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

My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

popehat.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 189 posts

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#141

Post by ipython »

motohagiography wrote: post #25

Question I would have for Popehat would be whether a DoS attack is speech or not. If it is, why isn't it protected, because it's inline messaging on the medium it uses and is therefore like any other mediated expression. If it isn't, what is it about attacking the medium and participants that isn't speech? The problem with the cancel culture people is their "working the ref," strategy launches a DoS attack on the par…

If the DoS prevents the attacked service from “speaking” itself (by exhausting resources) then I would assert the DoS is analogous to assault and not protected speech.

Also, intent fits in here. The name itself gives a hint- denial of service as in taking something away from the victim.

What about the use of legal threats and NDAs by wealthy individuals and corporations to silence speech? Take what happened with the whistleblowers at theranos for example.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#143

Post by ipython »

shusaku wrote: post #33

I think that people of certain generations need to be taught the beauty of a burner account. You get to say whatever you want, and are invulnerable to criticism. The downside is there’s no ego boost to seeing your name in the news or using your fame to get impressions. But that’s the double sided sword of reputation. When I was growing up on the internet, everyone understood the value of pseudo anonymity. But then Fa…

What about legal threats from government representatives when they don’t like your speech and attempt to force the social media platforms to reveal your burner identity?

Devin Nunes attempted to doxx a “cow” for example: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/devin-nunes-subpoena-ai...

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#144

Post by carlosjobim »

eapressoandcats wrote: post #77
lmm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The “ideal” of free speech would uphold everyone being able to speak in whatever manner they choose. If you’re an economic loser as a result, that is not a failure of free speech, that is a failure of society to protect you from free speech. Not even the most repressive societies physically prevent people from speaking - they just impose distinctly unpleasant consequences on those who speak in undesirable things. T…

If you think people in oppressive regimes get due process in court then I have a bridge to sell you. I think trivializing harm is bad but at the end of the day I think you will concede that there is a speech line which can be crossed beyond which you will be fired. Otherwise people could just be cruel and mean to everyone around them and face no consequences. Once you believe that then really all we are doing is hagg…

> I think trivializing harm is bad but at the end of the day I think you will concede that there is a speech line which can be crossed beyond which you will be fired.

A real-life and current example I know of is a person who was fired from a HVAC-type job (fixing stuff outdoors) in retaliation for becoming politically active and running for office locally. I don't consider that a symptom of a healthy economy. In a healthy economy, you wouldn't be able to spare these kind of workers as a business. Note that this person's political platform was in no way agitating against his employer or against the interest of his employer.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#145

Post by projektfu »

motohagiography wrote: post #25

Question I would have for Popehat would be whether a DoS attack is speech or not. If it is, why isn't it protected, because it's inline messaging on the medium it uses and is therefore like any other mediated expression. If it isn't, what is it about attacking the medium and participants that isn't speech? The problem with the cancel culture people is their "working the ref," strategy launches a DoS attack on the par…

DoS attacks involve an attack on a third party to prevent someone from using a service, making the third party both an unwilling participant and a victim of the attack. I don't think anyone would consider that free speech, as much as they wouldn't consider it free speech to call in a bomb threat to an auditorium.

However, in this day and age unrelated interests are getting roped into the discussion and expressing their ability to make their own speech. This is better phrased as a Terms of Service attack. If you have agreed to use a service that can revoke your access for reasons you agreed to, then you are in a precarious position and your speech is not easily protected.

Is a boycott "denial of service"? I can't think of how that might be without stretching the terms to meaninglessness.

Is a bomb threat or getting someone fired a form of DoS? I'll agree with you there, and I also consider blacklisting a form of this.

If you ask me whether a company like Visa or First Data has the right to deny access to its services over political speech, I think it's clear that nobody has sued them successfully over this. But I would also argue that the payments market should be better regulated and require service for all legal transactions. At the very least, there should be a public option that is resistant to fraud, one where the payer initiates the transaction with an unshared secret, like with Pix in Brazil. The public option should support the free speech guaranteed by the government.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#146

Post by zmgsabst »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #61
zmgsabst wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s Go Brandon became a meme because a news anchor censored the crowd obviously chanting “fuck Joe Biden!” on air. People were mocking actual censorship in the media, by repeating the phrase — often accompanied by “fuck Joe Biden”, as in the numerous tracks about the meme. Which were also censored at first (eg, on iTunes). How you got from that to “self-censorship to prove a non-existent point” is mystifying.

> It started at an Oct. 2 NASCAR race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama. Brandon Brown, a 28-year-old driver, had won his first Xfinity Series and was being interviewed by an NBC Sports reporter. The crowd behind him was chanting something at first difficult to make out. The reporter suggested they were chanting “Let’s go, Brandon” to cheer the driver. But it became increasingly clear they were saying: “F—- J…

> The reporter suggested they were chanting “Let’s go, Brandon” to cheer the driver. But it became increasingly clear they were saying: “F—- Joe Biden.”

They were mocking the news anchor censoring the truth by lying about what the crowd could clearly be heard saying.

Just like I said.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#147

Post by medler »

EarlKing wrote: post #59
medler wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The motte is "we're just criticising Musk" while the bailey is "we're systematically contacting all of his advertisers and letting them know that if they continue to support him then we will campaign against them as well". As a free-speech absolutist, I genuinely don’t see any difference between criticizing a person and telling other people (advertisers) that that person did something bad. That’s what criticism is,…

So you'll have no problem if I start digging through your posting history for clues about your identity and contacting your employer to let them know what a horrible person you are, right? .....or is that sort of thing only ok when it's done against enemies of the state?

I’d certainly agree you have the right to say anything to my employer you want to say, as long as it’s not defamatory. (If I posted $Y and you told them I posted $Y, then that can’t be defamatory because it’s true)

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#148

Post by zmgsabst »

Falmarri wrote: post #135
zmgsabst wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many racists proclaim people “misunderstand racism” when their different standards for different races are denounced for being racist. After 160 years of the same political party fighting to rebuild racism, generation after generation, people are done hearing the moralizing excuses for why this time Democrats have the magic formula for virtuous bigotry.

>After 160 years of the same political party fighting to rebuild racism Is this serious comment? There was nothing that happened in the parties in the 1960s? Maybe 1964? All of a sudden the people in the south just suddenly decided to no longer be racist, and joined the Republican party fighting _against_ racism?

Yes — the same party has been persistently racist.

After the Civil War, they formed the KKK and Jim Crow to circumvent civil rights.

In modern times, they implemented racial quotas then racial preferences, both of which were ruled illegal bigotry by the US Supreme Court. (At Harvard and UNC, just last year.)

The same party who called blacks “super predators” (Clinton) and whose current president described integrated schools as a “racial jungle” (Biden).

The same party whose supporters are in the streets today, chanting genocidal slogans such as “from the river to the sea”.

The former DNC chairwoman just this week mocked the name of someone born in the US with Indian heritage and told him to “go home!”

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4319012-vivek-ramaswamy-c...

That you think the Democrats are anything but persistently racist is a testament to how well propaganda works.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#149

Post by rpmisms »

Yoric wrote: post #131
rpmisms wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may very well be your own bias. If I say "Christian Communities hate gays", you'll probably think of one or two specific communities. When I saw "Jewish Communities" in gp's headline, I immediately thought "oh, the ADL", because they're bigots and don't really hide it.

If you write "Christian Communities hate gays", I will very much read "all Christian communities". And deduce that you're probably spewing nonsense, just as with "Jewish communities" and "Muslim communities". Also, please do not make assumptions on my biases.

Sure, how about "dogs bite people", then?

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#150

Post by Yoric »

rpmisms wrote: post #149
Yoric wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you write "Christian Communities hate gays", I will very much read "all Christian communities". And deduce that you're probably spewing nonsense, just as with "Jewish communities" and "Muslim communities". Also, please do not make assumptions on my biases.

Sure, how about "dogs bite people", then?

It definitely means that, as a general rule, dogs bite people. It might not mean all dogs, but it's definitely a warning against dogs in general.

Now, transpose this to human beings. The message we're commenting is a warning against Jewish Communities, i.e. I can't think of any reasonable way to interpret it other than as antisemitism.

Post reply on HN