Hacker News Reader

Comment by twelfthnight | Hacker News Reader

In high school, I had a teacher who had a rack of books/comics which he lent to students. One day, a single student complained about curse words / nudity in some of the books, and the teacher was forced to take those books out of the school. This struck me as silly. Why let one person's complaint take away this great thing for all of the students?

Also in high school, there was a girl who was into hard core music and died her hair blue. She was routinely mocked in the halls for being weird. This also struck me as silly. Why should a person, just because they have a minority interest / opinion, be forced to deal with such harassment?

I'm empathetic to both sides of this issue. However, I think we should generally err on the side of not harassing people, even if that causes unnecessary inconveniences for the majority sometimes.

View on HN

I don't think you're making your point very well: Being forced not to bully Bluelocks does not inconvenience you. Having the opportunity (not obligation) to read something you don't want to read does not inconvenience you either.

If anything, we should, in a secular state, agree that people differ in their view of morality, and we should be tolerant of each other's needs, perceived or otherwise.

> If anything, we should, in a secular state, agree that people differ in their view of morality, and we should be tolerant of each other's needs, perceived or otherwise.

The problem is that some people's perceived needs are not compatible with other people's perceived needs. In order to decide which group gets their perceived needs, I think it makes sense to have a societal conversation about which of those perceived needs are actual needs, and which of those perceived needs are just wants.

> I don't think you're making your point very well

This is unnecessary. Please just make your point without criticizing the author.

a single student complained [...] and the teacher was forced to take those books out of the school. [...] Why let one person's complaint take away this great thing for all of the students?

The phenomenon can be summed up as Society moves as quickly as its slowest walker. I guess the discussion around this phenomenon should be is this the most ideal system? Is Silicon Valley a kind of opposite where the fastest walkers have priority and in the process many people get left behind while those with merit surge further away? Is that how all of society should operate?

Personally I advocate total free-speech, the good with the bad, so that we can enjoy unrestricted debate. But is there value in maintaining a kind of cultural speed limit, not a lockstep or unrestricted speed, so that society can move together harmoniously?

It's a difficult and nuanced topic.

> Personally I advocate total free-speech, the good with the bad, so that we can enjoy unrestricted debate.

I generally agree but I think that, as always, reality is too complex to address with a simple logical statement. Consider this example: A room in an almost all white small town, with a history of discrimination, of 20 white people and one black person, discussing some policy issue. A white person says, 'N-'s don't belong in this town; they should keep their mouths shut.' If you are the black person, that's a very intimidating situation. I'm not sure I support 'free speech' there.

That might sound extreme, but many schools are not more than 1/20th black and from what the news says about U. of Missouri, behavior like that isn't rare. This isn't insults, it's intimidation. It's scary enough at 18 years old to venture out of your neighborhood into a almost all-white world, where people suspect you of crime when you just walk into a store. Where you are the 'The Black Man/Woman' in every room you enter, all day long.

Generally I approach it this way: The only speech I won't tolerate is intolerance itself. (But of course, reality still isn't that simple.)

A white person says, 'N-'s don't belong in this town; they should keep their mouths shut.' If you are the black person, that's a very intimidating situation. I'm not sure I support 'free speech' there.

It would be intimidating and rage-inducing, but its worth keeping in mind that the person who uttered the racist threat is still bound by law and physical violence is not free speech. And here we've found the line to make free-speech work: even-handed law-enforcement against physical violence, theft etc. Racist slurs on the other hand, while more cutting to people who have been marginalized, are just words designed to produce an emotional response. They fall under the category of speech.

The only speech I won't tolerate is intolerance itself.

Which is a form of intolerance.

> the person who uttered the racist threat is still bound by law and physical violence is not free speech. And here we've found the line to make free-speech work: even-handed law-enforcement against physical violence, theft etc.

It's factually true but I don't think it's realistic. First, much of what people can do won't expose them to law enforcement. They can get you fired, prevent you from getting hired, cost you that contract, keep your kids off the football team or out of the good school, pass laws that make your life difficult, have city inspectors and police go over everything you do with a fine tooth comb (e.g., driving while black), etc. Second, law enforcement and the legal system in general have a long history of not protecting marginalized groups but persecuting them. When the sheriff, mayor, judge, prosecutor, and jury are all white and all know each other, and you know the history of blacks in the legal system, you may not want to trust your fate to their protection.

> Racist slurs on the other hand, while more cutting to people who have been marginalized, are just words designed to produce an emotional response.

Again, this may be true in theory but I strongly disagree it's true in reality. They are serious threats because they have a long, very well-established history of being backed up with action. I don't think you mean it this way, but it amounts to saying (as I understand it) that blacks don't face actual discrimination, therefore the threats are empty.

They can get you fired, prevent you from getting hired, cost you that contract, keep your kids off the football team or out of the good school, pass laws that make your life difficult

Right, which censorship can't do anything about either.

When the sheriff, mayor, judge, prosecutor, and jury are all white and all know each other [...] you may not want to trust your fate to their protection.

No, but rights issues and law-enforcement abuse can be escalated beyond Sheriff Chuck's fiefdom. It's not perfect - I understand that marginalized people are usually poor and lack agency, however a system exists. It needs improving, but that's what we should be focusing on. Not on words spoken but the tools and processes that exist to help bolster individual rights. Those tools protect you as well.

that blacks don't face actual discrimination, therefore the threats are empty.

It would be more along the lines of if they didn't face actual violence due to effective law-enforcement, the threats ARE merely words. So focus on effective law-enforcement, the sticks and stones, not on what people can and cannot say. Otherwise you're just sweeping a cancerous sentiment under the rug where it'll grow and fester.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com