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

Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 204 posts

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#101

Post by infinite8s »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #4
Overtonwindow wrote: post #2

"[W]e strongly believe that what GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudflare did here was dangerous. That’s because, even when the facts are the most vile, we must remain vigilant when platforms exercise these rights. Because Internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world." Well said. I'm glad…

One more quote because I think it sums things up very well: "Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one—not the government and not private commercial enterprises—should decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t."

Although the only thing actually protected by the First Amendment is protection against censorship of speech by the government. Private commercial enterprises can do what they want (since technically you should be able to move to a competitor).

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#102

Post by piaste »

dredmorbius wrote: post #79

I've sided with the EFF on many, many, many causes. I've sided against Google on numerous causes. The EFF are wrong. Google is correct. And yes, the reasons are complicated. But "slippery slope" is a facile fallacy. Ultimately, society can, does, and must defend itself from attacks. Including attacks on the underprivileged (of whom the Fascists and Nazis at question here are not ). The history of media and new-media…

> This includes Hacker News itself, which seems to have quite the fascist problem

And here we go.

For all the people who (correctly) wondered "how broad will the definition of 'nazi' get", well, parent just helpfully illustrated it for you. The Hacker News comments section has been declared full of fascist unpersons who must be silenced at all costs.

But remember:

> But "slippery slope" is a facile fallacy.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#103

Post by [deleted] »

Miner49er wrote: post #31
deckar01 wrote: post #5

> SUSPENSION AND CANCELLATION. Google may in its sole discretion, suspend or cancel Registrant’s Registered Name registration (a) if Registrant breaches this Agreement (including a breach of any of the representations and warranties in Section 7); (b) to comply with a court order or other legal requirement; (c) as required by ICANN, a Registry Operator, or law enforcement; (d) to protect the integrity and stability o…

Interesting. I'm not a lawyer. Could the DailyStorm sue Google over this? I don't see anything in that agreement that says Google could've put their domain on client hold.

[deleted]

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#104

Post by tim333 »

The Daily Stormer is still expressing itself freely at http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/ Latest featured story "Atari Promises Faggots It’ll Produce Homo Video Games." Does it really matter that Cloudflare dropped them? You have a right to free speech, not a right to be promoted by Cloudflare and Google.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#105

Post by tnone »

dredmorbius wrote: post #79

I've sided with the EFF on many, many, many causes. I've sided against Google on numerous causes. The EFF are wrong. Google is correct. And yes, the reasons are complicated. But "slippery slope" is a facile fallacy. Ultimately, society can, does, and must defend itself from attacks. Including attacks on the underprivileged (of whom the Fascists and Nazis at question here are not ). The history of media and new-media…

The way you get people to not care about real Nazis is to cry wolf every time you encounter a political position you don't like.

If we apply those same standards to antifa, they too are a violent, irrational hatemob with blood on their hands. The only difference is they have nice excuses about how it's ok when they do it because of systemic oppression. Even as they wield establishment power against their opponents.

Neonazis are not a significant threat. An abandonment of enlightenment values due to media induced hysteria is. We already saw what passes for unacceptable speech with Damore, even if it's eminently reasonable and moderate. The same people who can whip up a giant shitstorm over nothing are now saying you should trust them in knowing what fascism is.

No thank you. If you justify the means with the ends, you enable people who thrive in such an environment, and they are far more dangerous and insidious than a neonazi clearly advertising being an intolerant twat.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#106

Post by Raz2 »

gcp wrote: post #95
Raz2 wrote: post #92

Uneducated people should be protected from ideas that are proven to be bad. Looks like America just can't learn lessons like Sandy Hook or this one.

Uneducated people should be protected from ideas that are proven to be bad. Like capitalism? Or free Negroes? Western Culture?

Please don't make it absurd. The border is very clear. Ideas that undoubtedly caused tens of millions of deaths. It is even worse than child porn.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#107

Post by BearGoesChirp »

infinite8s wrote: post #101
Overtonwindow wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One more quote because I think it sums things up very well: "Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one—not the government and not private commercial enterprises—should decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t."

Although the only thing actually protected by the First Amendment is protection against censorship of speech by the government. Private commercial enterprises can do what they want (since technically you should be able to move to a competitor).

1. Even if the First Amendment is only limited to the government, the concept of free speech predates and extends far beyond the First Amendment.

2. Does the Constitution apply if the government allows private entities to take over roles of the government? There is the concept of utilities and common carriers that extend upon this logic.

3. Even without the above points, one should still be able to see a double standard being applied to violent/extremist speech. Saying a company can do whatever it wants doesn't explain what the company actually wants. If the company is applying a double standard to what speech it allows, then the true wants of the company is something we need to discuss and decide do we want to tolerate.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#108

Post by BearGoesChirp »

dandersh wrote: post #48
mc32 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't agree more. Today it's Nazis, tomorrow it's not showing enough support for the chosen candidate. This is the one slippery slope. It's evident in PC-speech. Today's PC speech is not the PC speech from the 90s. And it's not that I don't like Pc speech. I prefer it. But I also don't want it to be the only kind of speech one can use for discussion. Try and have any good philosophical argument without breaking PC bo…

No, there is no slippery slope. This is a group that advocates an ideology that, when it was put in place, resulted in catastrophe for mankind. In other words, what they advocate is what exists at the bottom of the slope. You know, Godwin's Law and all that?

>This is a group that advocates an ideology that, when it was put in place, resulted in catastrophe for mankind.

And what about other ideologies which have had similar results? How many has died under communist? What about religious extremist whose beliefs have led to mass murder?

Are we being consistent with the reasoning? If not, then the reasoning given isn't the actual reasoning, so what is the actual reasoning?

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#109

Post by cuckcuckspruce »

Raz2 wrote: post #92

Uneducated people should be protected from ideas that are proven to be bad. Looks like America just can't learn lessons like Sandy Hook or this one.

Can you please make a complete list of all of the ideas I can't read about because I'm too stupid? Thanks!/s

Who decides who is uneducated? Who decides what ideas are so bad they can't read? What's the enforcement mechanism?

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#110

Post by [deleted] »

dredmorbius wrote: post #79

I've sided with the EFF on many, many, many causes. I've sided against Google on numerous causes. The EFF are wrong. Google is correct. And yes, the reasons are complicated. But "slippery slope" is a facile fallacy. Ultimately, society can, does, and must defend itself from attacks. Including attacks on the underprivileged (of whom the Fascists and Nazis at question here are not ). The history of media and new-media…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN