liberty

Vigilante violence for tolerance?

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged ethics liberty Massachusetts on by

Lately I’ve been dealing with some people on Bluesky who advocate violence against people whose ideas are sufficiently repugnant. One of them, a supposed “libertarian,” cited Popper’s “paradox of tolerance” at me, then descended into outright trolling when I linked to my article on the topic in response. I immediately blocked him, of course.

Laws restricting which ideas may be freely expressed are bad enough. Direct violence by individuals or mobs won’t have so broad an effect, but the outcomes in individual cases may be worse. Let’s look at the threats allegedly made by John Reardon of Millis, Massachusetts. According to the DoJ release, called a Jewish synagogue and reportedly said: “You do realize that by supporting genocide that means it’s ok for people to commit genocide against you.” “With supporting the killing of innocent little children, that means it’s OK to kill your children.” “End the genocide, or it is time to end Israel and all the Jews.”
(more…)

The “Paradox of Tolerance” swindle 1

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged censorship liberty philosophy on by

“Paradox of Tolerance” is a favorite slogan of censorship advocates. Most often they drop the words in a discussion without elaboration to give the impression they’ve said something profound. Some will mention its connection to Karl Popper. Few will cite his words, since they’re actually opposed to censorship.

The words in question are from a footnote in The Open Society and Its Enemies. The footnote is a bit unclear; Popper was adding a passing thought, not a polished commentary. Here are the words:
(more…)

Trump reverses the meaning of censorship

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary News and tagged censorship law liberty on by

In Newspeak, freedom is slavery. In Trumpspeak, freedom of speech is censorship.

Brendan Carr, whom Trump wants to head the FCC, has declared his intent to “smash the censorship cartel” using the agency’s power. According to the Washington Times, “He is threatening the platforms with revocation of their federally granted immunity against content-based lawsuits.” He’s presumably referring to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, one of the few parts to survive legal challenges. It says that in general operators of websites that allow public posting of commentary can’t be held liable for what third parties post. Without it, website operators would have to keep a quick finger on the “Delete” button to keep potentially defamatory comments from showing up. They’d need to err on the side of caution. Many sites would probably find it easiest to eliminate the comments section.
(more…)

Future SFF conventions under Trump

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged conventions fandom liberty science fiction on by

There has been discussion of whether science fiction/fantasy conventions in the US should be considered human rights risks along with countries like China and Uganda. Some people are already panicking. A post I came across on Bluesky said, “I’ve lost all my desire to attend Seattle Worldcon. Fully aware this is a first world sort of problem but wondering if other non Americans are felling the same?” Steve Davidson, the editor of Amazing Stories, has written: “For at least the next four years the United States will not be a suitable country for hosting Worldcon. It will not be a country that is generally reflective of Fannish values. It may very well become a country that is hostile to those values.” He recognizes that there’s no way to revoke the Seattle and Los Angeles Worldcons.

Giving in to worst-case assumptions this soon is a mistake, but it’s never too soon to consider the risks. What dangers might come to US cons in the next few years raise, and who would be at risk?
(more…)

On writing for freedom

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged liberty writing on by

As the election approaches, I’d like to offer an unpopular idea: There’s too much focus on the candidates. If you care about human freedom, it should be obvious that Trump and Harris are both inimical to it (thought Trump is far worse). However, they’re just symptoms. Whether we’re looking at sending the military into every neighborhood to expel people from the country or instituting price controls and handouts to create winners and losers, the underlying premise is the premise that a central authority should decide how things should be. This idea has gained in popularity in spite of all the evidence that it’s harmful. The Republicans have almost completely abandoned the free-market principles that once formed an inconsistent part of their platform. The Democrats have believed in a managed economy and growth in federal power and spending ever since Franklin Roosevelt, and they haven’t changed on fundamentals.

As the election approaches, writers spend many words on the candidates as people. News sites, no longer pretending to give news, jump on any little thing that makes their preferred candidates look good or their opponents look bad. Their goal is proxy power. People on social media do the same, often with even less regard for the facts and less of a reason. Their main line of argument is “I’m smart, anyone who disagrees with me is dumb, and if you’re smart like me you see that, right?”

If you write on current controversies and value human freedom, you can do something different. You can set a better standard. If enough authors and journalists do it, it can make a difference, pushing the national discourse in a better direction. It wouldn’t take much to make it less awful.
(more…)