Comment by 78124781 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 78124781 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

1. There are already pretty good definitions out there for speech that rises to the level of "harassment" if it is severe, pervasive, and/or repeated. There are also ways to restrict speech in a content-neutral way (i.e. no bullhorns at 11 PM for anyone). Those can definitely still be used. And, of course, physical harm is not the same as words and should never be confused with that.

2. You balance it by allowing free speech and encouraging robust debate rather than demanding loyalty tests or speech codes. Restricting speech or telling people that they "can't say that" is an excellent way to result in groupthink; encouraging free speech and especially a culture of free speech that respects differences is the best way to prevent one-sided groupthink. Such one-sidedness has many negative consequences, including (but not limited to) ineffective actions, alienating wider groups of people, supporting bad science, and limiting the scope of discovery and study.

I don’t think either of your responses actually answer my questions.

The first doesn’t really have good frameworks outside of hate speech or discrimination against protected classes. Everything else is generally company or code of conduct based, which at least to my reading, don’t fit within their definition of freedom of expression.

The second doesn’t actually address the balance at all. Different courses have significant demographic biases, most noticeably gender and ethnicity. that means that the majority group has a naturally amplified freedom of expression when it comes to any topic of debate. Do the minority demographics get equal time to voice their views if there are fewer of them? How do you avoid being drowned out? This isn’t exclusive to gender but also just general opinions like abortion. Freedom of expression has to come with stricter requirements for courtesy imho and more rigour for factual analysis. But those would then impede on freedom of expression.

I still feel that freedom of speech and expression are paradoxes as long as unbalanced power dynamics can exist.

Many codes of conduct and various other speech codes do, in fact, violate freedom of speech and have often been struck down as violations of freedom of expression. Appeals to "courtesy" and "civility" tend to be used selectively. I agree that it would be ideal if people debated courteously, but "civility" is far too often only desired in one direction (and employed as such in practice).

There are plenty of ways for an outnumbered group to still have its voice heard, from speaking at public meetings to writing opinion columns to being active on social media. Or in academia, they can start their own journals, organize their own conferences, etc. Dissenting opinions in court rulings are excellent examples of including the minority opinion as well.

If anything, supporting freedom of speech and expression protects those who are in the minority more than adding more restrictions on speech (since, as other comments have pointed out, who gets to decide what speech to censor? it's those with the power on campus).

Robust rebate isn't an option for people who are not in control of their emotions. They physically can't discuss certain things because emotions overwhelm them, blind them and even hurt them. Our mistake is to assume that everyone who looks like an adult is an adult mentally. Once you think about students as adult-children, the draconian speech control starts making sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com