1357: "Free Speech"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:46 am UTC

jpk wrote:Write on. Some days you're the only person on this board making any damned sense at all.



or,
should I say

a writer that makes you stop and wonder
what the hell they're trying to say
makes you stop and wonder

And that is a gift.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:56 am UTC

Thank you, xkcd flora.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3652
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Mid north coast, NSW, Australia

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PM 2Ring » Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:29 am UTC

zmic wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:
zmic wrote:Of course there are circumstances where it makes sense to boycott a company. I would much better understand if gay rights activists set up a campaign to pressure Mozilla to stop releasing the Russian version of Firefox because of Russia's BLATANT and overt anti-gay policies. Let's see if Mozilla is really prepared to put its money where its mouth is. In fact I never even heard about Mozilla being some bastion of equal rights before this whole sorry episode.


So Mozilla should punish all Russian speakers because of the Russian government's anti-gay policies? I suspect that not all Russian speakers are actually homophobes...


Such considerations never stopped boycotts of South Africa during the Apartheid era.


True enough. I guess the logic was that the boycotts wouldn't add much to the suffering of the non-White majority but would send a strong message to the ruling White minority. And it should be remembered that the anti-apartheid boycotts were instigated by a group containing several South African Persons of Colour.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Apartheid_Movement

As I indicated in my first post in this thread, I don't think that the Eich/Mozilla boycott was totally right & fair, but IMHO it was certainly not as bad as Eich's financially supporting Prop 8.

I disagree with those who claim that the boycott was an attempt to suppress Eich's freedom of speech; OTOH, I do agree that such tactics have made some supporters (both actual & potential) of LGBT rights (including some LGBT people) somewhat uncomfortable. Perhaps this situation could've been handled in a more diplomatic fashion. But as others have said many times in this thread, if you're too nice & polite, then the Powers That Be just keep on walking over you.

zmic wrote:
:roll: Eich isn't a sucker. Nobody forced him to donate to Prop 8. And he obviously still supports it, since he's made no attempt to apologize for supporting it. Mozilla didn't want him to leave the company - he's the one who decided to take his bat & ball and go home.


Face-saving rituals that usually come with high-level dismissals. It's very likely that he just got fired.


Maybe; but earlier in this thread it was claimed that Mozilla said that they didn't want Eich to leave the organization.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:20 am UTC

Who cares about boycotts of other countries? Here's zmic's moving-target argument for why this was wrong: "Americans fighting bigots in America tells me nothing; show me Americans fighting bigots in Russia, THEN I'll know they're serious about fighting bigots in America." It makes no sense at all, regardless of the nature of a boycott to combat Apartheid. It is nothing more than a thinly veiled rationalization for ignoring the obvious.

Also, there is plenty of public outrage about the treatment of gays in Russia, so I'm not sure where that bizarre demand is coming from. It just isn't effective outrage because, unlike Mozilla, Russia doesn't care that much of the world is criticizing them, because it presumably doesn't really make any difference to Putin's bank account. And because Putin appears to be completely amoral.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Fri Apr 25, 2014 1:54 pm UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:I disagree with those who claim that the boycott was an attempt to suppress Eich's freedom of speech;


There are two subtle points of confusion here.

First of all, the issue is not so much about his freedom of speech, but his freedom of conscience. He has a belief (which, once again, I find repellent, but that's not relevant here) and he has the right to speak in support of his belief and to act in support of it, consistent with requirements of the law. If we want to live in a civil society, we have to allow him the right to represent and support his views, exactly as we would want to have the right to represent and support our own views.
If you want a right, you have to be willing to allow it to others. If you want to live in a society where you can act on behalf of the causes you feel are right, you cannot start by delimiting who is allowed to act on behalf of causes they feel are right. This is a very simple ethical position, and I honestly do not understand why it's so hard to grasp, but I can't imagine a more basic requirement of a just ordering of society: we can restrict the manner in which someone supports their cause, but we cannot act to prevent them from doing so. This is also a blindingly obvious practical position which anyone seeking justice must uphold, because it is only by maintaining this position that we can justify our demand to be allowed to participate. The cause of justice is almost always the cause of the powerless against the powerful - in fact, this could be considered basic to the idea of justice, that it is a defense of the rights of those without other recourse. That being the case, if we do not commit ourselves to the position that all people may speak and act to support their idea of justice, then we concede that someone will decide who may speak and on behalf of what causes, and that this is the right and proper way for things to be. And the someone who makes that decision will always be a representative of power (again, this is more or less by definition of "power"). So, unless you think that the powerful will, simply from the goodness of their hearts, allow the powerless to act, you have to commit yourself to an absolutist position on free expression.

And this brings me to the second point of confusion. I'm not defending Eich's freedom of conscience here. I'm defending yours and mine.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:18 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:I disagree with those who claim that the boycott was an attempt to suppress Eich's freedom of speech;


There are two subtle points of confusion here.

First of all, the issue is not so much about his freedom of speech, but his freedom of conscience. He has a belief (which, once again, I find repellent, but that's not relevant here) and he has the right to speak in support of his belief and to act in support of it, consistent with requirements of the law. If we want to live in a civil society, we have to allow him the right to represent and support his views, exactly as we would want to have the right to represent and support our own views.
If you want a right, you have to be willing to allow it to others. If you want to live in a society where you can act on behalf of the causes you feel are right, you cannot start by delimiting who is allowed to act on behalf of causes they feel are right. This is a very simple ethical position, and I honestly do not understand why it's so hard to grasp, but I can't imagine a more basic requirement of a just ordering of society: we can restrict the manner in which someone supports their cause, but we cannot act to prevent them from doing so. This is also a blindingly obvious practical position which anyone seeking justice must uphold, because it is only by maintaining this position that we can justify our demand to be allowed to participate. The cause of justice is almost always the cause of the powerless against the powerful - in fact, this could be considered basic to the idea of justice, that it is a defense of the rights of those without other recourse. That being the case, if we do not commit ourselves to the position that all people may speak and act to support their idea of justice, then we concede that someone will decide who may speak and on behalf of what causes, and that this is the right and proper way for things to be. And the someone who makes that decision will always be a representative of power (again, this is more or less by definition of "power"). So, unless you think that the powerful will, simply from the goodness of their hearts, allow the powerless to act, you have to commit yourself to an absolutist position on free expression.

And this brings me to the second point of confusion. I'm not defending Eich's freedom of conscience here. I'm defending yours and mine.


And you're still confused by the fact that nobody ever has said that Eich should not have been allowed or should have been prevented from donating to Prop 8. That's the crux you're missing. And once he did donate, I'm allowed to exercise my right to stop supporting him. If I owned a business, and bigots wanted to boycott it because I'm pro equality, that's well within their rights.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:37 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:And you're still confused by the fact that nobody ever has said that Eich should not have been allowed or should have been prevented from donating to Prop 8. That's the crux you're missing. And once he did donate, I'm allowed to exercise my right to stop supporting him. If I owned a business, and bigots wanted to boycott it because I'm pro equality, that's well within their rights.


Yes, you're allowed to do whatever you like, within the bounds of the law. That does not mean you're acting ethically, or that you're acting in the best interests of the cause you claim to be supporting. And that's the point: you cannot claim to be working for justice and also act to punish people for peacefully representing their views in speech on in political advocacy.
You can make mouth noises about it all day, but the goal of your action is to punish people for advocating their beliefs, and that is not consistent with working for justice - even if you think their beliefs are contrary to the cause of a just society. I agree with you that Eich's views are antithetical to justice, but if you want to work for a just society, you have to tolerate others' advocacy of their views. And that means that if you try to punish people for speaking, you are working against a just society. Even if you think it feels good to kick a bigot in the teeth, it's not a just action, it's just spite, and it works against the powerless and it works in favor of the privileged.
(If you want to be on the side of power and privilege, that's your right, of course, but you should be honest with yourself about it)

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:41 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:And you're still confused by the fact that nobody ever has said that Eich should not have been allowed or should have been prevented from donating to Prop 8. That's the crux you're missing. And once he did donate, I'm allowed to exercise my right to stop supporting him. If I owned a business, and bigots wanted to boycott it because I'm pro equality, that's well within their rights.


Yes, you're allowed to do whatever you like, within the bounds of the law. That does not mean you're acting ethically, or that you're acting in the best interests of the cause you claim to be supporting. And that's the point: you cannot claim to be working for justice and also act to punish people for peacefully representing their views in speech on in political advocacy.
You can make mouth noises about it all day, but the goal of your action is to punish people for advocating their beliefs, and that is not consistent with working for justice - even if you think their beliefs are contrary to the cause of a just society. I agree with you that Eich's views are antithetical to justice, but if you want to work for a just society, you have to tolerate others' advocacy of their views. And that means that if you try to punish people for speaking, you are working against a just society. Even if you think it feels good to kick a bigot in the teeth, it's not a just action, it's just spite, and it works against the powerless and it works in favor of the privileged.
(If you want to be on the side of power and privilege, that's your right, of course, but you should be honest with yourself about it)


Except for the fact that the path you describe has never been used solely and successfully for justice. Equality has never been achieved that way. What you are suggesting simply has never worked and will likely never work.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:52 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:Except for the fact that the path you describe has never been used solely and successfully for justice. Equality has never been achieved that way. What you are suggesting simply has never worked and will likely never work.


We can argue the history of the civil rights movement some other time, I suppose. All the same, what I am suggesting is actually the only basis for a just society. If you don't like that, you might as well give up on the whole idea.
Or do you think that you can establish justice based on the idea that those who have the leverage to punish other's actions have also got the moral right to do so?
I guarantee you that the powerful will always have more leverage to punish the actions of the weak than the other way around, so that seems like a losing position to me. I'm not interested in any "justice" that gives more weapons to those in power.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3464
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:56 pm UTC

I'm not understanding jpk's argument - it seems to me that he's arguing that the ethical thing for people who oppose Prop 8 to do is to donate money to the next Prop 8 campaign that comes around. Okay, not donate directly, but indirectly by giving money to someone who they know is likely to donate some of that money to that cause. Perhaps someone could explain why this isn't the case?

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:00 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:I'm not understanding jpk's argument - it seems to me that he's arguing that the ethical thing for people who oppose Prop 8 to do is to donate money to the next Prop 8 campaign that comes around. Okay, not donate directly, but indirectly by giving money to someone who they know is likely to donate some of that money to that cause. Perhaps someone could explain why this isn't the case?

I don't see how you get that from my argument. Could you expand?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3464
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:07 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:I'm not understanding jpk's argument - it seems to me that he's arguing that the ethical thing for people who oppose Prop 8 to do is to donate money to the next Prop 8 campaign that comes around. Okay, not donate directly, but indirectly by giving money to someone who they know is likely to donate some of that money to that cause. Perhaps someone could explain why this isn't the case?

I don't see how you get that from my argument. Could you expand?


Given that Brendan Eich donated to Prop 8 and then became CEO of Mozilla, people who opposed Prop 8 had two options: continue to support Mozilla, or cease to support Mozilla. Continuing to support Mozilla meant putting money into Eich's pocket, indirectly supporting the next Prop 8 campaign he donates to; ceasing to support Mozilla meant trying to "punish" Eich for his support of Prop 8.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:16 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:Given that Brendan Eich donated to Prop 8 and then became CEO of Mozilla, people who opposed Prop 8 had two options: continue to support Mozilla, or cease to support Mozilla. Continuing to support Mozilla meant putting money into Eich's pocket, indirectly supporting the next Prop 8 campaign he donates to; ceasing to support Mozilla meant trying to "punish" Eich for his support of Prop 8.


I'd make a distinction between paying someone for their work and donating to the causes they support. When I pay you to do a job, the money you get is now yours and I have no say in how you spend it. Mozilla is not a bake sale.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:24 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:I'm not understanding jpk's argument - it seems to me that he's arguing that the ethical thing for people who oppose Prop 8 to do is to donate money to the next Prop 8 campaign that comes around. Okay, not donate directly, but indirectly by giving money to someone who they know is likely to donate some of that money to that cause. Perhaps someone could explain why this isn't the case?


Of course you don't understand it. It's completely nonsensical. After all, under his "logic," this whole debate should be about the fact that Eich shouldn't have had the "ethical right" to donate to Prop 8 in the first place. Prop 8's sole goal was to take away the right of gay individuals to marry their partners, or really, to "punish" them. This whole current debate really should be moot because how dare Eich try to stifle the rights of others.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:26 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:Of course you don't understand it. It's completely nonsensical. After all, under his "logic," this whole debate should be about the fact that Eich shouldn't have had the "ethical right" to donate to Prop 8 in the first place. Prop 8's sole goal was to take away the right of gay individuals to marry their partners, or really, to "punish" them. This whole current debate really should be moot because how dare Eich try to stifle the rights of others.


I see that you're a fan of irony.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:28 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:Of course you don't understand it. It's completely nonsensical. After all, under his "logic," this whole debate should be about the fact that Eich shouldn't have had the "ethical right" to donate to Prop 8 in the first place. Prop 8's sole goal was to take away the right of gay individuals to marry their partners, or really, to "punish" them. This whole current debate really should be moot because how dare Eich try to stifle the rights of others.


I see that you're a fan of irony.


Explain. Do you think I'm actually making, and believe, that argument? Because I certainly don't. While I believe his donation was completely wrong, I definitely believe he had the legal right to make it.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:58 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:
jpk wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:Of course you don't understand it. It's completely nonsensical. After all, under his "logic," this whole debate should be about the fact that Eich shouldn't have had the "ethical right" to donate to Prop 8 in the first place. Prop 8's sole goal was to take away the right of gay individuals to marry their partners, or really, to "punish" them. This whole current debate really should be moot because how dare Eich try to stifle the rights of others.


I see that you're a fan of irony.


Explain. Do you think I'm actually making, and believe, that argument? Because I certainly don't. While I believe his donation was completely wrong, I definitely believe he had the legal right to make it.


Sorry, I misread your post. The irony comment was incorrect. However, I think that you're misrepresenting my position, and on the off chance that this is an honest misrepresentation, I'll try to correct your misapprehension.

To begin with, I think that the aims of the proponents of marriage inequality are incorrect, and I think that they are not consistent with a just society. I think we're agreed on this, so I won't belabor that point.

However, being a human being, I am fallible, and I accept the possibility that my judgement may be mistaken. If that is the case, I will be more correct if I change my views, and I wish to be as correct as possible - I don't want to hold contradictory views if I can resolve the contradictions, for example. So, accepting my own fallibility, I believe that advocacy of a view or even of an action that I consider to be unethical is not in itself unethical. I must accept that others advocate positions I find to be unethical, because to do otherwise would be to assume that my views are somehow privileged. As before, this would place us in a situation where "right" is determined by the most powerful, and in that situation the powerless always lose. This is not a path to justice, so I don't propose to walk it.

That's the position on advocacy: in a just society, one may advocate any position, without fear of sanction, and seeking to impose sanctions on someone for advocating a particular view is not in line with justice.

This does not imply that people who advocate injustice are in the clear, ethically, it only implies that there is no way to cut out their views from what may be discussed without granting power of censorship to the already-powerful, so trying to prevent them from speaking or punish them after they speak is both ethically and tactically an error. That in turn does not imply that one should allow their speech to go unanswered, or allow them to implement what they advocate without challenging them. It only means that there is no path to justice that does not involve respecting the free speech of your opponents.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:10 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:
jpk wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:Of course you don't understand it. It's completely nonsensical. After all, under his "logic," this whole debate should be about the fact that Eich shouldn't have had the "ethical right" to donate to Prop 8 in the first place. Prop 8's sole goal was to take away the right of gay individuals to marry their partners, or really, to "punish" them. This whole current debate really should be moot because how dare Eich try to stifle the rights of others.


I see that you're a fan of irony.


Explain. Do you think I'm actually making, and believe, that argument? Because I certainly don't. While I believe his donation was completely wrong, I definitely believe he had the legal right to make it.


Sorry, I misread your post. The irony comment was incorrect. However, I think that you're misrepresenting my position, and on the off chance that this is an honest misrepresentation, I'll try to correct your misapprehension.

To begin with, I think that the aims of the proponents of marriage inequality are incorrect, and I think that they are not consistent with a just society. I think we're agreed on this, so I won't belabor that point.

However, being a human being, I am fallible, and I accept the possibility that my judgement may be mistaken. If that is the case, I will be more correct if I change my views, and I wish to be as correct as possible - I don't want to hold contradictory views if I can resolve the contradictions, for example. So, accepting my own fallibility, I believe that advocacy of a view or even of an action that I consider to be unethical is not in itself unethical. I must accept that others advocate positions I find to be unethical, because to do otherwise would be to assume that my views are somehow privileged. As before, this would place us in a situation where "right" is determined by the most powerful, and in that situation the powerless always lose. This is not a path to justice, so I don't propose to walk it.

That's the position on advocacy: in a just society, one may advocate any position, without fear of sanction, and seeking to impose sanctions on someone for advocating a particular view is not in line with justice.

This does not imply that people who advocate injustice are in the clear, ethically, it only implies that there is no way to cut out their views from what may be discussed without granting power of censorship to the already-powerful, so trying to prevent them from speaking or punish them after they speak is both ethically and tactically an error. That in turn does not imply that one should allow their speech to go unanswered, or allow them to implement what they advocate without challenging them. It only means that there is no path to justice that does not involve respecting the free speech of your opponents.


But freedom of speech and freedom to marry are both fundamental rights protected by the Constitution (and the current court battles, since Windsor, are unanimously finding that that right to marry applies to same-sex couples). Why does one action, fighting against the freedom to marry, count as advocacy, while another action, which isn't even against a Constitutional right, just something you call is an ethical right, counts as a sanction? Both ballot initiatives and boycotts are legal courses of action. Both harm individuals. So why do you find one justified but not the other? Why is this ethical right to freedom of speech so important when an actual Constitutional right to marry isn't?

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:23 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:But freedom of speech and freedom to marry are both fundamental rights protected by the Constitution (and the current court battles, since Windsor, are unanimously finding that that right to marry applies to same-sex couples). Why does one action, fighting against the freedom to marry, count as advocacy, while another action, which isn't even against a Constitutional right, just something you call is an ethical right, counts as a sanction? Both ballot initiatives and boycotts are legal courses of action. Both harm individuals. So why do you find one justified but not the other? Why is this ethical right to freedom of speech so important when an actual Constitutional right to marry isn't?


The ballot measure is, as you say, unconstitutional, though at the time the donation was made that decision had obviously not yet been made. But advocating for it is not, either before or after the Windsor decision, unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why you think that I somehow oppose the right to marry. What I oppose is the scorched-earth, no holds barred, "by-any-means-necessary" approach to achieving your goals. I think there are actions which are wrong, even when they're in support of a good cause. And in the Eich case, since attacking him served no good end at all, there isn't even that "even when" clause. It was just wrong, period.

The distinction between legal rights and ethically justifiable behavior is also important to maintain. You have and should have the right to call for a boycott on someone. You have the right to mock them, and to tell lies about them in print (though not to the police). You have the right to walk down their street, with or without picket signs on display (though local ordinances may govern your legal rights if you have a large organized gathering). You have many rights, legally speaking, and lawyers are the people to talk to if that's what you're interested in. Those are questions about what you may do.
I'm talking about what sorts of standards we can use to determine what we should do. To me, that's a much more interesting question.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:44 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:But freedom of speech and freedom to marry are both fundamental rights protected by the Constitution (and the current court battles, since Windsor, are unanimously finding that that right to marry applies to same-sex couples). Why does one action, fighting against the freedom to marry, count as advocacy, while another action, which isn't even against a Constitutional right, just something you call is an ethical right, counts as a sanction? Both ballot initiatives and boycotts are legal courses of action. Both harm individuals. So why do you find one justified but not the other? Why is this ethical right to freedom of speech so important when an actual Constitutional right to marry isn't?


The ballot measure is, as you say, unconstitutional, though at the time the donation was made that decision had obviously not yet been made. But advocating for it is not, either before or after the Windsor decision, unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why you think that I somehow oppose the right to marry. What I oppose is the scorched-earth, no holds barred, "by-any-means-necessary" approach to achieving your goals. I think there are actions which are wrong, even when they're in support of a good cause. And in the Eich case, since attacking him served no good end at all, there isn't even that "even when" clause. It was just wrong, period.

The distinction between legal rights and ethically justifiable behavior is also important to maintain. You have and should have the right to call for a boycott on someone. You have the right to mock them, and to tell lies about them in print (though not to the police). You have the right to walk down their street, with or without picket signs on display (though local ordinances may govern your legal rights if you have a large organized gathering). You have many rights, legally speaking, and lawyers are the people to talk to if that's what you're interested in. Those are questions about what you may do.
I'm talking about what sorts of standards we can use to determine what we should do. To me, that's a much more interesting question.


I'm not sure what's more no holds barred, any means necessary, than a constitutional amendment against equality, which is what Prop 8 was. You seem to oppose the right to marry because every single argument you've made against the boycott can be made against the Prop 8 movement. Absolutely no good came of that either (though I'm not conceding that nothing good came of the boycott). It's not even like one could argue it eventually lead to marriage equality because there already was marriage equality in California, and Prop 8 stopped it. So why was the boycott wrong but Prop 8 wasn't?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:45 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:Except for the fact that the path you describe has never been used solely and successfully for justice. Equality has never been achieved that way. What you are suggesting simply has never worked and will likely never work.


We can argue the history of the civil rights movement some other time, I suppose. All the same, what I am suggesting is actually the only basis for a just society. If you don't like that, you might as well give up on the whole idea.
Or do you think that you can establish justice based on the idea that those who have the leverage to punish other's actions have also got the moral right to do so?
I guarantee you that the powerful will always have more leverage to punish the actions of the weak than the other way around, so that seems like a losing position to me. I'm not interested in any "justice" that gives more weapons to those in power.

Some how, This makes sense.
Is it Time to give up on a Just Society?

Bully The Bullies?
Calvin Ball with people that don't understand the concept?

ok. The Weak, The Poor and The Helpless will watch from the SideLines.
The Powerful Forces Rule The World. (we watch the shadows on a screen.)

Like living in Plato's Cave.
Is that Book on the List of Books needed to catch references?
It's not long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
A sweet little Sci-Fi Short Story that has been Translated into most Languages.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:17 pm UTC

So if I understand correctly: jpk is arguing that Eich was wrong, the boycot was wrong but that any action against the boycott would also be wrong? This because all the mentioned actions constitute actions against fundamental rights.

This seems reasonable if the intent has indeed been to do so. There seems no probable alternative reason behind Eich's actions, an action against the boycot has such intent by definition, but the boycotters likely had various reasons to participate. Some probably did try to prevent further donations using "their" money, some likely saw Mozillas action as an expression against human rights and disassociated from Mozilla as a result, and some probably wanted to punish Eich.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3464
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:09 pm UTC

Yeah, there's no doubt that some of the boycotters were doing it for the wrong reasons. Of course, that doesn't mean that the boycott was wrong, any more than any other cause with followers who aren't saints (ie every cause in human history)...

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:46 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:Yeah, there's no doubt that some of the boycotters were doing it for the wrong reasons. Of course, that doesn't mean that the boycott was wrong, any more than any other cause with followers who aren't saints (ie every cause in human history)...


What would the "right reasons" be in this case? You've got a secondary boycott (already questionable - though justifiable in cases such as farmworker boycotts, where the customer has no direct connection to the original producer) whose sole purpose is to punish someone for exercising the most fundamental right of a citizen in a democracy (completely unjustifiable, if you believe in democracy at all). The boycott targeted an innocent party (Mozilla) to punish their employee for an action that was perfectly within his rights as a citizen, even if you disagree with it. The only party directly hurt here was in fact Mozilla, who had to pay out severance and then incur a new severance burden for their replacement CEO - this is a huge sum of money. How it affected their operations is something I don't have any way of knowing, but imagine what sort of development projects you could fund on a typical CEO severance package. That's development that, sooner or later, Mozilla loses, because they're paying a fortune to your supposed enemy for two weeks of work. So that's total failure for you.
As for the future outcome, the future damage is not to "bigots" or "homophobes" or anything like that - it's to anyone who now has to weigh their desire to take part in politics against the possible impact on their professional life. As I've already pointed out several times, this is much more likely to affect people you support than people you oppose, so even if it were ethically permissible (which you can only believe if you believe that your political enemies are to be destroyed simply for their beliefs) it is idiotic in terms of its predictable practical effect. If I were CEO material otherwise - which I'm not - I'd be out of consideration, due to a long and continuing habit of supporting abortion rights, and gay rights, since surely the right will adopt this tactic, and they have even more pathetic sheep than we've just seen on the left.
This boycott was both unethical and counterproductive - so what are the "right" reasons to do this? When is total idiocy a good idea? When it feels good?

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:52 pm UTC

If I were CEO material otherwise - which I'm not - I'd be out of consideration, due to a long and continuing habit of supporting abortion rights, and gay rights, since surely the right will adopt this tactic, and they have even more pathetic sheep than we've just seen on the left.


You're talking as if that wasn't already SOP for the bigots and powerful in this country.

This is not, in any conceivable way, to any person, setting any kind of precedent or slippery slope other than "hey, people won't like you if you're a homophobe". Every single other component has already been done to death.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:55 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:Yeah, there's no doubt that some of the boycotters were doing it for the wrong reasons. Of course, that doesn't mean that the boycott was wrong, any more than any other cause with followers who aren't saints (ie every cause in human history)...


What would the "right reasons" be in this case? You've got a secondary boycott (already questionable - though justifiable in cases such as farmworker boycotts, where the customer has no direct connection to the original producer) whose sole purpose is to punish someone for exercising the most fundamental right of a citizen in a democracy (completely unjustifiable, if you believe in democracy at all). The boycott targeted an innocent party (Mozilla) to punish their employee for an action that was perfectly within his rights as a citizen, even if you disagree with it. The only party directly hurt here was in fact Mozilla, who had to pay out severance and then incur a new severance burden for their replacement CEO - this is a huge sum of money. How it affected their operations is something I don't have any way of knowing, but imagine what sort of development projects you could fund on a typical CEO severance package. That's development that, sooner or later, Mozilla loses, because they're paying a fortune to your supposed enemy for two weeks of work. So that's total failure for you.
As for the future outcome, the future damage is not to "bigots" or "homophobes" or anything like that - it's to anyone who now has to weigh their desire to take part in politics against the possible impact on their professional life. As I've already pointed out several times, this is much more likely to affect people you support than people you oppose, so even if it were ethically permissible (which you can only believe if you believe that your political enemies are to be destroyed simply for their beliefs) it is idiotic in terms of its predictable practical effect. If I were CEO material otherwise - which I'm not - I'd be out of consideration, due to a long and continuing habit of supporting abortion rights, and gay rights, since surely the right will adopt this tactic, and they have even more pathetic sheep than we've just seen on the left.
This boycott was both unethical and counterproductive - so what are the "right" reasons to do this? When is total idiocy a good idea? When it feels good?


You're not going to answer my question?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3464
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:41 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:Yeah, there's no doubt that some of the boycotters were doing it for the wrong reasons. Of course, that doesn't mean that the boycott was wrong, any more than any other cause with followers who aren't saints (ie every cause in human history)...


What would the "right reasons" be in this case?


I'm sure I said something earlier... Something about not supporting people who support causes you disagree with...

rmsgrey wrote:
jpk wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:I'm not understanding jpk's argument - it seems to me that he's arguing that the ethical thing for people who oppose Prop 8 to do is to donate money to the next Prop 8 campaign that comes around. Okay, not donate directly, but indirectly by giving money to someone who they know is likely to donate some of that money to that cause. Perhaps someone could explain why this isn't the case?

I don't see how you get that from my argument. Could you expand?


Given that Brendan Eich donated to Prop 8 and then became CEO of Mozilla, people who opposed Prop 8 had two options: continue to support Mozilla, or cease to support Mozilla. Continuing to support Mozilla meant putting money into Eich's pocket, indirectly supporting the next Prop 8 campaign he donates to; ceasing to support Mozilla meant trying to "punish" Eich for his support of Prop 8.

User avatar
OmniLiquid
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:24 am UTC
Location: Burning in the Texas heat.

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby OmniLiquid » Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:01 am UTC

jpk wrote:That's the position on advocacy: in a just society, one may advocate any position, without fear of sanction, and seeking to impose sanctions on someone for advocating a particular view is not in line with justice.


I think this is the heart of the disagreement.

What do you suppose should be done if someone advocates for sanctions against someone for a political view? If we can't advocate sanctions (or use sanctions, as that would require advocating to be done), then what do we do when , as an example, a large group of people advocates taking voting rights away from democrats? Do we just say, nope you're wrong and expect things to die down on their own?

Suppose the manager at a store I go to tells me that he thinks we should have no taxes and universal healthcare. Am I allowed to think that he is stupid, or tell other people that I think so? Surely, that would hurt his social standing, and likely his business as well, and so is a sanction against him for a political view.

Your position does not seem enforceable without massive hypocrisy. And a rule that is unenforceable does not work.

Or, as others have been saying, claiming something is wrong without ever having sanctions against it (whether they be legal, social, or otherwise) is not effective.
Eris = best deity.
(cis male he/him/his)

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:55 am UTC

avocadoowl wrote:You're not going to answer my question?



Hm? I think I have answered all of your questions. Perhaps something more like a considered response would help me figure out what it is that you're not yet clear on.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:24 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
jpk wrote:What would the "right reasons" be in this case?

I'm sure I said something earlier... Something about not supporting people who support causes you disagree with...


Patronizing the employer of someone that you despise is not the same as supporting that person. I've covered this before, if you have any response I'd love to read it, but I'm already having to repeat myself far too much for my taste.

Likewise, if you could say a few words about how your distaste for supporting opponents of marriage equality fails to translate into boycotting the employers of the 52% of Californian voters who supported the measure, that would be great. I know, I know - "a foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of little minds" - but my mind is little, and I like consistency. So if you have any, maybe you could show me some?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:44 am UTC

Wow, it's almost as if you still don't get the fucking difference between a CEO and an average employee.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:52 am UTC

OmniLiquid wrote:
jpk wrote:That's the position on advocacy: in a just society, one may advocate any position, without fear of sanction, and seeking to impose sanctions on someone for advocating a particular view is not in line with justice.

I think this is the heart of the disagreement.

What do you suppose should be done if someone advocates for sanctions against someone for a political view?

What should be done to them? Nothing at all. I'm not out to get anyone. If you disagree with me, I'm out to change your mind, not to ruin your life. I run the risk of having my mind changed in the process, but I'm good with that. It's never hurt me before.

If we can't advocate sanctions (or use sanctions, as that would require advocating to be done), then what do we do when , as an example, a large group of people advocates taking voting rights away from democrats? Do we just say, nope you're wrong and expect things to die down on their own?


To borrow a slogan, the answer to bad speech is better speech. If someone advocates a position that you don't agree with, come up with good arguments that support your position, and advocate. If your neighbor puts a sign saying "Yes" on their lawn, and you think "No", put a sign that says "No" on your lawn. Go out and speak for what you believe in - this is very different from going out and speaking against the people who believe what you don't believe in. If you haven't tried this, give it a shot. It's much more effective to take positive action towards a useful goal than to bitch about some jerkbait who was previously a footnote in CS textbooks and will be the same again next year. It also feels a lot better, because when you win, you get something useful.

Suppose the manager at a store I go to tells me that he thinks we should have no taxes and universal healthcare. Am I allowed to think that he is stupid, or tell other people that I think so? Surely, that would hurt his social standing, and likely his business as well, and so is a sanction against him for a political view.


Sorites paradox is boring. Yes, you may think what you like, and yes you may say what you like. I think you might be putting yourself on a bit of a pedestal if you think that you've got enough social clout to hurt his business by saying you think he's dumb, but I guess you're allowed to stroke your own ego if nobody else will do it for you. Maybe you can think of it this way: if you set out to do harm to someone, and no good can come of it, you might want to ask yourself why you want to do that. Or better still, when you go to take an action, think of what good might come of it. If you can't think of any, maybe you should reconsider.
I'm sorry if this sounds condescending. I admit it's pretty basic stuff, but that's really the most complex sort of ethical reasoning required here. A five year old could have told you that this was wrong.

Your position does not seem enforceable without massive hypocrisy. And a rule that is unenforceable does not work.


I'm not trying to make laws here. I'm arguing ethics and justice. As I've said, if you want to know what your rights are, they include this boycott and many other evil things. Having conceded that these things are lawful, we can still talk about whether they are evil, and I believe that we should. I think that's important, particularly when you're dragging a cause I believe in strongly through the mud.
Or, as others have been saying, claiming something is wrong without ever having sanctions against it (whether they be legal, social, or otherwise) is not effective.

There are many evils which cannot be prohibited by enforceable laws. This does not mean they are not worth thinking about.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:59 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Wow, it's almost as if you still don't get the fucking difference between a CEO and an average employee.


Oh, I know the difference. The CEO gets a golden parachute, and the average employee gets kicked to the curb. So what?

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Jave D » Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:33 am UTC

jpk wrote:If you disagree with me, I'm out to change your mind, not to ruin your life.


You don't seem to be doing very well at that so far.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:03 am UTC

Jave D wrote:
jpk wrote:If you disagree with me, I'm out to change your mind, not to ruin your life.


You don't seem to be doing very well at that so far.

How hard would it be to change your mind?

There has been some work done.
Somewhere, someone knows the answer to that question.

It takes a surprisingly short period of time.
The people working on Learning Theory learn that stuff.

The people working in Advertising learn that stuff.
The people working in Political Campaigns know.

It sometimes seems as if the US is living in an Intellectual Black Out.
We have Freedom of Speech. As long as what we say is Stupid.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4974
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Apr 26, 2014 6:34 am UTC

I've been really trying to avoid engaging in this thread because ugh I do not have the time for yet another intractable debate online, but I just want to lend my voice to support pretty much everything jpk's been saying.

A way I might summarize it is: everything deserves a proportionate response. Rational argument deserves no more than rational argument in response. Of course, although it would be wrong and you shouldn't do it, you are still in a sense free to escalate to appeal to emotion or popularity or such instead if you like, because such appeals deserve no more than likewise in response, and therefore do not deserve an appeal to force, which is what a law against it would amount to.

Applied to these particulars: Eich was speaking (or paying others to speak) in support of Prop 8, and that action deserved at most similar speech against Prop 8 in return. People who disliked Eich's speech enough to raise a big stink and try to get him fired are escalating the situation without warrant, but that action deserves at most a similar action in response, e.g. people who dislike OKCupid's boycott of Firefox could in turn boycott OKCupid and that would be a proportional response. What would not be a proportional response, and where it crosses the line from "you shouldn't do that" to "you must not do that", would be using physical violence or the threat thereof -- including the threat of police action which underlies every law -- to counter OKCupid's boycott of Firefox.

At every level of conflict, peace depends upon the parties involved not escalating the conflict to a more serious level, and the most serious kind of peace -- peace from physical violence -- depends entirely on enough of us agreeing to use physical violence, including that which underlies every law, only to counter other physical violence. That is the first and most sacred kind of peace we need to protect. Within the peace that such agreement affords, there are further levels of peace to be won, including the peace of not socially ruining each other's lives because we disagree with each other, and the peace of not being emotionally abusive assholes to each other because we disagree with each other, struggling gradually toward the total peace where rational arguments are made and accepted and things are left at that level instead of escalating to emotional, social, or physical attacks on each other.

Now you might ask what if the initial speech is a call to violence, which you might frame support for Prop 8 as since it's a law and thus backed ultimately by the threat of violence. Consider this analogy to bring it to a point: two men, Gaye and Ike, offend each other, and after the altercation, Ike rants to all his friends "dear GOD I hope somebody shoots that motherfucker". If word of that gets back to Gaye and friends, are they then justified in somehow ruining Ike's social life in response to that? And most to the point, is Ike then justified in getting his posse to threaten with their guns anyone who would respond to Gaye's social manipulations? In my view, every step of this story is wrong, but they just keep getting progressively more wrong. Praying for violence against someone for somehow offending you is not ok, but it's just an idle (though bad) wish. Actively causing social problems for someone is even worse though, even in response to that. But directly threatening people in response to that is worse still, since bad as it is, the social attack is still just social, and escalating to physical violence is really taking it too far.

What Eich did was bad. What OKCupid did (and Mozilla complied with) was worse. But bringing the force of law in to stop that would have been even worse.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:32 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I've been really trying to avoid engaging in this thread because ugh I do not have the time for yet another intractable debate online, but I just want to lend my voice to support pretty much everything jpk's been saying.

A way I might summarize it is: everything deserves a proportionate response. Rational argument deserves no more than rational argument in response.


The argument that gays are not equal to non-gays is not a rational argument. Likewise, defending the arguments of people who argue that gays are not equal to non-gays is not a rational argument. Further, the argument that people are obligated to keep buying things from companies they don't want to buy things from is also not a rational argument. So this point - if you can call it that - is irrelevant.

Of course, although it would be wrong and you shouldn't do it, you are still in a sense free to escalate to appeal to emotion or popularity or such instead


Like by appealing to people's religion when religion has nothing at all to do with the government's role in marriage? That kind of emotional appeal?

Applied to these particulars: Eich was speaking (or paying others to speak) in support of Prop 8, and that action deserved at most similar speech against Prop 8 in return.


By telling Eich and people like him that they are not equal to the rest of us? Is that the "similar speech" owed in return?

People who disliked Eich's speech enough to raise a big stink and try to get him fired are escalating the situation without warrant


A person telling a group of people that they are not equal to you for no rational reason is what escalated the situation, and refusing to support the company that makes such a person its CEO is totally warranted and a "rational response," which I know you love so much.

At every level of conflict, peace depends upon the parties involved not escalating the conflict to a more serious level


Peace also requires a lack of oppression. Oppression will always be an enemy of peace.

I don't understand the relevance of all your nonsense about the threat of violence either. Who has threatened violence? It's just another effort by you and people like you to reduce this to some petty disagreement and leave it at that. But that's not at all what it is.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:44 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I've been really trying to avoid engaging in this thread because ugh I do not have the time for yet another intractable debate online, but I just want to lend my voice to support pretty much everything jpk's been saying.

A way I might summarize it is: everything deserves a proportionate response. Rational argument deserves no more than rational argument in response. Of course, although it would be wrong and you shouldn't do it, you are still in a sense free to escalate to appeal to emotion or popularity or such instead if you like, because such appeals deserve no more than likewise in response, and therefore do not deserve an appeal to force, which is what a law against it would amount to.

Applied to these particulars: Eich was speaking (or paying others to speak) in support of Prop 8, and that action deserved at most similar speech against Prop 8 in return. People who disliked Eich's speech enough to raise a big stink and try to get him fired are escalating the situation without warrant, but that action deserves at most a similar action in response, e.g. people who dislike OKCupid's boycott of Firefox could in turn boycott OKCupid and that would be a proportional response. What would not be a proportional response, and where it crosses the line from "you shouldn't do that" to "you must not do that", would be using physical violence or the threat thereof -- including the threat of police action which underlies every law -- to counter OKCupid's boycott of Firefox.

At every level of conflict, peace depends upon the parties involved not escalating the conflict to a more serious level, and the most serious kind of peace -- peace from physical violence -- depends entirely on enough of us agreeing to use physical violence, including that which underlies every law, only to counter other physical violence. That is the first and most sacred kind of peace we need to protect. Within the peace that such agreement affords, there are further levels of peace to be won, including the peace of not socially ruining each other's lives because we disagree with each other, and the peace of not being emotionally abusive assholes to each other because we disagree with each other, struggling gradually toward the total peace where rational arguments are made and accepted and things are left at that level instead of escalating to emotional, social, or physical attacks on each other.

Now you might ask what if the initial speech is a call to violence, which you might frame support for Prop 8 as since it's a law and thus backed ultimately by the threat of violence. Consider this analogy to bring it to a point: two men, Gaye and Ike, offend each other, and after the altercation, Ike rants to all his friends "dear GOD I hope somebody shoots that motherfucker". If word of that gets back to Gaye and friends, are they then justified in somehow ruining Ike's social life in response to that? And most to the point, is Ike then justified in getting his posse to threaten with their guns anyone who would respond to Gaye's social manipulations? In my view, every step of this story is wrong, but they just keep getting progressively more wrong. Praying for violence against someone for somehow offending you is not ok, but it's just an idle (though bad) wish. Actively causing social problems for someone is even worse though, even in response to that. But directly threatening people in response to that is worse still, since bad as it is, the social attack is still just social, and escalating to physical violence is really taking it too far.

What Eich did was bad. What OKCupid did (and Mozilla complied with) was worse. But bringing the force of law in to stop that would have been even worse.


I just want to clarify what it is you're arguing here. You're saying that in each of these pairings, the first argument is more rational than the second:

- Eich was exercising free speech when he contributed money to a campaign to keep gays in their place as not equal to himself. That argument does not apply to Mozilla supporters, however, as they deserve to be condemned for voicing their condemnation of Eich and refusing to support a company that chooses him as its leader and public face.
- Eich was exercising free speech, and so were the Mozilla supporters.

- Mozilla supporters don't have to agree with Eich, but they are morally obligated to continue supporting the company anyway.
- All people can give their money and/or public support to any company they choose for whatever reason they please.

- The Mozilla boycott was illegal, or at least would be in some states.
- Hey, got a link for such a law?

- Gays should be nicer, then they would get what they want.
- Uh, [insert all of human history here].

It's total garbage. The only appearance "rational" can appear anywhere near a description of those arguments is in "rationalization" - as in, all you and others like you have offered is a rationalization for bigotry, and a pretty poor rationalization at that. There is no consistency in any of the arguments posted in protest of the threatened Mozilla boycott. They are so full of contradictions and willful ignorance of history that you should be embarrassed to have called them rational at all. It's just another "it's gays' own fault for being so mean" packaged in a slightly different way.
Last edited by blowfishhootie on Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:20 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3652
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Mid north coast, NSW, Australia

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PM 2Ring » Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:47 am UTC

jpk wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:I disagree with those who claim that the boycott was an attempt to suppress Eich's freedom of speech;


There are two subtle points of confusion here.

First of all, the issue is not so much about his freedom of speech, but his freedom of conscience. He has a belief (which, once again, I find repellent, but that's not relevant here) and he has the right to speak in support of his belief and to act in support of it, consistent with requirements of the law. If we want to live in a civil society, we have to allow him the right to represent and support his views, exactly as we would want to have the right to represent and support our own views.

[Etc
Spoiler:
If you want a right, you have to be willing to allow it to others. If you want to live in a society where you can act on behalf of the causes you feel are right, you cannot start by delimiting who is allowed to act on behalf of causes they feel are right. This is a very simple ethical position, and I honestly do not understand why it's so hard to grasp, but I can't imagine a more basic requirement of a just ordering of society: we can restrict the manner in which someone supports their cause, but we cannot act to prevent them from doing so. This is also a blindingly obvious practical position which anyone seeking justice must uphold, because it is only by maintaining this position that we can justify our demand to be allowed to participate. The cause of justice is almost always the cause of the powerless against the powerful - in fact, this could be considered basic to the idea of justice, that it is a defense of the rights of those without other recourse. That being the case, if we do not commit ourselves to the position that all people may speak and act to support their idea of justice, then we concede that someone will decide who may speak and on behalf of what causes, and that this is the right and proper way for things to be. And the someone who makes that decision will always be a representative of power (again, this is more or less by definition of "power"). So, unless you think that the powerful will, simply from the goodness of their hearts, allow the powerless to act, you have to commit yourself to an absolutist position on free expression.
]

And this brings me to the second point of confusion. I'm not defending Eich's freedom of conscience here. I'm defending yours and mine.


Again, nobody here is trying to stop Brendan Eich from expressing his opinions or supporting causes he believes in. I (and others) have previously agreed that boycotting is a form of bullying. OTOH, that doesn't mean that I think that the boycott was unethical or unjustified under the circumstances. The boycott wasn't (primarily) to punish Eich for not being Our Kind Of People - it was to punish Mozilla for appointing someone with anti-equality views like Eich to be their public figurehead because that seems inconsistent (or at least, hypocritical) given their stated policy on equality (that I linked to & quoted on the previous page).

Basically, we're saying "Brendan, you're a dick for supporting Prop 8. Mozilla, how can you claim to be pro-equality when you've got a dick like Eich as your public face?"

As I said in my first post, AFAIK the people calling for a boycott weren't asking for Eich to be expelled from Mozilla, they just wanted him out of the CEO spot. If you have citation that disproves this point, please feel free to post it here.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:58 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:You're not going to answer my question?



Hm? I think I have answered all of your questions. Perhaps something more like a considered response would help me figure out what it is that you're not yet clear on.


I'm not sure what's more no holds barred, any means necessary, than a constitutional amendment against equality, which is what Prop 8 was. You seem to oppose the right to marry because every single argument you've made against the boycott can be made against the Prop 8 movement. Absolutely no good came of that either (though I'm not conceding that nothing good came of the boycott). It's not even like one could argue it eventually lead to marriage equality because there already was marriage equality in California, and Prop 8 stopped it. So why was the boycott wrong but Prop 8 wasn't?


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests