Comment by syshum | Hacker News Reader

Comment by syshum | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>>The difference before the Internet is that if I found your idea odious I could punch you in the nose you even if you were "anonymous". And, in return, you were not likely to be attacked by a mob unless you actively did something really horrible.

That is false, you do understand that many seminal works like the Federalist Papers where penned anonymously with attribution only coming by way of historians looking at other known works, the entire purpose of Publius was to ensure people were debating the IDEA's not the people.

You seem to be operating under the false idea that before the internet the only communication was in person verbally.

>I have no way to directly punish you

that is not a problem and you should not be empowered to "punish" anyone for their speech, it is very sad you do not respect the concept of free expression but people like you are the exact reason Anonymous Speech is required. You reject the premise of "I may disagree with you but I will defend your right to say it"

Respecting speech you approve of is easy, respecting speech you find offensive is what requires protection. We have lost that in principle in modern times

>You are unlikely to say something really nasty to my face if I could slap you for it.

if you did, you would and should be jailed for battery. Physical violence is NEVER an acceptable response to speech. This modern "punch a nazi" narratives prevent in the authoritarian left is an affront to the principal of free expression

> Respecting speech you approve of is easy, respecting speech you find offensive is what requires protection.

Sorry. This is completely wrong. The GOVERNMENT must respect speech that people find offensive. And I will defend to the death the right of free speech to not be oppressed by the government.

I, as an individual, do NOT have to respect your offensive speech. It is, in fact, my DUTY to oppose your offensive speech, and I'm tired of people forgetting this. And, yeah, some of those reponses will be "against the law". Lots of people have been arrested for sit ins, protests, chaining themselves to fences, violent labor strikes, etc.

> if you did, you would and should be jailed for battery. Physical violence is NEVER an acceptable response to speech.

Sorry, my experience says you are wrong.

Racial slurs, for example, tamp down real fast after the first time someone gets a punch in the nose for slinging one. Been there. Seen that.

Might you be going to jail for battery? Maybe. But that's the risk you take. Might you take real damage getting your ass kicked? Maybe. That's the risk on the other side.

Far too many people are willing to say and do odious things simply because they never get any actual punishment for them. See: the disbelief of all the Jan 6 mob. A couple of those people having gotten their asses kicked might have caused their brains to process that what they were doing was wrong before it escalated to people getting shot.

You say this as you advocate for illegally assaulting people. By your own logic, your comment should be taken down and you banned.

By what he’s saying someone should kick his ass if they have opposition. More power to him

> I, as an individual, do NOT have to respect your offensive speech

You actually do, if by respect you mean that you are obligated to not engage in violent activities against someone for speech.

If you are going around doing that, then hopefully, other people will engage in their fully legal rights to self defense against you for such actions, or use the legal use of government force against to, to segregate you from society.

> I, as an individual, do NOT have to respect your offensive speech.

You don't have to respect what I say. You have to respect my right to say it.

Then you don't accept the principle of freedom of speech because you threaten retaliation to ideas. You use a strawman that abuses that freedom to justify your response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

First sentence clearly states that to adhere to the principle, retaliation is not to be feared or people will not speak up. This threat of violence is prevalent in dictatorships all around the world.

But for any intellectual dialogue the adherence to freedom of speech is a minimal requirement.

There is a difference of principle and requirements de jure.

Why do you justify violence based on a person's speech? Speech is not violence.

Verbal abuse can be as damaging to people as physical violence.

If you go up to someone and call them a slur, then you have committed verbal assault:

"the use of offensive language directed at a person, where such language is likely to provoke a reasonable person to physical violence."

Chaplinsky, the case you quote, has not been used to uphold a conviction in many many decades. The doctrine is dead in practice.

Also, that has nothing to do with making that response with physical violence legal. You can still only use violence when you are defending yourself against physical injury. Sure, provocation might be mitigating, or get you to a lower level of assault or murder (as the case may be), but it’s not a full defense.

> Verbal abuse can be as damaging to people as physical violence.

No it can't.

Yes it can.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com