I'm absolutely gobsmacked that people are starting from the position that hate speech should be censored at all. The determination of what constitutes 'hate speech' is made by whoever happens to be in power at the time. Winston Churchill would have given a much different answer than Adolf Hitler. From my point of view, it's chilling that the mechanism to do this has been built in the first place.
This is a common approach by groups who perpetuate hate speech- to exclaim with faux outrage that any limits on hate speech are tantamount to the dissolution of free speech at the behest of ostensibly powerful minority groups. I won't go so far as to accuse you of being a member of hate groups, but your response certainly echoes the propaganda that they spread, especially in forums like HN.
The fact is that society has always drawn lines about what speech and behavior is and isn't acceptable in different venues and circumstances. Facebook's choice to censor hate speech is no different from a bar, restaurant, or department store asking someone to leave for shouting the N-word at fellow shoppers. It's a private non-governmental entity making a choice about how they want their users to act on their platform.
Furthermore, free speech claims in favor of hate speech ignore the real material costs in human lives that facilitating hate speech incurs. While I greatly value free speech personally, I also greatly value human lives and the ability of all people to meaningfully participate in society without facing systemic oppression, violence, and hatred.
Tolerance must inevitably come face-to-face with intolerance, and if we don't act to stop the worst kinds of hatred and intolerance they fester and decay the ideals that allow tolerance to flourish at all.
Suggesting that free speech advocacy, which has a very long tradition that predates contemporary social divisions, "echoes" the "propaganda" of "hate groups" is simultaneously meaningless and pernicious. You're drawing a line between free speech and "hate groups" while in the same breath denying that you're even doing so. In the process, you're not only inventing a nefarious association where none exists --- because causality flows forward through time, not backward --- but also completely ignoring danjayh's central point, which is that the definition of "hate" depends on the objectives of those with the power to define the word, and that machinery to suppress "hate speech" becomes, ultimately, a vehicle for reinforcing existing power structures and delaying needed change.
> Furthermore, free speech claims in favor of hate speech ignore the real material costs in human lives that facilitating hate speech incurs.
What material cost? Censorship advocates continually assume that hate speech must have large and personal costs, but in my experience, present no evidence. The benefits of censorship are not apparent. The costs, however, are clear in the historical record: slowed scientific progress, emotional distress, and atrocities that might have been avoided through vigorous public discussion. And it's always been in the name of the public good, or saving souls, or protecting the innocent, or some other unassailable and noble good that people with power have forced others not to say certain words. The idea that no, this time, it's different suggests a certain historical hubris.
I'd wager that throughout history, there's never been a society that's made its people happier or better-off through censorship. I'd love to see a counterexample if you can find one.
You have a number of points I agree with, but I find other points troublesome.
For instance, the costs of censorship are, interestingly enough, also the costs of not censoring free speech. Slowed scientific progress (due to the rise of anti-intellectualism), emotional distress (pretty obvious how some types of free speech cause this), and atrocities (e.g. Charlotesville) could have been avoided through censorship. Those are the material costs of allowing unbridled, "hate group" free speech.
On a side note, I am very personally conflicted on this topic. It was strange to read your comment and strongly agree with some statements and then very strongly disagree other statements.
I'm not even sure there's a real objective definition of "hate speech" - there's certainly speech you hate. And speech I hate. But its all rather subjective. Best we can say is that some speech grossly offends a shared, widespread, moral consensus, and so seems hateful from that perspective. But... lots of genuinely progressive speech is also this way.
Free speech policies that would effectively harbor hate speech - also protect your speech from being labelled as such, and then censored, or worse. There are a disturbing number of places still left in this world, where controversial speech can get you jailed, or killed - with the blessing of, or by a government.
Humans can't be trusted, by and large, to be benevolent censors.
The argument is that since the Nazi will inevitably punch you, preemptively punching the Nazi is inherently defensive, and thus urging people to punch Nazis is not hate speech.
Of course, you may very well ask, isn't it trivial to construct an almost identical argument to justify violence against almost any particular category of people you'd care to name? Hopefully your interlocutor won't respond by punching you in the face.
You’re drawing a false equivalency. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are more like a public squares rather than restaurants or stores. It’s a space where free speech should be defended. Because free speech protects our society from authoritarianism and violence. It’s authoritarians who want to limit free speech, because their ideas have no merit and can only be enforced by violence.
> Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are more like a public squares rather than restaurants or stores.
Are they? Let's see the most important difference:
Is a public square privately owned? No. It is owned by the community, usually the council.
Is a restaurant privately owned? Yes. The proprietor has the option to evict people at will, as long as they do not discriminate against minorities in the process.
Do hate speech laws apply in a public place? Yes. If someone states racist things in public, they may be put in prison for hate speech.
Do hate speech laws apply in a private place? It depends on if this space is open to the public, and on the event being held. Generally, yes.
Is the owner allowed to evict any member at will from a public square? It depends. If the person is being harmful towards others, they may be removed from the square and detained, and sometimes even charged a crime.
Is the owner allowed to evict any member at will from a private square? Yes, as long as they do not discriminate against minorities when doing so.
As you can see, the attribute you have brought up does not matter. Facebook has the legal right to remove people for speech, as long as it does not discriminate against minorities in the process.
> Is a public square privately owned? No. It is owned by the community, usually the council.
Many public squares are privately owned these days.
> Facebook has the legal right to remove people for speech
No-one is disputing that. Grandparent wrote "It’s a space where free speech should be defended," not "It's a space where free speech is protected by the law." The lack of legal protection for speech in this kind of space makes it all the more important that individuals stand up for it.
> It’s authoritarians who want to limit free speech, because their ideas have no merit and can only be enforced by violence.
Let's not be disingenuous: democracies also want to limit the speech of authoritarians. And they probably should, because every idea that's broadcast will garner some following. It's human nature. Your knife doesn't only cut one way.
Good people want to limit the speech of bad people in principle, sure, just as good people would endorse violence if there were a way to ensure it were directed only against bad people. But no-one can fairly judge that, so limiting speech is a bad idea in the same way that permitting violence is a bad idea. The marketplace of ideas works slowly, but it does work: it does, ultimately, find the truth; good ideas succeed while bad ideas die out. Whereas the "marketplace" of violence can't tell whether an idea is good or bad, and while the violent people might be on the side of good for now, there's no reliable way to keep it that way.
There's not a lot of value talking about free speech on HN because it itself is subject to even stricter censorship of unpopular ideas. It's really a bubble of agreement and almost-agreement.
I don't get the arguement that Facebook, (previously a way to stay in touch with friends) should have to broadcast every crank who wants to talk. If you want to be in a newspaper or radio you have to hit a certain quality level, and be the right kind of content. This editorship is not a restriction of speech, I can start my own website, print my own newsletter etc.
This is probably too reductive, but ultimately it's profitable to do so. Facebook is not in the news business, they're in the data/advertising business.
Whether hate speech should be censored is also decided by whoever is in power at the time. The Adolf Hitler regime isn't going to be prevented from rounding up dissidents just because Weimarbook decided to be supportive of nazis.
Yes. People seem to be fixated on the perceived evils of the day and forget about how all of history is full of competing political groups and ideas, most of them promoting or using violence to gain power. If it was obvious how to pick goodies and baddies, hardly anyone would join the baddies.
