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

Why do you host offensive content?

nearlyfreespeech.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 169 posts

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#111

Post by xgulfie »

HeroOfAges wrote: post #78
xgulfie wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This attitude that "to be offended you have to allow it" is ridiculous. You can't simply turn your emotions on and off unless you are a sociopath.

How old are you? I'm curious because I thought along those lines when I was a younger man. You are right that we have almost no control over our immediate emotional reactions to something we have just observed. You do control your train of thought about that observation going forward.

I'm 29. Yes I agree that you can consciously control what you do long-term in response to something, but you can't just whiff things off entirely.

If someone calls me a "fag", it will bother me whether I pretend it does or not. I'll be offended and it will probably play back in my head for a bit. I can try to let it not bother me, but it probably will at least a little.

"Words can't hurt me" is a fine personal mantra/goal/ideal but you can't apply it to everybody in every case.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#112

Post by root_axis »

stcredzero wrote: post #110
root_axis wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have to resort to extreme examples, then it shows the weakness of your position What is extreme about them? An example of an extreme would be "child porn" or "your credit card number" or "the password to your email". The examples I listed are pretty mundane and actually quite common. Either way, you haven't actually explained why any of the examples I listed would be "bad". > Those examples are mostly illega…

What is extreme about them? Many of them are illegal. An example of an extreme would be "child porn" or "your credit card number" or "the password to your email". Also illegal. None of those examples are illegal Most of those examples would constitute evidence of illegal activity. If it's illegal does that mean it's not censorship to remove it? If it's illegal, then it's no longer protected by the principle of Free S…

> Many of them are illegal.

No they aren't. Point me to a law stating that any of those are illegal besides the "revenge porn" example that I outlined.

> If it's illegal, then it's no longer protected by the principle of Free Speech

So are you saying that anything the government deems illegal doesn't fall under the "principle of Free Speech"?

> No. Ethically, that would be wrong

Sorry, I'm not understand what you mean here. Are you saying it would be ethically wrong to delete comments from your personal blog? I'm not being snarky, just not sure if you're referring to something else when you say "ethically wrong".

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#113

Post by luckylion »

saalweachter wrote: post #92
luckylion wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To keep the analogy: if you live in a quarantined clean room to protect your immune system from the bad germs, viruses etc, you're going to end up with a very weak immune system. If you expose your immune system to the world, it's going to learn how to fight specific threats it'll encounter.

And yet for the really virulent stuff -- the polio, the smallpox, the measles -- we don't rely on random exposure, we innoculate with dead and fragmented pieces of the virus while working to exterminate it in the wild.

That would be the illegal stuff, I think. We're dealing with that on a societal basis. I suppose the extent depends on the trust we place into the ability of citizens to not collectively fall for something just by being exposed. If we all had very frail immune systems, doing our very best to extinguish the common cold would make sense. Since we don't, let's keep those reasonably safe that are in danger and let the rest deal with it.

For anything else, it may quickly become problematic if those that get scared or upset the most over news stories are in charge of declaring when to quarantine people, neighborhoods or states.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#114

Post by throwaway8879 »

Nursie wrote: post #41
djsumdog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a time when the cesspit were all the people promoting the debauchery of homosexuality, or the idea that blacks were somehow equal to whites in intelligence and genetic disposition. These were greatly offensive statements at one time. People were ridiculed and deplatformed for having them. Translate the Bible into a barbaric language like German or English? That caused great offense. People were excommunicat…

> "By banning speech is to say, "I agree people are too stupid to make their own decisions. Let's make the world 'safe' for them and ban ideas I don't agree with." 1. People are stupid. Really, really stupid. Especially when given the means to surround and reinforce themselves with other idiots. See for example - antivax and alt-med in general, chemtrails any number of ridiculous conspiracy theories that propagate th…

People ought to have as much a right to be as stupid as they want, as you have the right to be as smart as you clearly are.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#115

Post by gwbas1c »

josteink wrote: post #9
NullPrefix wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Offensive to whom Offensive to those, who can make enough noise about it.

Which would typically be privileged people, non-ironically complaining about other people’s privilege.

I think you misunderstand the concept of Social Privilege: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_privilege

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#116

Post by zbyte64 »

sdinsn wrote: post #109
lucideer wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly more pragmatic reframing of the question: > "Why do you host harmful content?" To which your returned question would be similarly open-ended: Harmful to whom? Define harmless content. Etc. ... but probably a little more "down to earth" in terms of discussing the bounds of such definitions. The root of being "offended" may often be grounded in an agenda to silence and control, but it's typically defended by r…

I disagree. Both "offensive" and "harmful" are up to debate based on arbitrary views / moral codes.

Is that useful though? The following requires a moral code to say it is bad:

Directly advocating for sexual violence against another group.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#117

Post by waynecochran »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #108
waynecochran wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some have suggested one place a line can be drawn: It's always OK to "attack" an "idea" but never to "attack" an individual.

But again, there's nothing that makes this line objectively better than any other. It makes sense to me, even though it's kind of vague — but the point is that it's still subjective.

Can you give an example of what you would consider an "objective statement" in a legal context? I daresay no such thing can exist.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#118

Post by waynecochran »

Kye wrote: post #98
waynecochran wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This requires nuance and discussion, but things like the following are generally not productive and not protected by free speech. Defamation against private individual (including libel and slander) Child pornography Blackmail Incitement to imminent violence Solicitations to commit crimes I think any discussion concerning "ideas" is fair game. It gets murky when dealing with individuals. None of the things on the list…

>> "Defamation against private individual (including libel and slander)" What if it's against a group of individuals?

Do you have specific example in mind?

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#119

Post by zbyte64 »

Kye wrote: post #98
waynecochran wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This requires nuance and discussion, but things like the following are generally not productive and not protected by free speech. Defamation against private individual (including libel and slander) Child pornography Blackmail Incitement to imminent violence Solicitations to commit crimes I think any discussion concerning "ideas" is fair game. It gets murky when dealing with individuals. None of the things on the list…

>> "Defamation against private individual (including libel and slander)" What if it's against a group of individuals?

Asking the real questions.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#120

Post by stcredzero »

root_axis wrote: post #112
stcredzero wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is extreme about them? Many of them are illegal. An example of an extreme would be "child porn" or "your credit card number" or "the password to your email". Also illegal. None of those examples are illegal Most of those examples would constitute evidence of illegal activity. If it's illegal does that mean it's not censorship to remove it? If it's illegal, then it's no longer protected by the principle of Free S…

> Many of them are illegal. No they aren't. Point me to a law stating that any of those are illegal besides the "revenge porn" example that I outlined. > If it's illegal, then it's no longer protected by the principle of Free Speech So are you saying that anything the government deems illegal doesn't fall under the "principle of Free Speech"? > No. Ethically, that would be wrong Sorry, I'm not understand what you mea…

> Many of them are illegal.

No they aren't. Point me to a law stating that any of those are illegal besides the "revenge porn" example that I outlined.

That's dishonest quoting. The last quote should include my assertion that many of those would be evidence of illegal activity.

If I post the source code of your personal project online

If that was done without permission, if that information was obtained illegally, then that would be illegal. This would indeed be the case with my personal project under its current copyright, licensing terms, and repository disposition. That such a circumstance could be illegal is part of the intended shock value of your extreme example. If you didn't intend such an illegal scenario, it's still reprehensible and extreme. (see below)

If I post the contents of your diary online

Again, if that was done without permission, if that information was obtained illegally, then that would be illegal. Again, if you didn't intend such an illegal scenario, it's still reprehensible and extreme. (see below)

If I post the contents of a heated argument between you and your spouse online

If the contents were recorded from a private conversation in a home here in California, that information was obtained illegally, then that would be illegal. Again, if you didn't intend such an illegal scenario, it's still reprehensible and extreme. (see below)

The following two aren't illegal, but they're just morally reprehensible in a way which even transcends ideology. As such, the following examples are certainly "extreme."

Doxxing: If I post your address online next to a photo of your house

If I post a photoshopped picture of your kid online

But in any case, your position isn't defensible, because you're dishonestly or mistakenly conflating censorship and the principle of Free Speech. They are not equivalent. Again, the issue is the subset of censorship which interferes with Free Speech.

To be fair, there could be scenarios crafted for all of your examples of concerning activity which would make them Free Speech. If the information had a purpose to further the transparency of organizations, public figures, or shed light on legal matters, those would be covered by Free Speech. On the other hand, if the purpose is purely to hurt or humiliate someone for views, then this is reprehensible, and it doesn't fit the purpose of Free Speech.

Post reply on HN