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

141–150 of 204 posts

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

#141

Post by derping69 »

ameister14 wrote: post #137

I think we should examine the effectiveness of bans on speech r.e. limitation of the spread of an ideology. For example, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (not a group with an incentive to deflate numbers), at its peak the National Alliance had 1,200 members. All together, there are a few thousand active Neo-Nazis in the United States. In contrast, let's take 2 countries where advocating Nazi ideology is i…

The bigger issue I see is that by taking away these people's ability to discuss their beliefs they are going to be further radicalized. If they don't believe they can change things peacefully through protest they will become violent.

That's the main reason I don't agree with the banning of daily stormer and google banning Gab.ai from the play store. They are only further enforcing these people's beliefs that the powers that be are against them.

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

#143

Post by [deleted] »

derping69 wrote: post #141
ameister14 wrote: post #137

I think we should examine the effectiveness of bans on speech r.e. limitation of the spread of an ideology. For example, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (not a group with an incentive to deflate numbers), at its peak the National Alliance had 1,200 members. All together, there are a few thousand active Neo-Nazis in the United States. In contrast, let's take 2 countries where advocating Nazi ideology is i…

The bigger issue I see is that by taking away these people's ability to discuss their beliefs they are going to be further radicalized. If they don't believe they can change things peacefully through protest they will become violent. That's the main reason I don't agree with the banning of daily stormer and google banning Gab.ai from the play store. They are only further enforcing these people's beliefs that the powe…

[deleted]

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

#144

Post by liberte82 »

liberte82 wrote: post #59
e9 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all know Nazi are bad, no one in their right mind will deny it. But the way they are currently handled through violence and censorship is not right and downright illegal. You are feeding their anger instead of squashing their ideas. We are American citizens and should respect each others right for free speech and engage in civil debate over ideas we disagree. If we resolve to silencing and violence without debate…

Nazis don't have ideas. They will jump from truth to lies as it suits them to win an argument. They do not live in the world of civil debate. Think of them as trolls from before trolls were a thing. They are not an ideology, they are a hate movement. Silencing them does not make their hate grow, they are already fundamentally about hate. They are a passion, not an ideology. Tell me what is the tax policy of a fascist…

Note: wow I got brigaded. From highly upvoted to negative in the space of an hour.

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

#145

Post by sangnoir »

I'm amazed at how the HN's Libertarian streak gets subdued when discussing free speech (which only enjoins the government). Private individuals and corporations should be free to decide who they want to do business with (even if it's under duress of bad PR).

When Brendan Eich was ousted[1] from Mozilla, I warned that the boycott threat set a bad precedent. The counter argument at the time was that "his donation wasn't free speech" and rights weren't negotiable. In the aftermath of 3 people losing their lives in Charlottesville, supporting the Daily Stormer is clearly Bad for Business™ - even if none of the companies are explicitly stating how commercially toxic DS has become.

1. He was ousted, his resignation was a technicality

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

#146

Post by kenjackson »

derping69 wrote: post #141
ameister14 wrote: post #137

I think we should examine the effectiveness of bans on speech r.e. limitation of the spread of an ideology. For example, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (not a group with an incentive to deflate numbers), at its peak the National Alliance had 1,200 members. All together, there are a few thousand active Neo-Nazis in the United States. In contrast, let's take 2 countries where advocating Nazi ideology is i…

The bigger issue I see is that by taking away these people's ability to discuss their beliefs they are going to be further radicalized. If they don't believe they can change things peacefully through protest they will become violent. That's the main reason I don't agree with the banning of daily stormer and google banning Gab.ai from the play store. They are only further enforcing these people's beliefs that the powe…

So should we instead replace NBC and make it the Daily Stormer network so they feel that the powers to be aren't against them?

No one is saying they can't discuss their beliefs, they just can't do it with the support of certain private companies. In the same way, if I owned a restaurant, I wouldn't allow them to host an informal "Daily Stormer Night" at my restaurant. I shouldn't be forced to having to have them use my restaurant as their unofficial homebase.

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

#147

Post by kenjackson »

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…

But how do you know the reasonable position isn't "Freedom of speech is good"?

And it seems that the "Freedom of speech" position is the one that has expanded more in context than "Nazis are very bad". Thus far people don't seem to be applying the badness of Nazis to non-Nazis (at least not intentionally), but we do seem to be expanding Freedom of speech slowly beyond government censorship to asking private entities to propagate speech.

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

#148

Post by kadenshep »

sangnoir wrote: post #145

I'm amazed at how the HN's Libertarian streak gets subdued when discussing free speech (which only enjoins the government). Private individuals and corporations should be free to decide who they want to do business with (even if it's under duress of bad PR). When Brendan Eich was ousted[1] from Mozilla, I warned that the boycott threat set a bad precedent. The counter argument at the time was that "his donation wasn'…

>I'm amazed at how the HN's Libertarian streak gets subdued

I'm not. The moral lukewarmness and willingness to stick to quite literally the HN (obviously comprised of white suburbanites) echo chamber should be quite obvious at this point on the site, to anyone willing to observe such patterns and how political rhetoric on this site is contained. Commenters seem to do damn near anything to not even so much as turn their heads to the left socially. Look at which comments are being downvoted in this thread and objectively ask yourself whether those downvotes have actual merit.

So what is being defended here in reference to the ideal of free speech? Actual Nazis with a known ideology, and known consequences of that ideology, are trying to spread their message. This isn't a matter of some moral ambiguity or merely silencing those we have "disagreements" with. I'd be nice if people in the U.S. would stop feigning ignorance or neutrality all to put up some faux enlightened defense of an abstract ideal. Be practical. It's not going to be a slippery slope. We're not going to turn into 1984. A private company chose to not do business with a group of people hellbent on spreading a totalitarian racist ideology. An ideology that speaks to some pretty primal fears and habits of humans. It's okay to correct for it.

I'll repeat it again, just to end: it's okay and necessary to silence these people. It's not going to open Pandora's box. Not addressing the problem will. I think the EFF's take on this, while noble, is naively idealistic.

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

#149

Post by narrator »

Even more disturbing to me is that Youtube has started banning UFO research channels like Steve Greer's CSETI. I don't really bother watching these channels and consider the UFO thing a bit of a quasi-religion, but they aren't inciting violence or hate against anybody.

Has Google decided they are now the truth police? Is Google taking it upon themselves to be like the Chinese censorship bureaus except for the whole world? I think this shows that the hate speech censorship is a real slippery slope.

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

#150

Post by mcbruiser3 »

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…

because it takes balls to stick up for freedom these days and let's be honest, most people just don't have the balls these days. fear is winning.
Post reply on HN