661–670 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats right - the fire departments should just stop protecting the houses of people you dislike so folks can burn them down in peace.
Fire departments are government agencies. I don't know how to be clearer about this: Government doesn't get to discriminate based on speech. Private entities do.
De-platforming works.
This ability to "deplatform" is also what allows fascist nations to exist and keeps Putin in power today in Russia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The Germans came for the Nazis. The Weimar Republic was very much in favor of imprisoning them for their (detestable) ideals and proposals. The Nazis were able to parlay this persecution (and Weimar failures) into an increasing share of the electorate and eventually total control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you ever watch 12 Angry Men ? There's a scene in that movie where an unabashedly racist man is making his point as loudly and angrily as he can. One by one, all the others in the room turn their backs on him. When only one man is left, that man has a short message for the racist: "Sit down, and don't open your mouth again while I'm here." Nobody puts him in jail. Nobody takes away his right to make a living or hi…
I don't know the entire history here, but my understanding is that KF was a forum where doxing and swatting was openly pervasive. Sounds like a perfect example of society holding a site accountable and producing the correct outcome. There was no government involved, so it's not a "free speech" issue. I always talk about the wild west of the late 90's when the Internet was brand new. My colleagues and I all talked abo…
Because it IS just that. This is the logical and proper consequence for freedom of speech. You speak, others get to react in their own way that does not HARM you but they are not obligated to HELP you speak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But freedom of speech/expression/opinions aren't about defending those who speech/expression/opinions you like but all of them. What if the freedom of speech you are defending is impeding on the right of others to speak freely? While I agree with the sentiment, that we have to be especially observant how we treat the freedoms of the people whose opinions we dislike, I don't think just defending those and forgetting…
> What if the freedom of speech you are defending is impeding on the right of others to speak freely? How is the impediment happening? If through the threat of violent or illegal action , then that should be illegal. If it's libel (false statement, made while knowing and believing that it is false, with intent to harm), then maybe it should be illegal too. Otherwise, it's protected speech.
Whether a thing is legal or not doesn't mean everything that stays within the legal bounds is desirable as a society or morally, ethically just. Many of the most atrocious deeds of humanity have been legal at the time they were carried out.
By saying all of this I am not doing myself a service here. Such opinions get downvoted on an US dominated platform like this one. I still think it is important to note that any freedom we are gurantueed comes with a duty to protect these freedoms for others. Those who enjoy a freedom and at the same time try to take that very freedom away from others can not complain if a free society tries to defend itself and limits their rights.
When thinking about how societies can stop aliding into fascism after the genocides of the second world war Austrian philosopher Karl Popper coined the term "paradoxon of intolerance" for this. Any free society that wants to survive, cannot be universally tolerant — otherwise the intolerant will abuse that "hospitality" and abolish that free society. That means any free society has to be intolerant towards the intolerant, after a certain degree. I would argue this degree has been reached in the US a while ago.
Protected speech is a strong word in a nation which killed civilians on foreigns soil based on what they have been communicating via SMS without a trial. Here, suddenly, it is okay to go after people based on what they say somehow?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really clear what your point is. Surely you aren't saying that your strategy is to allow your kids on any online site as long as it's public, but that's the only clarification you've provided here.
Have you actually read about what they where doing in that private - no parents allowed - discord server? I'd love to link you to the actual content, but I can't, because it's private. You will have to read the tweets from the owner describing it in her own words, which is in the link that is the subject of this thread.
I'm just wondering what your plan is to keep your kids off of this other (public) forum that your just learned about (and ones like it), if you have one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But freedom of speech/expression/opinions aren't about defending those who speech/expression/opinions you like but all of them. What if the freedom of speech you are defending is impeding on the right of others to speak freely? While I agree with the sentiment, that we have to be especially observant how we treat the freedoms of the people whose opinions we dislike, I don't think just defending those and forgetting…
> What if the freedom of speech you are defending is impeding on the right of others to speak freely? I'm not sure how speech can impede on the right of others to speak freely. Speech can certainly discourage others from speaking freely, and that's bad for freedom of speech in a broad millian sense[1], but it's too vague to justify shutting down an entire forum because some speech there might discourage others from s…
If you think it wouldn't I'd like to know how your thinking goes. I am not from the US, so maybe the whole theoretical idea is different from the ground up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not asking for any of these people, specifically, to be removed from the internet. I am saying that I support cloudflare banning hosts which specifically target, harass, and doxx specific individuals or communities. I'm not supportive of banning Joshua Moon from the internet. Do you agree that there is a difference here?
Should the Washington Post be banned? Or should their journalist, Taylor Lorenz be banned from Twitter for doxxing the Libs of TikTok person? We should be consistent and non-arbitrary. There’s so many more examples.
How would you feel if someone made a "Finding Nemo" forum in which they tracked down your identity, your family, and your friends and encouraged its members to harass and doxx you and your family?
Oh, and this forum hid their identity behind Cloudflare while, at the same time exposing your identity and personal details?
Would you support Cloudflare banning said forum?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group. Kiwi Farms absolutely incited imminent criminal activity (harassment, among other things) and made lots of specific threats against specifically targeted people and groups. This is a false equivalence.
Can you provide any proof for your claims about advocating for imminent criminal activity? Ie something that would pass the Brandenburg test?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you actually browsed them? When this thing hit the front page of HN I checked it out and while they say a lot of nasty stuff about people there I couldn't find an occurrence of organising online or offline harassment.
> Have you actually browsed them? When this thing hit the front page of HN I checked it out and while they say a lot of nasty stuff about people there I couldn't find an occurrence of organising online or offline harassment. That is the organizing of harassment. That's what it looks like. People are very rarely dumb enough to post "I think we should commit a crime, who's with me" on the Internet. Post enough slurs ab…