt. You're a cunt." over and over?

Any time you're not on private property. "You're a cunt".

Is that free speech?

I mean, I'm allowed to be on public property. I'm allowed to say whatever I want. Exercising those two rights means I'm allowed to follow you around and call you a cunt.

You'd probably try to say "No, that's harassment". Aye, but now you've agreed there should be limits on speech.




When people say that there should be no restrictions on speech, it's usually about content, not manner. No free speech absolutist would think it's acceptable to tell someone "you're a wonderful person" through a 600 dB speaker (if it was possible to construct such a device). If I scream at you so loudly that it liquefies your organs, I don't think that the fact the sound happened to form words makes the act any less harmful. Why should it be any different with harassment?


> If I scream at you so loudly that it liquefies your organs

At that point, the "speech" is objectively harmful.

> Why should it be any different with harassment?

Free Speech absolutionists act as if words on their own are not harmful, such there's no such thing as verbal harassment.

Look at the sibling comment [0]. phpisthebest actually claims that being followed and told "You're a cunt" repeatedly would be amusing.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36202392


If they have that kind of time, and no life I would find that rather amusing...

I am sure they would tire of it long before I would get offended by it. and I can assure you I would could, and have responded far more decisive and penetrating insults...


If there's one thing we've learned from the last two-decades-odd of the Internet being ubiquitous, it's that one cannot, in fact, outlast the harassers. They organize and they take shifts. They can keep the harassment going as long as it takes. They can keep it up until you are dead. And they can do it at scale.

That's why cutting off their ability to do it through various channels is so important.


The internet reduces the cost of being an ass, both in terms of reach and being punched in the face for harassment


>What if someone followed you around and just kept saying "You're a cunt. You're a cunt. You're a cunt." over and over?

Free Speech is just that. It's not freedom from consequences too.


Not sure how the "Freedom from consequences" bit enters the conversation here.

"Free Speech" that has consequences from the government isn't free speech. The "Freedom from consequences" has to do with private entities reacting to your speech. For example, asking you to leave the premises or getting banned.


Is it possible to separate free speech from free consequences? I'm not sure it can be. From your house, to government, to nature, doesn't every person/place have their own set of compromises/laws/rules for every set of conditions? Are you saying there should be no laws or no moderation, anywhere, at all? I don't think you mean to. Also, should 'online' be distinct/exempt from all other human endeavours, where rules don't apply? Anywhere there is a line between individuals and governments regarding free speech, and indeed law, then neither free speech, or law, exist truly. But it is difficult to give an example of a country where this is not so.

I am reminded of the other hot potato 'privacy'. The 'Solid Project' has an interesting way of dealing with that, which may also have a positive effect on how free speech evolves.


> Are you saying there should be no laws or no moderation, anywhere, at all?

I wanted to address this first. Nowhere did I mean to imply that I think there shouldn't be limits on speech or no moderation. There should certainly be some speech that is illegal (Calls to violence, harassment, etc), and web platforms absolutely have a right to moderate.

But, I think everyone can agree that the right to free speech granted by the First Amendment does mean that you can criticize the government, for example. If someone tries to claim "Yes, you have the right to criticize the government, but the government can arrest you for it! Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences!", then I would have to ask that person what they think "Freedom of speech" means, and what a "right" means, because to me, a "right" means either "You are allowed to do the thing and the government must not interfere or retaliate" (ie, free speech) or "You must be allowed access to the thing, and the government must provide it for you if you can't provide it yourself" (ie, a lawyer when you are on trial).

The notion of "You have the right to something, but the government will punish you for it" is just completely non-sensical.

But...all this only applies to government. Private entities are another matter entirely. They have the right to remove content and users however they want. Your freedom of speech does not trump their right to decide what gets displayed on their platform.

Private entities can also react however they want. If you go on a racist tirade on Twitter, your employer has a right to fire you, because having an extreme racist in the workplace is just asking for trouble.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: