Because the safety of society at large, especially if we look at the perception of it rather than the real goals, can translate directly into oppression of those who are perceived to be a threat. The whole "build the wall" thing is pitched as being about safety of society, for example. There are people in this country - including prominent elected politicians representing party that dominates state legislatures, and that has broad popular support in most those states - who sincerely believe that BLM and CAIR are terrorist organizations. There's that whole "BDS is anti-Semitism" thing, and some countries already have laws on the books that make it a felony to participate.

Would you say that the political and judicial system of our societies is fair, or is it biased against minorities? If it's biased, why do you expect it to enforce any such "safety of society" laws in a way that is not similarly biased towards the groups that already are the beneficiaries of that society?

Who do you propose gets to decide what speech is dangerous?

That's a disingenuous question. Let me come back with some questions about your question.

Are you proposing that nobody can decide what speech is dangerous?

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as dangerous speech?

Are you suggesting that having someone decide what speech is dangerous is actually worse than the dangerous speech itself?

If you're not suggesting any of these things, then how do you get out of the proposition that someone has decide?

It's not disingenuous - it's the most fundamental question that needs to be answered if you propose speech be controlled.

> how do you get out of the proposition that someone has to decide

I agree ultimately some subset of people would need to decide. My question is who?

You clearly have done answer in mind since you've already conceded the core argument. Who do you think? I'm good with the discourse between the public and Facebook leadership in so far as it targets widespread social norms and ignores the few loudmouths.

> Are you suggesting there is no such thing as dangerous speech? Are you suggesting that having someone decide what speech is dangerous is actually worse than the dangerous speech itself?

How is that working out in the People's Republic of China? They have a very concrete definition of what dangerous speech and have legions of people to decide whether individual instances are dangerous and to remove them.

Clearly, their system illustrates the hazard of your viewpoint.

Ah, but does it? China is currently going through a period of peace and incredible growth (per capita income has grown about 130x since 1960, in constant dollars). The people are safe, secure, and enjoying opportunities their grandparents couldn't even imagine.

And I suspect that if you polled in China, you'd find a majority agree with the regulations on speech, and sincerely so (not saying yes out of fear). Meanwhile, things are much freer than they were. I'm currently reading a Chinese novel, The Three Body Problem, set partly in the Cultural Revolution, and it pulls no punches about how awful it was.

> And I suspect that if you polled in China, you'd find a majority agree with the regulations on speech

Of course you would, polls like all speech are tightly controlled.

Even here, on an American-centric discussion full of grossly privileged white American men, you'll find most agree on some regulation of speech. It's just a question of degree.

I guess I am remembering it wrong but I thought sticks and stones were dangerous but words could never hurt me. (Calls to action dont hurt me either, but I can see how one could categorize them as dangerousness due to the resultant action)

Words inspire action. That's why it matters. To paraphrase the Supreme Court, the problem with shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't the shout, it's the dangerous stampede that follows.

And those who deliberately inspire violent behavior with their speech are very, very careful to make sure it's not an explicit call to action. This is not new. "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" has been around for a long time.

We do, collectively, as a society.

Sometimes we'll get it wrong, and need to correct it. That's fine. We're capable of that.

What's not fine is throwing up our hands at even the concept of performing that judgment, because it's subjective or whatever. That cedes the public square to extremists, which results in a shittier society.

And observational data suggests that American society (and global society) has gotten better, not worse, at this judgment.

When we started this game, we had slaves, who were defined as three fifths of a human being for purposes of political representation of slave owners. Voting was restricted to white land-owning men. It's getting better.

We as a society decided homosexual advocacy was dangerous speech just decades ago. We were so enlightened then, right?

'Let's do gay sex' vs 'let's kill people in group X' seems like one of those apples and oranges comparisons people are always talking about.

This comment goes against HN guidelines.

"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

Consider this a warning, as we eventually ban accounts of repeat offenders.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No, we got that one wrong. But, now we're on the path to correcting it. This is good and just and how things should work.

What's wrong and what's right? Who defines it? When? And why?

So, popular vote? Let our representatives decide? Something else?

Our representatives. Our judicial system. Our public institutions. Our private businesses.

You're WAY too hung up on this "who decides?" question, ignoring the reality that either someone has to decide, or that no one should decide and society should simply not regulate speech in any way, ever.

Good luck with the latter if you ever have kids.

If we do get there, I hope we can ban the most dangerous speech of all - religion.

Ah, but the devil is in the details.

And you're still dodging the fundamental questions I asked you a while back. You're just playing devil's advocate in the details. It's a lame and boring argument.

All of the above, and more. Organizations like Facebook can decide to deplatform white nationalists, and we can vote with our clicks or whatever in response to that. You and I can get on message boards and advocate for what we think is just. Over time we all shape our society in our image.