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

161–170 of 204 posts

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

#161

Post by Overtonwindow »

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #107
infinite8s wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stand…

An interesting example for your comment might be the use of private prisons, and probation companies.

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

#162

Post by kenjackson »

ameister14 wrote: post #158
kenjackson wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends on the terms of the lease. That seems completely non-controversial to me. There's a bunch of stuff in my lease that I couldn't do, which are perfectly legal in many other contexts (smoke inside, have a dog, have big parties, etc...). Likewise, a KKK friendly lease would also be legal and honestly I don't think you'd have a hard time finding people who would be willing to have you. And I've yet to find so…

So it's non-controversial for your landlord to evict you because they don't like your dinner guests?

As I noted, it depends on the terms of the lease. I was stating that if you violate the terms of the lease that eviction was non-controversial. That said, I'm not an expert in rental properties.

It wouldn't surprise me if all of these services have some verbiage in their TOS or contract that allows them the right to stop service if the content being served is deemed to be inappropriate by them.

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

#163

Post by [deleted] »

mc32 wrote: post #44
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…

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…

[deleted]

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

#164

Post by mvc »

ameister14 wrote: post #158
kenjackson wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends on the terms of the lease. That seems completely non-controversial to me. There's a bunch of stuff in my lease that I couldn't do, which are perfectly legal in many other contexts (smoke inside, have a dog, have big parties, etc...). Likewise, a KKK friendly lease would also be legal and honestly I don't think you'd have a hard time finding people who would be willing to have you. And I've yet to find so…

So it's non-controversial for your landlord to evict you because they don't like your dinner guests?

Absolutely! I'd justify it by the potential risk of discomfort those guests pose to my other tenants.

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

#165

Post by anigbrowl »

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).

This is precisely true. The Constitution does not offer protection from the vagaries of capital, but capital realizes that certain ideologies, like brands, are toxic. Thus the New Yorker and Economist covers this week depicting the President' relationship to extremism.

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

#166

Post by anigbrowl »

mc32 wrote: post #44
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…

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…

I don't see one group controlling that narrative. I see a wide variety of groups uniting to reject one particular narrative/ideology that is widely agreed to be toxic on its own terms; its loudest proponents explicitly call for genocide and war, and that is literally an incitement to violence against the many and various targets of their dislike.

I'd encourage you to check out material from groups like Life after Hate that specialize in deradicalization of former white nationalists to get their first-hand perspective on the psychology of fascism.

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

#167

Post by julianmarq »

kenjackson wrote: post #147
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…

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

Because it's the best (probably only) way to prevent every actual Reasonable Position from overriding every other factor and consideration. If freedom of speech is the default, there's no way an extremist group will stop conversation about any particular issue.

> Thus far people don't seem to be applying the badness of Nazis to non-Nazis (at least not intentionally)

This is Godwin's Law, which is in itself a testament to how common this is.

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

#168

Post by julianmarq »

narrator wrote: post #149

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 w…

Wait, is this true? Could you provide a source?

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

#169

Post by kadenshep »

ameister14 wrote: post #134
liberte82 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it would help. It's been 70 years since WW2 ended and people are fast forgetting its lessons. Take an example, pretty much everyone agrees that ISIS uses the web as an online recruitment tool to radicalize young people and that they are very effective with it. This point is fairly non-controversial. Yet when the same point is made about extreme right-wing movements radicalizing young Americans, these concerns ar…

I don't see open Nazis having a seat in government in any country where it is legal to advocate Nazi ideologies. On the other hand, Austria and Germany, two countries where that is illegal, have together 5 European MP's from their respective Nazi parties.

...because that's where Nazis "originated" from. Just like the U.S. still has KKK members in various positions of authority, while presumably Germany or Austria have no KKK members.

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

#170

Post by kadenshep »

e9 wrote: post #68
liberte82 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

so do you recommend banning all hate movements? As article points out "Those on the left face calls to characterize the Black Lives Matter movement as a hate group." Where do you draw the line?

>"Those on the left face calls to characterize the Black Lives Matter movement as a hate group."

Neat. You're going to need some proof or point to some core tenet of BLM that makes them hate group. Not that hard to do with Nazis.

No one is labeling random groups as being hateful or racist. It's literally in their (Nazi) stated ideology. The EFF should be ashamed of attempting to draw the comparison and bolster what is essentially a conservative narrative. It requires a good amount of willful ignorance or just straight up dishonesty to make it.

Post reply on HN