One Article Review
| Source |  Errata Security |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 1802813 |
| Date de publication | 2020-07-13 19:22:41 (vue: 2020-07-14 00:14:03) |
| Titre | In defense of open debate |
| Texte | Recently, Harper's published a Letter on Justice and Open Debate. It's a rather boring defense of liberalism and the norm of tolerating differing points of view. Mike Masnick wrote rebuttal on Techdirt. In this post, I'm going to rebut his rebuttal, writing a counter-counter-argument.The Letter said that the norms of liberalism tolerate disagreement, and that these norms are under attack by increasing illiberalism on both sides, both the left and the right.My point is this: Masnick avoids the rebutting the letter. He's recycling his arguments against right-wingers who want their speech coddled, rather than the addressing the concerns of (mostly) left-wingers worried about the fanaticism on their own side.Free speechMasnick mentions "free speech" 19 times in his rebuttal -- but the term does not appear in the Harper's letter, not even once. This demonstrates my thesis that his rebuttal misses the point.The term "free speech" has lost its meaning. It's no longer useful for such conversations.Left-wingers want media sites like Facebook, YouTube, the New York Times to remove "bad" speech, like right-wing "misinformation". But, as we've been taught, censoring speech is bad. Therefore, "censoring free speech" has to be redefined to as to not include the above effort.The redefinition claims that the term "free speech" now applies to governments, but not private organizations, that stopping free speech happens only when state power or the courts are involved. In other words, "free speech" is supposed to equate with the "First Amendment", which really does only apply to government ("Congress shall pass no law abridging free speech").That this is false is demonstrated by things like the murders of Charlie Hebdo cartoonist for depicting Muhammad. We all agree this incident is a "free speech" issue, but no government was involved.Right-wingers agree to this new definition, sort of. In much the same way that left-wingers want to narrow "free-speech" to only mean the First Amendment, right-wingers want to expand the "First Amendment" to mean protecting protecting "free speech" against interference by both government and private platforms. They argue that platforms like Facebook have become so pervasive that they have become the "public square", and thus, occupy the same space as government. They therefore want regulations that coddle their speech, preventing their content from being removed.The term "free speech" is therefore no longer useful in explaining the argument because it has become the argument.The Letter avoids this play on words. It's not talking about "free speech", but the "norms of open debate and toleration of differences". It claims first of all that we have a liberal tradition where we tolerate differences of opinion and that we debate these opinions openly. It claims secondly that these norms are weakening, claiming "intolerant climate that has set in on all sides".In other words, those who attacked the NYTimes for publishing the Tom Cotton op-ed are criticized as demonstrating illiberalism and intolerance. This has nothing to do with whatever arguments you have about "free speech".Private platformsMasnick's free speech argument continues that you can't force speech upon private platforms like the New York Times. They have the freedom to make their own editorial decisions about what to publish, choosing some things, rejecting others.It's a good argument, but one the targets the arguments made by right-wingers hostile to the New York Times, and not arguments made by th |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | for the 1700s 1896 1992 2/3 2006 2020this 80s 90s @pearljam a letter about above abridging abusive academic academics according accurate accusing acts actually addressing advertisers advertising affects against agree air all also alter amendment among and private antisemite antisemitic anything appear applies apply are argue argument arguments around asking attack attacked attacking avoid avoids back backlash backward bad banned bastion be: because become been being believe big bizarre bizarreat blacklisted blasphemy blocked boring both boycott burned but cable call called calling can cancel canceling care career careers caricature cartoonist cartoonists cartoons case catalogs causing cave censor censored censoring censorious censorship centuries certainly cesspool channels characteristic charlie child children choice choose chooses choosing christian churches cincinnati that claim claiming claims clear climate co/rizloaeian coddle coddled comments common companies company complaining concerned concerns conclusionif congress consequence consequences consequencesmasnick consider consideration content continues controversy conversations cotton counter counters country courts covering criticized culture damaged damn dangerous darts day deal deals debate decision decisions defending defends defense definition deliberately demonstrate demonstrated demonstrates demonstrating departments depends depicting deplore described describes desires didn differences differing director disagree disagreement disagrees discretion discussion distorted diversity does doesn don drawing easily editorial editors effort employee employees end episode equate essential even every everyone evil exactly exclaims excuse expand explaining express facebook false famous fanaticism fanatics favor fear federal feed feel fellow fields fights first force forces forcing forum forward free freedom friends fringe from general get getting gibson gives goes going good government governments grounded grounding group groups guild guilty happened happens harper has hateful have heart hebdo helping here high him his historically hollywood honest hostile hot how https://t huge hurtful hurting ignore ill illegitimate illiberal illiberalism imagine impacted impartially importance incident incidents include increasing inexplicable inflammatory innocuous inquiry instead intelligent intentioned intentions interference intolerance intolerant invite inviting involved irony irresponsible isn issue its itself jam jam: job john joke journalism journalists june just justice kid kids know knowing later law lawn laws laws: least left lennon less letter liberal liberalism lie like likely listening longer look lose losing lost made make makes making many masnick matter matters mean meaning means media mel mentioned mentions mike misinformation miss misses misunderstands mohamed more most mostly movie movies mtv much muhammad murdered murders naive narrow natural needs neither new news nobody nonetheless norm norms not nothing now nytime nytimes occupy off offensive once one ones only onto open openly opinion opinions opposing order organizations other others out outsiders over own parent parental parents part pass pattern pearl people person personally perspective pervasive piece platform platforms platformsmasnick play playlist point pointing points portrayed post power precisely pressured pressuring prestigious prevent preventing principle private privilege problem produced profoundly program proper protected protecting protection protesters proves public publish published publishing pulling punish punishment put questions radio rather readers real really reasonable rebut rebuttal rebutting recent recently recycling redefined redefinition refuse regulations rejecting released religious remove removed repeats replaced reprehensible responding responsible right right rioters rise said same say saying says school second secondly see seek seem sees sees disagreement sentence set shades shall shameful should show side sides signers signing silence |
| Tags | |
| Stories | |
| Notes | |
| Move | 
|
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris aprés sa publication.
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris sur un précédent.