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

121–130 of 204 posts

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

#121

Post by CaptSpify »

tortasaur wrote: post #90
CaptSpify wrote: post #22

I'm super proud to be a member of the EFF. It's hard to keep a clear head in emotionally tense times like these. It's groups like the EFF that help everyone. If you can: https://supporters.eff.org/donate

I agree. The ACLU, on the other hand, has begun to rationalize their way out of defending white nationalists. Not exactly a very good defender of civil liberties if they start drawing ideological lines as to who they defend. I had just started donating to them in the last week, too; I felt a bit silly canceling so soon.

source on the ACLU thing?

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

#122

Post by Raz2 »

cuckcuckspruce wrote: post #109
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?

1. Incitement to hatred based on religion, sex, race. 2. No need to decide who is uneducated. 3. Who decided that child porn is bad? I believe America can manage it. Most European countries could.

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

#123

Post by liberte82 »

rpiguy wrote: post #116
liberte82 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many countries have free speech but they ban speech that is hateful and calls for persecution of minorities. These are reasonable limits to live together in a peaceful, tolerant society. Free speech is not an edict from God. It is a liberal idea with the intent of creating an open society. An open society is not one that advocates for the killing of minorities. Other free countries have done this to little fanfare an…

Other countries have done it and the results were disastrous for freedom. Germany, Sweden, and France for example have taken the idea of hate speech and extended into the realm of control of information. If you post on Facebook the crime statistics for your town that show immigrants are responsible for 90% of the crimes in your district, you can be prosecuted. Freaking Brigid Bardot was fined five thousand Euros for…

You're going to define "nightmare" and "disastrous", because I would argue strongly that the actual real-world rise of a fascist movement that we are witnessing is of much greater existential concern than what you are describing.

Additionally, I contend with your assertion that posting crime statistics cannot be construed as hate speech. Are the statistics being presented in a neutral way with context? Or is this an effort to characterize immigrants as criminals based on an a priori belief that this is true? Is this just sharing information or an attempt to build hatred toward a specific group? Does the author look at the reasons we see greater crime in poor and immigrant areas or does he insinuate that immigrants are somehow just inherently more violent? As Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and there are statistics.

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

#124

Post by rpiguy »

liberte82 wrote: post #123
rpiguy wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other countries have done it and the results were disastrous for freedom. Germany, Sweden, and France for example have taken the idea of hate speech and extended into the realm of control of information. If you post on Facebook the crime statistics for your town that show immigrants are responsible for 90% of the crimes in your district, you can be prosecuted. Freaking Brigid Bardot was fined five thousand Euros for…

You're going to define "nightmare" and "disastrous", because I would argue strongly that the actual real-world rise of a fascist movement that we are witnessing is of much greater existential concern than what you are describing. Additionally, I contend with your assertion that posting crime statistics cannot be construed as hate speech. Are the statistics being presented in a neutral way with context? Or is this an…

The intent of the posting the statistics is irrelevant. If the person is against immigration into their town, they should be able to post the crime statistics with the intent to influence other locals to reject the immigrants. It is up to the reader of the information to determine whether it was biased, or whether bias is warranted. Even if all immigrants are not criminals, you can determine that crime went up in your town, zero in on them as the cause, and rightfully decide to oppose all immigration to your town because you'd rather have crime levels where they were before.

There is no real world rise of facism in the United States. The nationwide gathering of white nationalists last weekend barely managed to scrape together a few hundred people.

The danger of fascism is primarily from the left, who believe it is alright for masked ANTIFA protesters to intimidate and commit acts of violence. They are the equivalent of a modern Klu Klux Klan and largely get a pass by the press. Trump's executive orders are no more autocratic than his predecessors and he is not aided and abided by a willing press.

Certainly in the Philippines and Venezuela you could make an argument about a descent into fascism.

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

#126

Post by meri_dian »

This is how extremism spreads:

1. A Reasonable Position is expressed, in this case - 'Nazi's are very bad'. The Reasonable Position often involves an Enemy that must be stopped. Most reasonable people will agree with the Reasonable Position.

2. The Reasonable Position becomes the overriding factor in any situation that involves it. All other factors and considerations are dwarfed by it and forgotten.

3. Because the Reasonable Position comes to dominate the thinking of the Extremist - who often means well - they come to believe one can only ever be for or against the Reasonable Position. There is no room for moderate positions that try to balance the Reasonable Position with other important considerations and values - in this case, freedom of speech.

4. In order to show support for the Reasonable Position, third parties are forced to action in accordance with the world view of the Extremist. If they try to balance other considerations against the Reasonable Position, they are seen by the Extremist as sympathizing with the Enemy.

5. The fervor of extremism charges through society, trampling on other values and considerations.

Some historical examples:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

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

#127

Post by tchaffee »

Google is rightly protected from government interference of their right to exercise free speech just like all individuals and companies in the US.

The EFF is confusing a free speech problem with a monopoly problem. One would hope they aren't suggesting that the government be allowed to interfere with Google's speech.

So if they aren't, they are basically saying "bad boy, shame on you" to Google and others. It will have zero impact.

The right way to solve this problem is to name the actual problem and forget about free speech: monopoly. Break up Google and these other companies and problem solved.

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

#128

Post by wu-ikkyu »

zimpenfish wrote: post #114
LeratoAustini wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how Godwin's rule is useful. Its only effect on arguments is that on top of the inevitable "Hitler" comment you now also get an inevitable "Godwin" follow-up, usually delivered with the air of having somehow won the argument. It's beyond redundant IMO.

There's no such thing as "Godwin's Rule" - it's "Godwin's Law" and it said nothing about winning arguments; only that as the length of an argument increased, the probability that a comparison with the Nazis would appear approached 1. You can't invoke it either. It's a statistical observation.

How is that a useful observation, though?

As the length of any internet argument grows, the probability of anything being said would approach 1.

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

#129

Post by vitorfblima »

dandersh wrote: post #62
mc32 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding? Have you not read up on what they did during the Great Leap Forward? Innocent people, their own people, were pulled out of their dwellings charges made up on the spot and killed in the squares. What Stalin did in Ukraine was pretty much pure hate for them. Yes, I object because your cause will be coopted to further a specific ideology at the expense of all others.

I did. I also read up on the use of racial slavery and genocide of native Americans as the basis of Americas rise to power. Unlike you though I am able to understand that one of them(Nazism) has racial superiority and oppression as a core feature of their ideology while the others do not. Again, there is no "Godwins Law" for Marxism/American Capitalism. I wonder why that is???

Actually, racial and moral superiority were a big factor in the ideology for enslaving and killing native americans.

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

#130

Post by JustBirk »

meri_dian wrote: post #126

This is how extremism spreads: 1. A Reasonable Position is expressed, in this case - 'Nazi's are very bad'. The Reasonable Position often involves an Enemy that must be stopped. Most reasonable people will agree with the Reasonable Position. 2. The Reasonable Position becomes the overriding factor in any situation that involves it. All other factors and considerations are dwarfed by it and forgotten. 3. Because the R…

So the real extremism is anti-extremism?
Post reply on HN