What's the policy on removing links? February 7, 2006 1:14 AM Subscribe
Policy clarification question: Matt deleted a link to revisionist.org. I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I do have a few questions: a) What is the history of link removal from FPP - not modification, like adding a NSFW, but under what circumstances are links actually removed? b) When a link is removed for political reasons, what is the rationale behind the removal? [mi]
I can see eliminating links that will cause harm to the clickers thereof - virus-loading links; spamtraps; email address harvesters and the like. But when it comes to link removal for content reasons, there doesn't seem to be a clear rubric other than actual political disagreement with the content. It doesn't seem to be a removal rubric of truthfulness, either: links full of lies and outright fraud stay up, as was mentioned in the thread. I invite posters and admins to submit FPP examples where links were removed to clarify the history and policy.
It's especially ironic to remove content in a post which is about the cartoon debate, which concerns free speech issues among others.
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:18 AM on February 7, 2006
It's especially ironic to remove content in a post which is about the cartoon debate, which concerns free speech issues among others.
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:18 AM on February 7, 2006
That's the problem, Jimbob - one man's hate is another man's free expression. That's one of the primary issues under debate in the cartoon protests and counterprotests.
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:20 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:20 AM on February 7, 2006
and furthermore, people DON'T know what's there. I've read revisionist sites and creationist sites particularly so I know exactly what to use to debunk them. In my case it's been more creationist sites - I've been in the trenches of that battle for a while, and creationists are sneaky - they bring forward arguments that are rhetorically powerful if you don't know just how to combat them.
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:21 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:21 AM on February 7, 2006
Few would argue that free speech is absolute. Especially on a private forum. Some of the more libertarian-minded US citizens around here may argue the absolute importance of free speech, but most other people choose to draw the line somewhere short of absolute freedom of speech. If matt choses to draw the line at holocaust denial sites, or white pride sites, or terrorist websites, or at pictures of people shagging sheep, that's cool. That's where he draws the line, that should be enough. Personally, my little commie self things the greater good for humanity is achieved by preventing the Google pagerank of bigots from rising, at the expense of absolute freedom of speech.
posted by Jimbob at 1:25 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by Jimbob at 1:25 AM on February 7, 2006
I've read revisionist sites and creationist sites particularly so I know exactly what to use to debunk them.
This is true, and I know where you're coming from, and I've done the same thing. But you know what you're visiting, and why. People clicking on a link (especially one not marked as NSFW) on a FPP might get more than their bargained for.
posted by Jimbob at 1:26 AM on February 7, 2006
This is true, and I know where you're coming from, and I've done the same thing. But you know what you're visiting, and why. People clicking on a link (especially one not marked as NSFW) on a FPP might get more than their bargained for.
posted by Jimbob at 1:26 AM on February 7, 2006
I agree there's a line. A libertarian I am most emphatically not. I am asking Matt and Jess to explicitly state where the line is, and why.
And it's a tactical political blunder to post the link and then remove it in the context of this particular debate, don't you think? It feeds the argument of the Right. A better option is to establish a guideline where people make an archive of the content (not on their own site), or something like a Coral cache but for websites, or even just tagging the link with HATE SITE- NSFW.
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:30 AM on February 7, 2006
And it's a tactical political blunder to post the link and then remove it in the context of this particular debate, don't you think? It feeds the argument of the Right. A better option is to establish a guideline where people make an archive of the content (not on their own site), or something like a Coral cache but for websites, or even just tagging the link with HATE SITE- NSFW.
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:30 AM on February 7, 2006
I think that link was put in the context of that post for reasons pretty close to the reasons I explained a few comments up. I agree there should have been a NSFW on it.
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:31 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:31 AM on February 7, 2006
By The Grace of God writes "I am asking Matt and Jess to explicitly state where the line is, and why."
Come on, that's a hard call. Matt's unlikely to cement an automatic delete position but I suspect Jimbob has it - hate sites particularly, in order to stop them getting the MeFi pagerank stamp of approval.
We are talking about a very very small number of sites and their deletion is always going to be discretionary. You can email an intended post to Jessamyn or Matt and ask, if you think including such sites is paramount to presentation.
posted by peacay at 1:53 AM on February 7, 2006
Come on, that's a hard call. Matt's unlikely to cement an automatic delete position but I suspect Jimbob has it - hate sites particularly, in order to stop them getting the MeFi pagerank stamp of approval.
We are talking about a very very small number of sites and their deletion is always going to be discretionary. You can email an intended post to Jessamyn or Matt and ask, if you think including such sites is paramount to presentation.
posted by peacay at 1:53 AM on February 7, 2006
Epistemology question:
Why is pagerank necessarily approval?
Boosting your pagerank boosts your visibility. Contrary to popular opinion, not all publicity is good publicity. Boosting your pagerank can get the Bloodhound Gang on you, exposing your nasty-website-making habits to friends, lovers, employers, and the like. It can raise the attention of law enforcement, if what you're posting is unlawful in your jurisdiction. And what's best of all is it can bring intelligent people to argue against you and (perhaps) maybe to convince you.
posted by By The Grace of God at 2:02 AM on February 7, 2006
Why is pagerank necessarily approval?
Boosting your pagerank boosts your visibility. Contrary to popular opinion, not all publicity is good publicity. Boosting your pagerank can get the Bloodhound Gang on you, exposing your nasty-website-making habits to friends, lovers, employers, and the like. It can raise the attention of law enforcement, if what you're posting is unlawful in your jurisdiction. And what's best of all is it can bring intelligent people to argue against you and (perhaps) maybe to convince you.
posted by By The Grace of God at 2:02 AM on February 7, 2006
And a lot of the most important calls are hard calls. I don't expect Matt and Jessamyn to pull an answer out of their tuchii, I invite them to have a bit of a think about it.
I'm especially curious about Jessamyn's thoughts on the topic, as she is an information wrangler and a professed radical.
And I really don't mean this in a confrontational way. I think it's an interesting question to consider!
posted by By The Grace of God at 2:04 AM on February 7, 2006
I'm especially curious about Jessamyn's thoughts on the topic, as she is an information wrangler and a professed radical.
And I really don't mean this in a confrontational way. I think it's an interesting question to consider!
posted by By The Grace of God at 2:04 AM on February 7, 2006
All good points, actually. But somehow, I still can't convince myself that I want to see these sites linked to.
posted by Jimbob at 2:05 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by Jimbob at 2:05 AM on February 7, 2006
The Bloodhound Gang? You mean that by getting attention these sites will have hilarious, sexually explicit (by euphemism) songs written about them?
posted by antifuse at 2:27 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by antifuse at 2:27 AM on February 7, 2006
Yeah BTGoG, I understand what you're saying and in some ways I don't necessarily disagree (viz: exposure leads to confrontation/refutation) but I guess I'm thinking of the other pagerank repercussions in so far as it makes it a bit easier for a loony to find these twisted sites and potentially means more innocent people don't hit them accidentally.
Small things perhaps but as a community we can still debate them without having to contribute to their traffic.
posted by peacay at 2:39 AM on February 7, 2006
Small things perhaps but as a community we can still debate them without having to contribute to their traffic.
posted by peacay at 2:39 AM on February 7, 2006
Why not use rel=nofollow?
I think we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater there. You'd have to rely on people applying it to individual "bad" links, which is probably a bit too much HTML knowledge to expect, I think.
posted by Jimbob at 3:03 AM on February 7, 2006
I think we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater there. You'd have to rely on people applying it to individual "bad" links, which is probably a bit too much HTML knowledge to expect, I think.
posted by Jimbob at 3:03 AM on February 7, 2006
"I am asking Matt and Jess to explicitly state where the line is, and why."
Matt has been wise to resist this sort of seemingly reasonable demand... because it's just not possible to apply a fair, consistent, practical application of philosophy across the board via a set of explicit rules. Constitutions, religions and legal systems all end up tripping over their own laws and and exceptions and means of enforcement. All of them are being constantly revised, reinterpreted, challenged, and ultimately shown up in many instances as hypocritical, unequal, ineffective, foolish and/or paradoxical.
Within those systems, though, the absence of explicit laws would be much worse than the consequences of their reliable fallibility. But MetaFilter is not a government or religion. In many way, it's more like a family,in the sense that there are one or two people who provide the housing and essential needs for the group, try to nourish it and allow it grow... and also do their best to furnish a basic ethos, and the direction and restrictions intended to enforce it.
However uneven these methods of enforcement will sometimes appear, they are always going to make more sense and be more effective than stone-tablet rules, because they don't have to cover every possible permutation or expression of deviation. They can be purpose-tooled. They allow room for change, or unusual context, or concepts like "greater good," or even compassion or forgiveness - all things that are very difficult, if not impossible for static systems.
Not that I think your question is presumptuous, BTGoG, or in any way rude or uninformed... just possibly miscast.
Whoa! Somebody shut me up! What happened to make me talk so much today?
posted by taz at 4:02 AM on February 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
Matt has been wise to resist this sort of seemingly reasonable demand... because it's just not possible to apply a fair, consistent, practical application of philosophy across the board via a set of explicit rules. Constitutions, religions and legal systems all end up tripping over their own laws and and exceptions and means of enforcement. All of them are being constantly revised, reinterpreted, challenged, and ultimately shown up in many instances as hypocritical, unequal, ineffective, foolish and/or paradoxical.
Within those systems, though, the absence of explicit laws would be much worse than the consequences of their reliable fallibility. But MetaFilter is not a government or religion. In many way, it's more like a family,in the sense that there are one or two people who provide the housing and essential needs for the group, try to nourish it and allow it grow... and also do their best to furnish a basic ethos, and the direction and restrictions intended to enforce it.
However uneven these methods of enforcement will sometimes appear, they are always going to make more sense and be more effective than stone-tablet rules, because they don't have to cover every possible permutation or expression of deviation. They can be purpose-tooled. They allow room for change, or unusual context, or concepts like "greater good," or even compassion or forgiveness - all things that are very difficult, if not impossible for static systems.
Not that I think your question is presumptuous, BTGoG, or in any way rude or uninformed... just possibly miscast.
Whoa! Somebody shut me up! What happened to make me talk so much today?
posted by taz at 4:02 AM on February 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
*snickers bar gets up, starts talking about how it feels rather nuttty today*
posted by eriko at 4:18 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by eriko at 4:18 AM on February 7, 2006
Using these three books (author, title, ISBN, Amazon rank):
* David Irving, Hitler's War and the War Path, 1872197108, 100,948
* David Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle, 1872197167, 65,675
* Deborah E. Lipstadt, History on Trial : My Day in Court with David Irving, 0060593768, 20,134
I ran an ISBN search on the catalogs of these four libraries:
* San Francisco
* Chicago
* Los Angeles
* New York
Results:
* Hitler's War: none
* Nuremburg: LA-3
* My Trial: SF-3, Ch-2, LA-10, NY-23
posted by ryanrs at 4:32 AM on February 7, 2006
* David Irving, Hitler's War and the War Path, 1872197108, 100,948
* David Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle, 1872197167, 65,675
* Deborah E. Lipstadt, History on Trial : My Day in Court with David Irving, 0060593768, 20,134
I ran an ISBN search on the catalogs of these four libraries:
* San Francisco
* Chicago
* Los Angeles
* New York
Results:
* Hitler's War: none
* Nuremburg: LA-3
* My Trial: SF-3, Ch-2, LA-10, NY-23
posted by ryanrs at 4:32 AM on February 7, 2006
*absorbs ray effects, drops the nuts - feels all butterfingers*
posted by taz at 4:32 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by taz at 4:32 AM on February 7, 2006
Google(isbn <ISBN>):
* Hitler's War: 428
* Nuremburg: 236
* My Trial: 410
Google.de: same
Google.fr: same
Froogle:
* Hitler's War: 2
* Nuremburg: 3
* My Trial: 17
posted by ryanrs at 4:47 AM on February 7, 2006
* Hitler's War: 428
* Nuremburg: 236
* My Trial: 410
Google.de: same
Google.fr: same
Froogle:
* Hitler's War: 2
* Nuremburg: 3
* My Trial: 17
posted by ryanrs at 4:47 AM on February 7, 2006
So what you're saying is that Matt revised history by removing a link to revisionist.org?
posted by Plutor at 5:41 AM on February 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by Plutor at 5:41 AM on February 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
They allow room for change, or unusual context, or concepts like "greater good," or even compassion or forgiveness - all things that are very difficult, if not impossible for static systems.
I feel there are a couple of points to be made here:
1) Such systems are also ripe for abuse if the moderator(s) is/are asshats/despots/etc.
2) Much like children, adults often comply better when the rules are spelled out as clearly as is reasonably* possible. If there's no prior knowledge of where the boundary lies, how do you comport yourself so that you do not cross it? It's difficult if not impossible. You are flying blind. In such a situation, mistakes abound.
I, for one, prefer openness and a clear list of rules (with reasonable accomodation for wiggle room and judgment calls).
Frankly, I didn't know we had a "no linking to hate sites" rule at all, and I've been around here for awhile. I think the idea that we have to protect the unwary from clicking on a link by not showing the link at all, is a bit absurd. I think a clear warning on the order of: CAUTION! HATE SITE! would adequately inform those who might want to click.
* I don't think the perfect should be the enemy of the good
posted by beth at 5:57 AM on February 7, 2006
I feel there are a couple of points to be made here:
1) Such systems are also ripe for abuse if the moderator(s) is/are asshats/despots/etc.
2) Much like children, adults often comply better when the rules are spelled out as clearly as is reasonably* possible. If there's no prior knowledge of where the boundary lies, how do you comport yourself so that you do not cross it? It's difficult if not impossible. You are flying blind. In such a situation, mistakes abound.
I, for one, prefer openness and a clear list of rules (with reasonable accomodation for wiggle room and judgment calls).
Frankly, I didn't know we had a "no linking to hate sites" rule at all, and I've been around here for awhile. I think the idea that we have to protect the unwary from clicking on a link by not showing the link at all, is a bit absurd. I think a clear warning on the order of: CAUTION! HATE SITE! would adequately inform those who might want to click.
* I don't think the perfect should be the enemy of the good
posted by beth at 5:57 AM on February 7, 2006
It's not like "strict" boundaries would do anything. You would just get people disputing Matt's interpretation of the rules.
Rules and guidelines don't solve problems.
posted by smackfu at 6:32 AM on February 7, 2006
Rules and guidelines don't solve problems.
posted by smackfu at 6:32 AM on February 7, 2006
matteo, Snickers aren't fattening enough already?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:39 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:39 AM on February 7, 2006
you don't have a chance here, btgog. people just want an easy life. it's pretty clear taz wants mefi to be like mecha - warm fluffy bunnies. she's not alone; people don't want to argue, or even think, about these things. and they've got it easy - if there's one subject that the middle class can agree on being taboo it's nazis, and how bad they are. they're in a little box, labelled bad (really bad, do not open) and you get brownie points by "drawing the line" (which is a good thing, even if explaining it isn't) around it.
and taz does have a point. this is a community; a large one. to survive it has to be what people expect. it has to be inoffensive. that's why "community policing" is the ugly lynch mob it is - people like sameness; people like chasing people who aren't like them out of town. and what better people to chase out of town than the nazis? because, after all, they took that to the fucking limit.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:01 AM on February 7, 2006
and taz does have a point. this is a community; a large one. to survive it has to be what people expect. it has to be inoffensive. that's why "community policing" is the ugly lynch mob it is - people like sameness; people like chasing people who aren't like them out of town. and what better people to chase out of town than the nazis? because, after all, they took that to the fucking limit.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:01 AM on February 7, 2006
Usually posts about hate sites are removed. In this instance mathowie and I thought that the rest of the post was borderline but probably shouldn't have been deleted just because of one hate site link which was related to the topic pretty tangentially -- a link to holocaust revisionism under the word "revisionist" as if that was a word that needed additional clarification or description -- and wound up derailing the thread anyhow.
The poster in-thread seemed grateful for this and had actually flagged his own post as had many other people.
I'm especially curious about Jessamyn's thoughts on the topic, as she is an information wrangler and a professed radical.
And I really don't mean this in a confrontational way. I think it's an interesting question to consider!
If you think it's interesting to consider we can discuss it over chat. However postingten seven times in a MetaTalk thread that you started seems to imply that you want to do more than just consider the idea. My personal take is that I would have pulled the post entirely, but mathowie and I thought this was a good compromise and thats about as explicit as this particular decision gets. If people think either of us are being "asshats or despots" I guess this is the place to discuss that as well.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:03 AM on February 7, 2006
The poster in-thread seemed grateful for this and had actually flagged his own post as had many other people.
I'm especially curious about Jessamyn's thoughts on the topic, as she is an information wrangler and a professed radical.
And I really don't mean this in a confrontational way. I think it's an interesting question to consider!
If you think it's interesting to consider we can discuss it over chat. However posting
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:03 AM on February 7, 2006
[Informal rule] systems are also ripe for abuse if the moderator(s) is/are asshats/despots/etc.
True, and that is their weakness. If Jessamyn and Matt had simultaneous strokes and decided to promote certain agendas, metafilter would be much less interesting and the site traffic would drop off very rapidly.
If one realizes though that rather then trusting an iron rule, one can trust people instead, rely on their goodwill and intention, you can get a site like metafilter. Countries can be run this way (see, for example the UK).
It ain't broke and so doesn't need fixing. The site's popularity is testament enough.
posted by bonehead at 7:04 AM on February 7, 2006
True, and that is their weakness. If Jessamyn and Matt had simultaneous strokes and decided to promote certain agendas, metafilter would be much less interesting and the site traffic would drop off very rapidly.
If one realizes though that rather then trusting an iron rule, one can trust people instead, rely on their goodwill and intention, you can get a site like metafilter. Countries can be run this way (see, for example the UK).
It ain't broke and so doesn't need fixing. The site's popularity is testament enough.
posted by bonehead at 7:04 AM on February 7, 2006
matteo, Snickers aren't fattening enough already?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:39 AM EST on February 7 [!]
Snickers are an integral part of the Unhealthiest Recipe Ever.
posted by caddis at 7:30 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:39 AM EST on February 7 [!]
Snickers are an integral part of the Unhealthiest Recipe Ever.
posted by caddis at 7:30 AM on February 7, 2006
There is no formal policy to argue about here. They are removed when half the comments in a thread are saying "why did you link to that nazi site?" and there is little discussion going on aside from that. There's no slippery slope to discuss -- so far I've only done it two or three times and it was always to neo-nazi sites featuring content that wasn't important to the post or could be found elsewhere.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:59 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:59 AM on February 7, 2006
Freedom of speech is something that applies to government; it means you can't be punished for holding opinions the government doesn't like. What private parties want to do is up to them.
In other words, I have the right to hate whomever I want, and post about it (IMO), but I don't have the right to expect Matt&Jess to publish me or boost my PageRank by linking to my site. I'm free to speak, and they're free to ignore me, and/or actively delete me if they find my comments unpleasant.
Freedom of speech also means freedom not to speak. Newspapers don't have to publish me, and neither does Metafilter.
posted by Malor at 8:00 AM on February 7, 2006
In other words, I have the right to hate whomever I want, and post about it (IMO), but I don't have the right to expect Matt&Jess to publish me or boost my PageRank by linking to my site. I'm free to speak, and they're free to ignore me, and/or actively delete me if they find my comments unpleasant.
Freedom of speech also means freedom not to speak. Newspapers don't have to publish me, and neither does Metafilter.
posted by Malor at 8:00 AM on February 7, 2006
If one realizes though that rather then trusting an iron rule, one can trust people instead, rely on their goodwill and intention, you can get a site like metafilter. Countries can be run this way (see, for example the UK).
*SOB* can I move there please?
The thing is, though, that people don't last forever and then sooner or later you have a replacement which involves selection and possible jockeying for power and politics and other crap like that, which can get ugly. But that's neither here nor there.
Anyway, the whole lack-of-explicit-rules thing seems to work better the smaller the group. Once you get to a certain size, though, I think it makes sense to have rules clearly stated. This is, after all, the rationale for Law in its many forms.
posted by beth at 8:50 AM on February 7, 2006
*SOB* can I move there please?
The thing is, though, that people don't last forever and then sooner or later you have a replacement which involves selection and possible jockeying for power and politics and other crap like that, which can get ugly. But that's neither here nor there.
Anyway, the whole lack-of-explicit-rules thing seems to work better the smaller the group. Once you get to a certain size, though, I think it makes sense to have rules clearly stated. This is, after all, the rationale for Law in its many forms.
posted by beth at 8:50 AM on February 7, 2006
Where can I get this "Asshats and Despots" RPG?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:00 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:00 AM on February 7, 2006
Some of the more libertarian-minded US citizens around here may argue the absolute importance of free speech
You seem to be confusing "libertarian" with... I don't know what, exactly, but something not libertarian. No libertarian I know (and I know many, having once been one myself, and still having strong libertarian leanings though I no longer consider myself libertarian) would object to Matt's deletion on the grounds of "free speech." In fact, libertarians would recognize Matt's right to do so, this being Matt's site. Matt has freedom of speech on this site; no one else does, and libertarians, being cognizant of property rights, would readily acknowledge this.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:02 AM on February 7, 2006
You seem to be confusing "libertarian" with... I don't know what, exactly, but something not libertarian. No libertarian I know (and I know many, having once been one myself, and still having strong libertarian leanings though I no longer consider myself libertarian) would object to Matt's deletion on the grounds of "free speech." In fact, libertarians would recognize Matt's right to do so, this being Matt's site. Matt has freedom of speech on this site; no one else does, and libertarians, being cognizant of property rights, would readily acknowledge this.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:02 AM on February 7, 2006
Beth, is Matt going somewhere? I would guess that if a meteor dropped on his head tomorrow, MetaFilter would just fade into history.
Rigid rules are a lot harder to interpret and enforce than you seem to imply. Right now loose rules and Matt's good judgement (and I think his judgement has been quite good over the years) make for the easiest administration and a more potent and creative expression being seen here.
posted by caddis at 9:05 AM on February 7, 2006
Rigid rules are a lot harder to interpret and enforce than you seem to imply. Right now loose rules and Matt's good judgement (and I think his judgement has been quite good over the years) make for the easiest administration and a more potent and creative expression being seen here.
posted by caddis at 9:05 AM on February 7, 2006
In Soviet Russia, Snickers points blabber ray at you!
posted by shmegegge at 9:20 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 9:20 AM on February 7, 2006
I am asking Matt and Jess to explicitly state where the line is, and why.
Why? I for one would like policies to form organically from deletions (decided case by case.) instead of matt trying to follow some sort of arbitrary policy. I also feel that calls for an uniformed policy for deletions are just veiled a way of asking 'Why was my post/this post I liked deleted?'
posted by insomnus at 9:23 AM on February 7, 2006
Why? I for one would like policies to form organically from deletions (decided case by case.) instead of matt trying to follow some sort of arbitrary policy. I also feel that calls for an uniformed policy for deletions are just veiled a way of asking 'Why was my post/this post I liked deleted?'
posted by insomnus at 9:23 AM on February 7, 2006
I agree that the site shouldn't have been deleted, but also think that Mathowie is simply looking to protect himself and family from radical judaists, who, after discovering the link, will declare "Jewhad" on him and his family, burning their summer cottage in New Brunswick and boycotting Metafilter.
Disclaimer: I'm still mad that my Jesus is Hitler FPP was deleted because it was "too silly."
posted by matkline at 10:57 AM on February 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
Disclaimer: I'm still mad that my Jesus is Hitler FPP was deleted because it was "too silly."
posted by matkline at 10:57 AM on February 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
Countries can be run this way (see, for example the UK).
You have an overly romantic view of the UK.
posted by smackfu at 12:10 PM on February 7, 2006
You have an overly romantic view of the UK.
posted by smackfu at 12:10 PM on February 7, 2006
One more clarification - can you post links to such sites if you also clear a pretty high bar for posting evidence against? If the test is just to keep the thread running smoothly, then it doesn't seem like it - to use a clunky analogy, it doesn't matter how many warning signs you put up around a land mine you've set, you've still set a land mine. On the flip side, by this definition, satire is a land mine...
matkline : burning down homes? You've no idea how the International Jewish Elders of Zion Conspiracy & All-Night Matzoh Shoppe works, eh? Old men with large, cartoonish noses and faces distored by avarice descend on mathowie's summer cottage... and they start saying 'such a ZETS I'll give you, Matt!' and kvetching about how their second toe feels slightly out of joint. In a few hours, their wives come to pick them up. Verbal rows ensue, starting out in English, ending up in near-Yiddish. They go home and talk about how MeFites aren't as funny as the Borscht Belt comedians of their youth. Assuming Hollywood has taught me right about those durn Jews, that's what they'll do.
posted by suckerpunch at 12:22 PM on February 7, 2006
matkline : burning down homes? You've no idea how the International Jewish Elders of Zion Conspiracy & All-Night Matzoh Shoppe works, eh? Old men with large, cartoonish noses and faces distored by avarice descend on mathowie's summer cottage... and they start saying 'such a ZETS I'll give you, Matt!' and kvetching about how their second toe feels slightly out of joint. In a few hours, their wives come to pick them up. Verbal rows ensue, starting out in English, ending up in near-Yiddish. They go home and talk about how MeFites aren't as funny as the Borscht Belt comedians of their youth. Assuming Hollywood has taught me right about those durn Jews, that's what they'll do.
posted by suckerpunch at 12:22 PM on February 7, 2006
"In fact, libertarians would recognize Matt's right to do so, this being Matt's site."
DevilsAdvocate is right about this, and it's an important point.
Put aside the fact that "Freedom of Speech" is an idea mostly associated with governments and civil rights, and just focus on "free speech" being an allegely universally important ideal.
There's really only two groups that I think are absolutists when it comes to free speech: liberals and anarchists. Progressives abandon free speech where a whole host of other important ideals, almost all about social justice, are involved. Anarchists' allowance for absolutist free speech is self-explanatory. Conservatives, the more moderate they are, are closert to absolutism on free speech; but, for the most part, they favor a certain category of restrictions on speech, both in terms of civil right, but also in civil discourse; and that category involves morality. Anyone further to the right will not in the least be characterized as free speech absolutists.
So the debate we're having here is really a debate between progressive and liberal values. It could potentially also involve a moderately conservative (or perhaps a mostly anachronistic conservative) on one side and authoritarians on the other.
I'm truthfully better described as a liberal than a progressive, although a number of my positions are more progressive than liberal. On the matter of free speech, however, I fall in the liberal camp. But it's important for those of us in the liberal camp to understand that progressives will tend away from free speech absolutism, and they will do it for reasons of social justice. In this case, they envision a better society as the result of Holocaust revisionism being less available than more.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:02 PM on February 7, 2006
DevilsAdvocate is right about this, and it's an important point.
Put aside the fact that "Freedom of Speech" is an idea mostly associated with governments and civil rights, and just focus on "free speech" being an allegely universally important ideal.
There's really only two groups that I think are absolutists when it comes to free speech: liberals and anarchists. Progressives abandon free speech where a whole host of other important ideals, almost all about social justice, are involved. Anarchists' allowance for absolutist free speech is self-explanatory. Conservatives, the more moderate they are, are closert to absolutism on free speech; but, for the most part, they favor a certain category of restrictions on speech, both in terms of civil right, but also in civil discourse; and that category involves morality. Anyone further to the right will not in the least be characterized as free speech absolutists.
So the debate we're having here is really a debate between progressive and liberal values. It could potentially also involve a moderately conservative (or perhaps a mostly anachronistic conservative) on one side and authoritarians on the other.
I'm truthfully better described as a liberal than a progressive, although a number of my positions are more progressive than liberal. On the matter of free speech, however, I fall in the liberal camp. But it's important for those of us in the liberal camp to understand that progressives will tend away from free speech absolutism, and they will do it for reasons of social justice. In this case, they envision a better society as the result of Holocaust revisionism being less available than more.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:02 PM on February 7, 2006
You know, it's holocaust denial, not revisionism. To call it the latter is to grant it a legitimacy that it does not deserve.
posted by OmieWise at 1:24 PM on February 7, 2006
posted by OmieWise at 1:24 PM on February 7, 2006
suckerpunch, if you happen across a holocaust-denier neo-Nazi website that truly is The Best of the Web, just post it as a single-link FPP. The Best of the Web can stand on its own merits.
posted by ryanrs at 1:27 PM on February 7, 2006
posted by ryanrs at 1:27 PM on February 7, 2006
"You know, it's holocaust denial, not revisionism. To call it the latter is to grant it a legitimacy that it does not deserve."
That right there is an example of the divergence of the liberal and progressive points-of-view.
The first time I read this, I immediately thought to myself, "He's right". But as I thought about it more, I realized that while all Holocaust deniers are Holocoaust revisionists, not all Holocaust revisionists are necessarily Holocaust deniers.
I didn't follow the link, so I don't know either way. Which is partly my point. But, more precisely, my point is that while you would prefer to use "denial" without exception because you a) suspect pretty much all revisionists are deniers, and b) social justice is furthered even when you are wrong in a particular case because as a general rule deniers should not be allowed to hide behind the more benign sounding revisionist tag, I disagree with you about this.
I disagree with that reasoning, though I'm sympathetic to it. Firstly, I like using precise language and when I inadvertently identify a denier as a revisionist, I'm still exactly right. Secondly, I distrust the mental habit that takes all revionists to be deniers. That is to say, assuming the worst about one's rhetorical opponent is, overall, more false than true even if on this particular subject it is very rare that it is false.
But, anyway, my reasoning versus the reasoning I am guessing as yours is a very nice example of the distinction between progressivism and liberalism.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:54 PM on February 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
That right there is an example of the divergence of the liberal and progressive points-of-view.
The first time I read this, I immediately thought to myself, "He's right". But as I thought about it more, I realized that while all Holocaust deniers are Holocoaust revisionists, not all Holocaust revisionists are necessarily Holocaust deniers.
I didn't follow the link, so I don't know either way. Which is partly my point. But, more precisely, my point is that while you would prefer to use "denial" without exception because you a) suspect pretty much all revisionists are deniers, and b) social justice is furthered even when you are wrong in a particular case because as a general rule deniers should not be allowed to hide behind the more benign sounding revisionist tag, I disagree with you about this.
I disagree with that reasoning, though I'm sympathetic to it. Firstly, I like using precise language and when I inadvertently identify a denier as a revisionist, I'm still exactly right. Secondly, I distrust the mental habit that takes all revionists to be deniers. That is to say, assuming the worst about one's rhetorical opponent is, overall, more false than true even if on this particular subject it is very rare that it is false.
But, anyway, my reasoning versus the reasoning I am guessing as yours is a very nice example of the distinction between progressivism and liberalism.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:54 PM on February 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
Matt has freedom of speech on this site; no one else does, and libertarians, being cognizant of property rights, would readily acknowledge this.
And, thus, the great internal conflict of libertarianism arises. Free speech is paramount, but so are the rights of anyone to restrict freedom of speech on their property. Freedom of movement is paramount, but at the same time, every square inch of land has to be privately owned, and owners have absolute rights to expel (or shoot) trespassers.
Anyway, what I was trying to get at, DevilsAdvocate, is sort of what EB said. Sure, from a "1st amendment only applies to government" point of view, libertarians would defend mathowie's right to delete what he wants from his site. As do I, as a matter of fact. But from another angle, there are a certain class of people, who I will also call libertarians, who constantly pop up demanding absolute freedom of speech as if it is the single most important thing to human kind, which must be defended at all cost. But out there, in the world, there are people who are starving who would gladly waive their right to freedom of speech for good meal and a roof over their head.
posted by Jimbob at 2:13 PM on February 7, 2006
And, thus, the great internal conflict of libertarianism arises. Free speech is paramount, but so are the rights of anyone to restrict freedom of speech on their property. Freedom of movement is paramount, but at the same time, every square inch of land has to be privately owned, and owners have absolute rights to expel (or shoot) trespassers.
Anyway, what I was trying to get at, DevilsAdvocate, is sort of what EB said. Sure, from a "1st amendment only applies to government" point of view, libertarians would defend mathowie's right to delete what he wants from his site. As do I, as a matter of fact. But from another angle, there are a certain class of people, who I will also call libertarians, who constantly pop up demanding absolute freedom of speech as if it is the single most important thing to human kind, which must be defended at all cost. But out there, in the world, there are people who are starving who would gladly waive their right to freedom of speech for good meal and a roof over their head.
posted by Jimbob at 2:13 PM on February 7, 2006
Huh. The original poster asked that the site be de-linked, and thanked Matt for doing so. What's the issue here again?
posted by mediareport at 8:54 PM on February 7, 2006
posted by mediareport at 8:54 PM on February 7, 2006
The deletion itself in the thread itself is pretty noncontroversial. Believe it or not, I just thought it was an interesting issue. Sorry for posting too much in the thread, I was putting off writing some job applications. Still got those done, though.
I think the best thing would be both to put a rel=nofollow and a HATE SITE warning with the link if it needs to be posted.
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:03 AM on February 8, 2006
I think the best thing would be both to put a rel=nofollow and a HATE SITE warning with the link if it needs to be posted.
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:03 AM on February 8, 2006
"holocaust revisionism" is to "holocaust denial" like "intelligent design" is to "creationism"
posted by funambulist at 4:22 AM on February 8, 2006
posted by funambulist at 4:22 AM on February 8, 2006
Ethereal Bligh writes "Firstly, I like using precise language and when I inadvertently identify a denier as a revisionist, I'm still exactly right. Secondly, I distrust the mental habit that takes all revionists to be deniers. That is to say, assuming the worst about one's rhetorical opponent is, overall, more false than true even if on this particular subject it is very rare that it is false."
Sorry, EB, but I don't buy it. The fact is, there simply are no "holocaust revisionists." There are historians and there are deniers. No historian calls themselves a revisionist because they know that it's code for denier; deniers call themselves revisionists because it is more palatable. You are not being precise, you're being obtuse about motivations and reality. Given the very strong correlation of the term revisionist with denier, it is not assuming the worst to equate the two, it's assuming a connection that is demonstrably present in rhetoric. In that case it is the responsiblity of someone who wants to call themselves a holocaust revisionist ,without also being thought a denier and an anti-Semite, to convince me that the term needs rescuing from the racist doublespeak of which it is part.
I wouldn't respond simply to correct you, because I know that that oversight on your part doesn't make you a bad person or a denier, an anti-semite or a racist, but I do think that it has profound implications for the distinction that you've drawn between liberalism and progressivism (which I'm not sure that I agree with, but accepting it for the moment...). If to be a liberal means to lack the courage and clearsightedness to call a spade a spade in the service of an overthought ideal that fails in this simple practical application, then what good is liberalism? Your earlier point about a plurality of voices is, I think, a good one, but plurality should not imply a lack of judgement or discernment. You can want the denier's website to be posted on MeFi without acceding to their wish to white wash their purposes by calling them revisionists.
Also, what funambulist said.
posted by OmieWise at 5:32 AM on February 8, 2006
Sorry, EB, but I don't buy it. The fact is, there simply are no "holocaust revisionists." There are historians and there are deniers. No historian calls themselves a revisionist because they know that it's code for denier; deniers call themselves revisionists because it is more palatable. You are not being precise, you're being obtuse about motivations and reality. Given the very strong correlation of the term revisionist with denier, it is not assuming the worst to equate the two, it's assuming a connection that is demonstrably present in rhetoric. In that case it is the responsiblity of someone who wants to call themselves a holocaust revisionist ,without also being thought a denier and an anti-Semite, to convince me that the term needs rescuing from the racist doublespeak of which it is part.
I wouldn't respond simply to correct you, because I know that that oversight on your part doesn't make you a bad person or a denier, an anti-semite or a racist, but I do think that it has profound implications for the distinction that you've drawn between liberalism and progressivism (which I'm not sure that I agree with, but accepting it for the moment...). If to be a liberal means to lack the courage and clearsightedness to call a spade a spade in the service of an overthought ideal that fails in this simple practical application, then what good is liberalism? Your earlier point about a plurality of voices is, I think, a good one, but plurality should not imply a lack of judgement or discernment. You can want the denier's website to be posted on MeFi without acceding to their wish to white wash their purposes by calling them revisionists.
Also, what funambulist said.
posted by OmieWise at 5:32 AM on February 8, 2006
Well, I disagree. Note that I use "pro-life", as well.
I'm not as convinced as you are that there is no such thing as a holocaust "revisionist"—in fact, I feel that there must be such a beast, even if extremely rare. To repeat myself, if I force the appellation of "denier" on everyone that claims to be a "revisionist", then I'm doing a disservice to them (no matter how noxious they are or how little they deserve fair treatment), but more importantly to people who listen to me and read my words, along with my own sense of rhetorical fairness.
Forcing a label on someone that they don't want is an unfair rhetorical tactic unless in their specific case you can prove that the label is accurate. A blanket declaration that all "revisionists" are deniers cannot be fair because it's an absolute that entirely disallows the possibility of a true revisionist, which clearly is possible.
The reason I am fastidious about these things is the result of my very strong and heartfelt belief that the majority of conflict occurs because we have a strong tendency to attribute all-encompassing ill-will to anyone we perceive as our opponent or enemy. We demonize. I think it's important to resist that impulse.
I'd like to repeat that any given specific case where you can prove a self-identified "revisionist" is really a denier I'm 100% behind you in refusing to allow them their whitewashing.
In the abortion debate, it's much harder to prove that someone is motivated by anti-choice beliefs moreso than than pro-life beliefs. So I almost always accept the self-identification of "pro-life".
I don't know if my generosity in these matters is "liberal" (though in a sense it certainly is) and I don't think all liberals should be tarred by my self-identification of "liberal" coupled with this personal policy of mine. We could argue if my practice is "liberal" or not, but there are certainly a great number of self-identified liberals who would reject my reasoning. You may be among them.
And there's irony here, don't you see? And self-reference. If you self-identify as "liberal" but I decide that a core belief of liberalism is my beliefs about how to handle things such as I prefer, then (though this isn't possible, there's a contradiction) I'd refuse your self-identification of "liberal" and apply whatever moniker I think is more appropriate. Would you think that was fair and correct of me?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:58 PM on February 8, 2006
I'm not as convinced as you are that there is no such thing as a holocaust "revisionist"—in fact, I feel that there must be such a beast, even if extremely rare. To repeat myself, if I force the appellation of "denier" on everyone that claims to be a "revisionist", then I'm doing a disservice to them (no matter how noxious they are or how little they deserve fair treatment), but more importantly to people who listen to me and read my words, along with my own sense of rhetorical fairness.
Forcing a label on someone that they don't want is an unfair rhetorical tactic unless in their specific case you can prove that the label is accurate. A blanket declaration that all "revisionists" are deniers cannot be fair because it's an absolute that entirely disallows the possibility of a true revisionist, which clearly is possible.
The reason I am fastidious about these things is the result of my very strong and heartfelt belief that the majority of conflict occurs because we have a strong tendency to attribute all-encompassing ill-will to anyone we perceive as our opponent or enemy. We demonize. I think it's important to resist that impulse.
I'd like to repeat that any given specific case where you can prove a self-identified "revisionist" is really a denier I'm 100% behind you in refusing to allow them their whitewashing.
In the abortion debate, it's much harder to prove that someone is motivated by anti-choice beliefs moreso than than pro-life beliefs. So I almost always accept the self-identification of "pro-life".
I don't know if my generosity in these matters is "liberal" (though in a sense it certainly is) and I don't think all liberals should be tarred by my self-identification of "liberal" coupled with this personal policy of mine. We could argue if my practice is "liberal" or not, but there are certainly a great number of self-identified liberals who would reject my reasoning. You may be among them.
And there's irony here, don't you see? And self-reference. If you self-identify as "liberal" but I decide that a core belief of liberalism is my beliefs about how to handle things such as I prefer, then (though this isn't possible, there's a contradiction) I'd refuse your self-identification of "liberal" and apply whatever moniker I think is more appropriate. Would you think that was fair and correct of me?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:58 PM on February 8, 2006
Oh, also, if what you say is true—and it probably is—then if someone self-identifies as a "revisionist" then none of us will be confused about the truth, will we? On the other hand, those who are ignorant will accept "revisionist" even when it's false. But, again, in a specific case, where we have the opportunity to refute our enemies, and when there are onlookers who may know little, then we have every right to loudly proclaim them to be "deniers" if we can prove that this is the case. And no one involved will be confused as to the truth of the matter.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:09 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:09 PM on February 8, 2006
self link
The following thoughts were prompted by comments on a thread in Metafilter. In that thread the following ideas seemed to be generally accepted:
- only anarchists and libertarians believe in the right to free speech
- only governments have an obligation to respect the right to free speech
These ideas are inconsistent (or trivial) and wrong. The inconsistency is clear enough; both anarchists and libertarians want, in simple terms, to remove government. So whether or not government allows free speech is rather a moot point; the wrongness of it all will be developed below.
Some current American libertarians do recognise the need for a government, but think it should be very strongly curtailed. To argue that this implies support for free speech radically overstates the case - the same logic could be used to claim that libertarians support the right to freely choose the colour of their cars.
While libertarians define themselves through an opposition to government, anarchists oppose all power structures. In an anarchist utopia all are equal. That all can speak follows directly.
From these two examples it is clear, I hope, that a right to free speech is important only when speech can be somehow restricted. If all can speak anyway, then no right is necessary. This was recognised by Joseph Raz -
So far there has been nothing in the concept of rights that associates it only with government. That connection follows only when the constraints are restricted to laws.
If laws are all that stop a person from free speech, then the right to free speech applies only to the source of those laws. To government.
But it is clear that there are many other constraints in our society. Government is just one power structure. Another, often more effective force is based on wealth. Correlated with that is power through knowledge of, and access to, important resources. In particular, in the case of speech, to knowledge of, and access to, media.
And, for a moment, I want to return to that Metafilter thread, where a group of people - the local technical elite - reach the happy consensus that they are quite within their rights to censor what other people say. The "right" to free speech had little weight there.
Which brings us to the crux of the matter: who is responsible for guaranteeing these rights? Is it the government? Do they enshrine rights in law and then explain and enforce those rules? That would certainly make life simple - we would simply follow the rules.
Unfortunately life is not so simple. We have already seen that rights are defined in opposition to power structures. Those involved in powerful systems have a vested interest in propogating and extending that power. It is a simple fact of life that they will resist ideas that weaken their power.
And, as we have also seen, those with power have little need for rights. Rights are for the weak.
So is it sensible to rely on the powerful to guarantee rights? When they neither need nor want them? The idea that the government is solely responsible for rights is both naive and dangerous. For rights to be useful, we need to embrace them in common culture. We - the weak, the powerless - need to weave them into the fabric of our lives. This is the only way, through mass recognition, that we can hope to guarantee that they will still be around when we need them; even as we hope we will never have that need.
We must all respect rights. For our own protection.
There is one final issue I was hoping to address here, and that is whether rights can be compromised. As we have already seen, the whole basis of rights is that they allow you to do something you should not. That is the fundamental guarantee they provide and the price we have to pay for the good they bring the community.
So it is not enough to argue that, because something is wrong, the right should be denied. This contradicts the basic meaning of a right.
To deny a right requires something worse than "wrong". There is an obvious parallel with the concept of "Supreme Emergency", used by Michael Walzer to justify war. And, in practice, war is strongly associated with a loss of rights.
The decision whether a web link to holocaust deniers consistutes a supreme emergency is one I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:33 PM on February 8, 2006
The following thoughts were prompted by comments on a thread in Metafilter. In that thread the following ideas seemed to be generally accepted:
- only anarchists and libertarians believe in the right to free speech
- only governments have an obligation to respect the right to free speech
These ideas are inconsistent (or trivial) and wrong. The inconsistency is clear enough; both anarchists and libertarians want, in simple terms, to remove government. So whether or not government allows free speech is rather a moot point; the wrongness of it all will be developed below.
Some current American libertarians do recognise the need for a government, but think it should be very strongly curtailed. To argue that this implies support for free speech radically overstates the case - the same logic could be used to claim that libertarians support the right to freely choose the colour of their cars.
While libertarians define themselves through an opposition to government, anarchists oppose all power structures. In an anarchist utopia all are equal. That all can speak follows directly.
From these two examples it is clear, I hope, that a right to free speech is important only when speech can be somehow restricted. If all can speak anyway, then no right is necessary. This was recognised by Joseph Raz -
One needs no right to be entitled to do the right thing. That it is right gives one all the title one needs. But one needs a right to be entitled to do that which one should not. It is an essential element of rights to action that they entitle one to do that which one should not. To say this is not, of course, to say that the purpose of rights of action is to increase wrong-doing. Their purpose is to develop and protect the autonomy of the agent. They entitle him to choose for himself rightly or wrongly.We are, as this quote shows, talking about rights. When people talk about "free speech" they are discussing a right. A right is something that lets you act in a way that you normally could not. It works against existing constraints. And, since restrictions are typically enforced by power, against a power structure. Without constraints, rights, including the right to free speech, are ubiquitous, uninteresting - meaningless.
So far there has been nothing in the concept of rights that associates it only with government. That connection follows only when the constraints are restricted to laws.
If laws are all that stop a person from free speech, then the right to free speech applies only to the source of those laws. To government.
But it is clear that there are many other constraints in our society. Government is just one power structure. Another, often more effective force is based on wealth. Correlated with that is power through knowledge of, and access to, important resources. In particular, in the case of speech, to knowledge of, and access to, media.
And, for a moment, I want to return to that Metafilter thread, where a group of people - the local technical elite - reach the happy consensus that they are quite within their rights to censor what other people say. The "right" to free speech had little weight there.
Which brings us to the crux of the matter: who is responsible for guaranteeing these rights? Is it the government? Do they enshrine rights in law and then explain and enforce those rules? That would certainly make life simple - we would simply follow the rules.
Unfortunately life is not so simple. We have already seen that rights are defined in opposition to power structures. Those involved in powerful systems have a vested interest in propogating and extending that power. It is a simple fact of life that they will resist ideas that weaken their power.
And, as we have also seen, those with power have little need for rights. Rights are for the weak.
So is it sensible to rely on the powerful to guarantee rights? When they neither need nor want them? The idea that the government is solely responsible for rights is both naive and dangerous. For rights to be useful, we need to embrace them in common culture. We - the weak, the powerless - need to weave them into the fabric of our lives. This is the only way, through mass recognition, that we can hope to guarantee that they will still be around when we need them; even as we hope we will never have that need.
We must all respect rights. For our own protection.
There is one final issue I was hoping to address here, and that is whether rights can be compromised. As we have already seen, the whole basis of rights is that they allow you to do something you should not. That is the fundamental guarantee they provide and the price we have to pay for the good they bring the community.
So it is not enough to argue that, because something is wrong, the right should be denied. This contradicts the basic meaning of a right.
To deny a right requires something worse than "wrong". There is an obvious parallel with the concept of "Supreme Emergency", used by Michael Walzer to justify war. And, in practice, war is strongly associated with a loss of rights.
The decision whether a web link to holocaust deniers consistutes a supreme emergency is one I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:33 PM on February 8, 2006
EB, "revisionist" in general is one thing; "HOLOCAUST revisionist", quite another.
You're choosing theoretical subtleties over actual reality of who the Holocaust "revisionists" are. They all call themselves revisionists. No one calls themselves "Holocaust deniers".
If neonazis want to call themselves "defenders of the homeland" or something like that, would you accept and use that definition, out of a respect for their good intentions to portray themselves as nice people, and out of a and desire not to "demonize" them -- even as they're demonizing everyone else?
That's not what I'd call being "liberal". Unless in a caricature sense.
posted by funambulist at 12:47 AM on February 9, 2006
You're choosing theoretical subtleties over actual reality of who the Holocaust "revisionists" are. They all call themselves revisionists. No one calls themselves "Holocaust deniers".
If neonazis want to call themselves "defenders of the homeland" or something like that, would you accept and use that definition, out of a respect for their good intentions to portray themselves as nice people, and out of a and desire not to "demonize" them -- even as they're demonizing everyone else?
That's not what I'd call being "liberal". Unless in a caricature sense.
posted by funambulist at 12:47 AM on February 9, 2006
only anarchists and libertarians believe in the right to free speech
I don't get that at all from this thread. Some people believe in an absolute right to free speech--a right that, should it be in conflict with another apparent right always trumps the other right. Other people believe in a right to free speech, but not an absolute right to free speech.
Even if you said, "only anarchists and libertarians believe in an absolute right to free speech," I still wouldn't agree. I can't speak for anarchists, but many, if not most, libertarians would not agree to an absolute right to free speech--they tend to see property rights as absolute, and if anything, a right to free speech is merely a corollary of property rights.
Some people here advocate the view that a right to free speech ought to be inferior to a right not to hear hate speech. I wholeheartedly disagree with this, and yet I still do not advocate an absolute right to free speech, as there are other considerations I would balance against a right to free speech.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:54 AM on February 9, 2006
I don't get that at all from this thread. Some people believe in an absolute right to free speech--a right that, should it be in conflict with another apparent right always trumps the other right. Other people believe in a right to free speech, but not an absolute right to free speech.
Even if you said, "only anarchists and libertarians believe in an absolute right to free speech," I still wouldn't agree. I can't speak for anarchists, but many, if not most, libertarians would not agree to an absolute right to free speech--they tend to see property rights as absolute, and if anything, a right to free speech is merely a corollary of property rights.
Some people here advocate the view that a right to free speech ought to be inferior to a right not to hear hate speech. I wholeheartedly disagree with this, and yet I still do not advocate an absolute right to free speech, as there are other considerations I would balance against a right to free speech.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:54 AM on February 9, 2006
« Older Star Wars House Man comes into his own thread | Derail discussion and Brand New Day genesis Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Jimbob at 1:16 AM on February 7, 2006