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

Facebook takes down Britain First ads

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–136 of 136 posts

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#131

Post by ABCLAW »

spaginal wrote: post #115
freehunter wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slope is not nearly as slippery as you're imagining it to be. I'm not sure literal white supremecists are the shining beacon upon which you want to hang your argument (if I'm wrong on this, you don't need to read any further). We're not talking about a controversial political opinion, we're not talking about coastal liberals shutting down good American conservative free speech, we're talking about white supremeci…

Is the only food store in town, who is ran by a racist, allowed to starve black families by refusing them service because of their skin color? Are tech companies across the board allowed to shut down, disenfranchise, silence, and marginalize people and businesses because they simply disagree with their lawful politics and ideas?

>Are tech companies across the board allowed to shut down, disenfranchise, silence, and marginalize people and businesses because they simply disagree with their lawful politics and ideas?

What if those politics and incitements aren't legal (or ethical) because, at a general level, they violate the law specifically but the harm principle more generally?

Would you be okay with taking action then?

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#132

Post by skilled »

pjc50 wrote: post #86
skilled wrote: post #41

> "We thank the BBC.." And why is BBC trying to portray that a canned email response is an official statement? I don't doubt the matter at hand, but this is very sloppy journalism.

That is the official statement Facebook gave to the BBC, and it's proper journalism to report what they said when asked.

It's not. And I actually feel insulted to have you counter my initial statement. Go read the article again and tell me how is it an official response.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#133

Post by toomuchtodo »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #70
fxfan wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with Christianity's stand on gays. Hence no more churches. I don't agree with islam's stance on gays and women and adultery. Hence no more mosques. Am I a hater?

> Am I a hater? No, you are intolerant of hate and prioritize human rights about superstition, custom, and tribalism.

s/about/above

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#134

Post by Spivak »

manfredo wrote: post #125
drugme wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then banning mosques is not in the scope of your statement. Hmm - I disagree, and I suspect most courts in the kinds of countries we're talking about would also.

Do Muslims that don't live within commuting distance of a mosque cease to be Muslims? Of course not, they pray in their homes. The existence of Muslims that practice religions without mosques makes the claim that a ban on mosques prohibits the practice of Islam outright an objectively false statement. You're the one that put the threshold at "prohibit outright". US courts would likely agree that it is unjustly curbin…

Do gay couples that aren't allowed to be married cease to be gay? Of course not, they keep their sexuality in the privacy of their own homes. The existence of gays that live without recognition and rights by the state makes the claim that a ban on gay marriage prohibites homosexuality an objectively false statement...

Like yes you're technically right but only by seemingly purposely missing the point -- that having a community center to gather and worship is central to most religions. The times when chruchmembers gather in housechurches are typically times when they're being opressed.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#135

Post by manfredo »

Spivak wrote: post #134
manfredo wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do Muslims that don't live within commuting distance of a mosque cease to be Muslims? Of course not, they pray in their homes. The existence of Muslims that practice religions without mosques makes the claim that a ban on mosques prohibits the practice of Islam outright an objectively false statement. You're the one that put the threshold at "prohibit outright". US courts would likely agree that it is unjustly curbin…

Do gay couples that aren't allowed to be married cease to be gay? Of course not, they keep their sexuality in the privacy of their own homes. The existence of gays that live without recognition and rights by the state makes the claim that a ban on gay marriage prohibites homosexuality an objectively false statement... Like yes you're technically right but only by seemingly purposely missing the point -- that having a…

I'm not missing any point, I'm well aware of the fact that centers of worship are important to many, or even most, religions. You've jumped into this comment chain pretty late, and the original point I'm making is probably difficult to glean from these later comments. My whole point is that the above poster's claim that

> you have absolutely no right to prohibit anyone from practicing that religion simply because you don't like it.

is just straight up not true. Several countries, including liberal democracies such as France with its laws that prohibit face coverings even when worn for religious purposes, do indeed prohibit religious practices. Attire and appearance is important to many religions, and liberal democracies do indeed prohibit those. drugme's claim that people (I assume people in liberal democracies is what's being referenced here) do not have the right to prohibit anyone from practicing religion is not correct. There are plenty of instances were people's religious practice is restricted by law.

Then the commenter tried to pull a pretty blatant moat and bailey by trying to claim that their comments only referred to those that want to "prohibit [a religion] outright" as opposed to only prohibiting certain aspects. In response to which, I pointed out that a ban on religious centers is does not "prohibit outright" a religion either.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#136

Post by growlist »

ABCLAW wrote: post #128
growlist wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..and this is the problem with hate speech - it involves perceived intent and thus the criminalisation of thought.

Wait until you find out that mens rea exists.

Shallow comment. Suggest you read this: http://barristerblogger.com/2018/03/18/the-met-has-a-problem...
Post reply on HN