Oddbean new post about login | logout It is a violation of basic human rights to suppress someone's ability to express their thoughts and feelings, including their hatred. It is a violation of basic human rights to censor hate speech. If you hate Israelis because they've killed Palestinian children, if you hate Russians because they killed your family with a glide bomb, if you hate Americans because they killed your relatives bombing Belgrade, or Iraq, or Libya, or ten zillion other nations, it is your human right to be able to express how you feel. That is why I am involved with nostr. I will work to support the basic human rights of every human being on planet earth in the face of all oppressive legal frameworks anywhere and everywhere. Those legal frameworks are flat-out wrong and I will fight them until my dying day. Please use nostr tools and express yourself. But be anonymous when you know you are putting yourself at risk. Use tor and or at least a VPN and an anonymous nostr identity, and then let's have true, honest, open, constructive dialog. Hate for an ethnicity is always a mistaken thought pattern, but you can't have that corrected by the community if you can't even express it.
thanks for writing this. I had not considered how expressing hate speech can lead to a reduction in continued hate speech.
I didn't go into it but there are a lot of ways that expression hatred helps the situation: 1) Hatred bottled up eventually comes out either as violence or speech. I'd rather it be expressed via speech. 2) When people express their real feelings, that can serve as a warning to the rest of us. If I know you hate white men, I'll know to steer clear. 3) When people express feelings that are illogical, we become aware of their misconception and are given the chance to help them get a more nuanced and accurate understanding of a situation. 4) Sometimes we are wrong and they are right, which is ia general argument in favor of speech that is classified as disinformation. In these cases which we absolutely cannot determine apriori, the ONLY way we can be corrected is if we allow people to correct us by allowing them to speak. I'm just scratching the surface here. John Stewart Mill does a pretty good job explaining all the ins and outs in "On Liberty"
And, in rare cases, some things actually are worth hating. Its good to hate human sacrifice. The problem isn't hate - the problem is knowing what you should hate. And that's subjective, but it doesn't matter because everyone has a right to be themselves.
Censorship pushes dangerous ideas underground where they thrive in darkness, leaving good but otherwise hurting people with no support system or intervention besides dangerous people. Dangerous people don't change. Good people heal. Most people are inherently good.
Angels too Hello, keep your focus though OK thanks I’ll keep my focus. I’ll go back online to what I was doing. Oh I thought you were telling me you didn’t wanna hear my story. OK so I’m in the hospital right and they say raise your right foot high into the air and I was like who all the way up and they say raise your left foot all the way into the air and I realize my left foot wasn’t moving and they wiggle your toe and I realize I can’t wiggle my toe and I looked at, walked from the end I got to the ER and I walked in and I sat down on the on the ER table and I said somethings wrong. You know everything was fine until I sat down anyway I realize something was wrong then because there was originally only three doctors and then I suddenly saw all these doctors run in and there was this beautiful nurse and white who came up and she said lay back now you’re gonna get a shot and I laid back and when I laid back, they shot me in my stomach. I had had a stroke And I had a stroke and I was very young and I had to recover from that and it was really hard mentally and physically on my body, but I never told you girls I had a stroke cause I didn’t want you to be worried because I found something she was still I was in the army then I was in the hospital for 13 days I’m just letting you know the reason wasn’t the mom that you guys really deserved at times. It’s because my mind after my stroke my mind changed. I wasn’t as smart intellectually and I wasn’t as caring because I had a brain injury reasons to your childhood so hard you and dad to engage with us too just like our parents were so yeah you’re right Healing a lot of it happen. I did five years of generational trauma work already on all of our family so you keep bringing it really continues because every day we either choose hurts or we choose Luv 💚 and we either give that to others or we take that from other so every day we have to find our balance so then we can stay who we are internally because we are star people baby you know you’re from the stars you’re not a normal human when you said to me when you were a little girl I didn’t choose to come to this planet. I knew you were one of mine to me when you were a little girl and you said I didn’t choose to come to this planet. I’m like none of us do baby but one day you’ll grow up to realize that you did we are what’s known as reclaimers. I think I’ll take care yourself yourself it’s really good spending time in getting some fresh air. I guess over there though the sun burns me that fucker burned me the other day and I slept for three days Always I would love to go see the lake. I’ve never seen it, but I have to wear pants.
Yes 💜
I agree with your remarks about the healthy and productive process of confronting and melting publicly "right" and "wrong" ideas, as Stuart Mill explains. And being totally against censorship, I find this matter quite complex, though. Because we can see many times that hate speech doesnt come originally from "people" or communities, but from armed organizations, governments or ideological lobbies... in these cases the hate speech doesnt help the situation, but FUELS the conflict in order to better achieve the objectives, whether of an arms lobby from Washington or an Islamic Revolution from Tehran. Anyway, if there is a solution, it should be more speech and more freedom !!
I agree. In 1953 when the CIA and SIS used propaganda to help bolster the coup against Mosaddegh, Prime Minister of Iran under their first and only democratic government ever, Mossadegh refused to clamp down on the propaganda because he believed strongly in free speech.
I shouldn't just take one side of the issue here. The argument against hate speech is that it propogates the hateful ideas. And this is true psychologically. Most people, the more they hear something, the more they adopt that view (it is not true among skeptics, but skeptics are a small proportion of society). And so this is a valid argument in favor of supressing hate speech. But it has to be considered in balance with the other arguments. How much does one person's hateful racist view impact listeners to adopt that view? How much does it depower their anger? How much pushback against the idea is there? In some situations, usually echo chambers, hateful ideas just tend to grow stronger. But I'm still mssively in favor of drawing legal distinctions at 'actions', not words, because it is far too oppressive and dangerous to start legislating words where there are no clear cut boundaries that prevent the government from going too far, and where interpretation and context matters immensely.
Yup If hate speech is responsible for hate acts Speech supporting anything that is currently illegal is a crime "robbing banks is cool" is responsible for bank robberies Hollywood is responsible for gang violence It can't be any other way "Bring down the government" Crime If speech is partly liable the act must have a corresponding *decrease* in criminal liability ... but that hasn't been reflected in any law Most laws require demonstration of opportunity, ability and intent The contradictions are immense
I appreciate the balanced take. Personally I do believe silencing people or opinions will breed anger, frustration, paranoia, and violence. One of the best ways to ensure someones self alienation is to hand them a mic and let them say exactly what they think. If someone's obvious bigotted hatred is seen in the light of day it will make them much easier to understand and avoid. However if they have a constructive point to make, someone in their percieved opposition will have a chance to reflect on what was said. Daryl Davis said something like, as long as enemies are talking, even if its hate speech, they aren't fighting. Keeping the communication lines open is super important.
Daryl Davis is a hero
I think it's not just about balance. The fact that an immoral idea can be spread should never, in a democracy, be an argument against whatever it is that spreads it. That's because it's the people that are the ultimate authority and listening and spreading ideas is part of that process. If the government pass a law to decide what idea can't be allowed, this is against democracy. And even if almost all of the population agrees with this norm, approving it would, similarly to electing a dictator, hamper democracy for future generations, who didn't get to participate in that decision. The limit to democracy shouldn't be freedom of speech. It should be destroying democracy itself.
If I create an anonymous identity to post something, how do I make it known? I guess, tag some well known accounts, hope that they support my cause and ask for a re-share?
Yeah you have to start from scratch. You don't want to be doxxing yourself.
Speech is speech. It’s up to the recipient to interpret it.
While there are lots of protests all over the world criticizing Israel (many used as a platform to spread unrelated anti-jewish or anti-american hate), the censorship in the UK targets the other side: https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/24516089.sutton-man-61-chanted-who-f-allah-jailed/
Yes I'm aware, and of course I'm against this.
Neither side should be censored. Not anti-Jewish hate, not anti-American hate, not anti-Palestine hate, not anti-Italian hate.
Nostr shouldn’t be censored. If people want their opinions to be heard they should publish them in a neutral algorithmless platform. But if nocoiners publish their stuff in a private platform hoping that the corporate algorithm will favor their posts over others, and then the government wants to put pressure on the corporates so that the manipulation will work in their political preference - then I’m not going to care for either of them. Let the corporates, governments and nocoiners fight each other, I’m out of this orgy. I will care for free speech only for those who use neutral platforms.
There is no such thing as an "algorithmless" anything that relies on computers. Absolutely everything a computer ever does relies on algorithms. Even just showing published posts in reverse chronological order requires algorithms. > But if nocoiners publish their stuff in a private platform Nocoiners, just like Bitcoiners, can use whatever platform they wish, including Nostr. There is nothing preventing nocoiners from using Nostr (or any other censorship-resistant system). > and then the government wants to Well, authoritarian governments can do pretty much anything they wish, including pressuring relays (just like they would individual platform), censoring them or disabling access to the Internet altogether. Of course, liberal(ish) governments are unlikely to do this (and to even care about Nostr as long as it remains as utterly irrelevant as it currently is), but if it's governments you're "fighting against", you'll need more than Nostr. At minimum, relays must be hidden in a darknet. Nostr, on its own, however, is mostly immune to corporate greed, which is often the cause of censorship.
Concordo 100%. Agora ele ficou bem longe da questão mais nevrálgica! Ex: Se você odeia negros porque eles invadiram sua fazenda na África do Sul, estupraram sua mãe e expulsaram você de suas terras, destruindo tudo que você construiu. Pode também, Arnaldo? Ou só pode ódio seletivo? - 90% dos crimes são cometidos por negros. pode dizer isso? - A estatística demonstra que praticamente 100% dos estupros de negras são cometidos apenas por negros. E que mais da metade dos estupros contra brancas são cometidos por negros. - Que a maioria apoiou a absolvição de O J Simpson, não se importando se ele era culpado ou não, e que os jurados eram em sua maioria, pretos, e que uma deles confessou te-lo absolvido porque ele era preto. Pode dizer que todos os padres pedófilos são homossexuais? Pode dizer também que a maioria dos pedófilos são homossexuais e/ou tiveram experiências homossexuais, seja por abuso ou por perversão pessoal? Se eu puder dizer isso também, eu concordo que qualquer discurso de e ódio deve ser permitido. Palavras não machucam. nostr:nevent1qqs065uzehpexakwnhaf845yaat9xpaagjje7at4d2warrvah0nfnhqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsyg8wzxjalaqvrxj4taqlus453uqwvxxfzgjky2hr0dkzhdnmwmzwfypsgqqqqqqs004dlx
Based views. 🤝
Excellent post!! I would zap, if I had that setup.
The 1st Amendment means we have the right to provide safe, nonviolent spaces to express freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of conscience. Every potential collective problem we will ever have on this earth will either be solved by war or words. Therefore, we have a human right to speak our hearts & minds and we have a responsibility to humanity to listen. “Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto”
But what about everyone's feelings? We don't want to hurt any feelings.
anger comes out in less healthy ways if not through speech and expression
Such a difficult topic. Hoping nostr will be a better place to have genuine conversations. What about speech that incites violence alongside hatred? Should people be freely allow to tell others to burn hotels filled with people?
Until it actually happens, yes. Once a hotel actually gets burned down, then it's fine to hold people accountable for making that happen, but if nothing is actually happening except words then there is no crime because any legitimate government must recognize freedom of speech.
That is reasonable jurisprudence. No victim, no crime.
I don't think direct incitement to violence is useful, and most legal scholars don't consider it protected under the 1st amendment. There are a lot of other kinds of speech that most free speech advocates recognize as not helpful and potentially illegal such as fraud, disclosing secrets when under an NDA, perverting the course of justice (although that is debated, e.g. Tommy Robinson), disclosing troop movements during wartime, etc.
> and most legal scholars don't consider it protected under the 1st amendment. While I don't think incitement of illegal violence should be legal, I think whether scholars think that something is legal, under the status quo of some country, is a terrible metric for whether it ought to be legal, and the standards it should have. Laws must be followed, but can be wrong and can be opposed.
Freedom of speech is why my startup is on nostr. Being human means having the right to express all emotions unconditionally.
On the one hand, that. On the other hand, the definition of what constitutes 'hate speech' can be expanded at will, just as today each country fights its own 'terrorists'.
Absolutely, determining what counts as hate is easily abusable to target a political enemy..... kind of like setting a ridiculously low speed limit, but only ticketing the black people that you pull over.
And at LEAST as important, you have a basic human right to HEAR others. Nobody has a right to force you to hear them, but neither does anyone have a right to PREVENT you from hearing someone. That is modern 'free speech'; You can sit in your soundproof room on twitter and express your opinions and outrage, but 'the powers that be' tightly control whether anyone can hear you...
For a long time I though the the lack of free speech wasn't a problem possible in the west. I was wrong.
I fully agree. Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. I am also very much an anti-racist and anti-sexist. I think if we give freedom to speech to dose that will use it for hate speech, and we should do so, we should also use it to learn from it and counter such hate. Daryl Davis is the master of this. I would also like to note that, unfortunately, many other kinds of speech are restricted, in the West, too. Depending on the country, we have blasphemy laws and flag desecration laws. The United States are regarded as permissive by many, but have laws that allow for censorship of certain acts of expression which, in my view, should very much be allowed. This includes obscenity, certain kinds of software (DRM circumvention and encryption) and certain kinds of information (how DRM systems can be circumvented). All those restrictions are, in my view, unacceptable, and I remain consistent in the case of hate speech. I also think racism is a disgrace to humanity and anyone who hates others based on their ethnicity does not have my sympathy or support. I wrote a blog post on freedom of speech in which I describe some restrictions. I hope it's ok if I "spam" it here: https://www.functorfault.net/posts/free-speech/
I agree with this post. Free speech must be upheld. We need to remember that it took a lot of death and war to give all of us the ability to speak our minds. Speech is a powerful tool. And just like any powerful tool we need to treat it with respect. Because it can be used for good and evil.
I don't think my examples are justified. I wince when people express hatred of any group of people, even if there are many people among the group that hold evil ideas and desires. And to be honest, I don't think there are any innocent people. The line between good and evil runs down every man's heart.
I take this back. I don't think it is useful for me to talk this way. There are contextually innocent people, there are children, etc.