News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom. Parent comment

Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ... by GeekyBear on Monday December 26, 2022 @08:56AM (#34137641)
For speech to be illegal, the legal standard is that it needs to incite specific lawless action and be likely to succeed.

For instance, Indiana locked up an anti-war protestor:

>The case involved an antiwar protest on the campus of Indiana University Bloomington. Between 100 and 150 protesters were in the streets. The sheriff and his deputies then proceeded to clear the streets of the protestors. As the sheriff was passing Gregory Hess, one of the members of the crowd, Hess uttered, "We'll take the fucking street later" or "We'll take the fucking street again." Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct.

The Supreme Court reversed Hess's conviction because Hess' statement, at worst, "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time."

In addition, Hess' speech was not directed at any particular person or group. As a result, "it cannot be said that he was advocating, in the normal sense, any action."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ... by hotpotamus on Monday December 26, 2022 @09:09AM (#34137707)
In Supreme Court terms, 1973 is eons ago - there has been a consistent and very fruitful effort to change its thinking on a range of subjects since then, and as a result, I no longer really understand much of their previous rulings as having much relevance today.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ... by naasking on Monday December 26, 2022 @10:30AM (#34138347)
You asked about drawing a line between speech and violence, not whether the supreme court's ruling is legally relevant today. The only relevant question is whether the argument the OP described clarifies your confusion on where and how to draw that line, ethically, not legally.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ... by hotpotamus on Monday December 26, 2022 @10:39AM (#34138447)
Ethically speaking, I think there are all sorts of things that just shouldn't be said, regardless of legality. I'm not sure if my personal sense of ethics is relevant though?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ... by naasking on Monday December 26, 2022 @10:45AM (#34138525)
Firstly, "things that shouldn't be said" include matters of etiquette and not just ethics, so just be clear about the line between being a good/ethical person vs. being a polite person.

Secondly, your personal ethics are absolutely relevant because ethics advances by persuasion in rational debate. Everyone's views on such matters are relevant, if not persuasive.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ... by hotpotamus on Monday December 26, 2022 @11:32AM (#34139121)
Well, personally, if I attended or worked at MIT, I would not want Nazis on campus and would accept banning them.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ... by naasking on Monday December 26, 2022 @12:42PM (#34139838)
Great, you're free to not want them, but everyone has to justify their actions, so an action like banning a group still requires justification. If that justification is sound and based on accepted ethical principles, it should arguably become an ethical rule. I personally haven't seen an argument that satisfies the requirements.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ... by hotpotamus on Monday December 26, 2022 @01:36PM (#34140389)
I don't think I've ever met a human who was incapable of justifying their actions.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ... by naasking on Tuesday December 27, 2022 @08:21AM (#34148352)
They're all capable of attempting to justify their actions, but rarely is that justification sound. "Justification" here means a deductive argument from principles, sort of like what you'd find in a court of law based on except based on ethical rather than legal principles.
[ Parent | on HN ]