Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Removing Holocaust Denial Content

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#741

Post by refurb »

slg wrote: post #541
UncleMeat wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those things you worry about are already illegal. This is where free speech absolutists lose me. They say that all speech should be protected and as soon as they find an exception that is just labeled "not speech". Why then can't we use a definition of "not speech" that includes Blood Libel?

Exactly. This is not a binary choice between free speech and no free speech. It is a debate over where to place the line. We have plenty of speech that already falls on the illegal side of the line such as threats or libel. Some people want to move the line so a few more things are on the illegal side. Free speech absolutists aren't making a fair argument when they respond to that good faith request with "any change…

The line is much less arbitrary when you make it “speech that clearly violates criminal law” versus “speech that I disagree with”.

When the govt starts talking about “speech to foments discord” that’s a hell of a slippery slope.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#742

Post by waterhouse »

bjourne wrote: post #712
throwaway2048 wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to reground the rhetoric, we are talking about facebook removing posts by people that try to convince others that one of the largest genocides in human history didn't happen, not about all that other stuff.

The Holocaust was peanuts compared to the looming climate catastrophe. Thus, we absolutely must silence anyone who denies that the earth must become carbon neutral by 2040.

Nice example. Another would be abortions. If someone believes that abortion is murder, well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_Uni... gives numbers that add to 46.4 million abortions reported to the CDC in 1970-2016. Imagine if the people who held the reins at Facebook were hard-line pro-life.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#743

Post by Craighead »

saas_sam wrote: post #618
davorak wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure enough, plenty of well-reasoned critiques exist from Jewish groups, Noam Chomsky (hardly an anti-Semite), Christopher Hitchens, and others. Are these armchair critiques? Or are these people/groups putting in serious effort to change things? That indirectly indicates their priority for the issue for them.

Your comment is strange... 1. ephimetheus: The only people who have a problem with these laws are bad people with evil intent 2. me: I just looked and there are a lot of people voicing problems with these laws who are good and have noble intent 3. you: But are they prioritizing the issue enough or are they just saying stuff? ...Uh, what is the argument you're trying to make here? That if people aren't making enough o…

Your comment is...

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#744

Post by mistermann »

jacquesm wrote: post #738
freen wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are mistaking the ability to say whatever you want with the ability to escape the social consequences of your expression. Both are fully compatible with any understanding of “free speech” constitutionally, politically and socially. Would you kick nazis out of your dinner party? Yes or No? That’s the fundamental question that is being asked. If your answer is no, you would not kick nazis out of your dinner party,…

Don't feed the troll.

If one cannot defend one's assertion by answering straightforward questions, avoiding unpleasant questions via rhetorical insults are indeed an effective alternative, especially in a community with sufficient lack of diversity of beliefs and thinking styles. Humans do love to circle the wagons to defend their most cherished ideas.

Downvotes work well too, as does rate limiting accounts that do not stay within the boundaries of the community overton window.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_corridor

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#745

Post by disown »

remram wrote: post #425
jcadam wrote: post #155

To save free speech, we have to destroy free speech. In the future, some historian is going to write the seminal work on the decline and dissolution of the United States - and there's going to be an entire chapter dedicated to social media.

"destroy free speech" You will find that Holocaust denying specifically has been banned by law from a number of European countries for a very long time. And free speech is still doing just fine. This might not be the slippery slope you believe it is.

> You will find that Holocaust denying specifically has been banned by law from a number of European countries for a very long time.

European countries were never a bastion of freedom. That's why nazi germany existed in europe, not in america. I love people bringing up europe as some example that we should follow. They most definitely are not.

> And free speech is still doing just fine.

No it's not. That's the point.

Free speech exists to defend offensive/fringe/hateful speech. Popular speech doesn't need free speech protection after all. If free speech exist to protect anything, it is holocaust denial. Think about it. What good is free speech if it can't protect the most offensive speech?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#746

Post by disown »

will4274 wrote: post #559
lostgame wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Maybe it hurts freedom of speech, and maybe it's overreach That you are even willing to say that is both admirable and shows just how far out of control the concept of 'freedom of speech' has gotten; and how unfair it is - when you, whose family actually died from the Holocaust - allow room for these perspectives, while they would look you in the eye and tell you, point-blank; your family didn't die / you're makin…

Free speech includes hate speech. > since there are laws against hate speech Not in the United States. See e.g. this unanimous high court decision https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... I understand not everybody is fully supportive of liberal ideas like free speech. But there shouldn't be any confusion about what it means. Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an e…

> Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech.

Not only is it an example, it's the best example. Free speech rights exist to protect the most offensive speech. It doesn't exist to protect popular benign speech.

This is what so many people here, mostly foreigners without a doubt, don't understand. If you find something offensive or hateful, that's what free speech exists to protect. If it doesn't, free speech rights are worthless.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#747

Post by konjin »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #450
konjin wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is a typical slight of hand in these discussions. We are talking about deeply intolerant, bad faith actors, and you substitute this with "censoring opinions outside the mainstream". NO U. That aught to be enough for the argument to be closed, but since we like to pretend we're better than that: how can you tell that someone holds bad faith views? I do not have a machine to peer into the soul of man, neither do…

There is a a very very close to zero percent chance that somebody that is denying one of the most heavily documented genocides in history is acting in good faith.

The funny thing is that everyone in the West denies the Holocaust happened to the Slavs (5 million Slavs to 6 million Jews). Even though Hitler said time and time again that Slavs were to be exterminated from all areas west of the Urals.

So when are we banning everyone who says only 6 million people died in the holocaust?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#748

Post by UncleMeat »

tomp wrote: post #710
UncleMeat wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that you can. The core belief system of modern neonazis is the protection of the white race by excluding non-whites. It takes violence to remove non-whites from their nations. And then, because of the one-drop rule, the ratio of white people will always drop across time. This necessitates violent responses. All neonazis agree on the goal and there is just one means to possibly achieve that goal: ethni…

You’re pretending that all political goals can only be achieved through violence.

No I'm not. Many political goals can be achieved without violence. Creating a white-only nation is not one of those goals. That one specifically necessitates violence and this makes neonazis fundamentally violent.

Do you honestly believe that if the neonazis were in charge that I'd be given speech rights?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#749

Post by UncleMeat »

refurb wrote: post #741
slg wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. This is not a binary choice between free speech and no free speech. It is a debate over where to place the line. We have plenty of speech that already falls on the illegal side of the line such as threats or libel. Some people want to move the line so a few more things are on the illegal side. Free speech absolutists aren't making a fair argument when they respond to that good faith request with "any change…

The line is much less arbitrary when you make it “speech that clearly violates criminal law” versus “speech that I disagree with”. When the govt starts talking about “speech to foments discord” that’s a hell of a slippery slope.

But "violates criminal law" is a statement about the population's beliefs. We pick what is illegal. It isn't some fundamental thing. In Germany, for example, holocaust denial is literally illegal.
Post reply on HN