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

In Support of Free Speech

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#41

Post by legodt »

koolba wrote: post #24
fao_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are few things they could say that I would find more distasteful than censorship. Perhaps being supportive of people who have called for the extermination of black people and other minorities?

By your logic where does anyone that doesn't condemn BLM stand?

That is the exact opposite of the black lives matter a goals. They are a black exclusive space because of a history of white people commandeering and steering social movements away from the specific struggles of black people. See: "white feminism" or the treatment of MLK's legacy in the united States

Edit for the downvoting: how many of you know the goals of BLM? And am I wrong or does this not fit your narrative of the scary black rioters trying to take away your free speech?

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#42

Post by fvdessen »

diyorgasms wrote: post #35
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #34

I find it odd that this needs to be either a post or something the community talks about. It'd be like an article titled "Local gas station provides gas to Nazis" Why of course they do. A secular, open society means you can have whatever opinion you like, as long as it is peaceful, and you can participate just like anyone else. How else would you want it? Modern activists seem quite odd to me. In the states, at least…

Being a Nazi is a priori violent. They have declared an intent to commit genocide by subscribing to that ideology. They ought to be excluded from society at every turn, because their goal is the destruction of our society and the mass murder of our peers.

How the hell is breitbart even remotely comparable to nazis ?

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#43

Post by yedava »

As a comment on the post notes, Shopify already "censors" certain viewpoints. From their TOS:

"We may, but have no obligation to, remove Store Content and Accounts containing content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party’s intellectual property or these Terms of Service."

So they're actually saying "We don't find Breitbart violating the moral code as set in our TOS". This is not about free speech.

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#46

Post by mrnzc »

Shopify somehow arbitrarily intermingles an "objective" point of view (deferring the moral judgment to the law) and a "normative" point of view ("We need to protect the free speech"). I think the very statement and conduct of Spotify in fact demonstrates the hypocrisy (i.e. performative contradiction): "We are liberals who do not think it is okay what Breitbart does." vs. "It is okay what they do since it is within the bounds of law"

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#47

Post by legodt »

mattieuga wrote: post #36
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #34

I find it odd that this needs to be either a post or something the community talks about. It'd be like an article titled "Local gas station provides gas to Nazis" Why of course they do. A secular, open society means you can have whatever opinion you like, as long as it is peaceful, and you can participate just like anyone else. How else would you want it? Modern activists seem quite odd to me. In the states, at least…

On the gas station example - I recently recall wedding stores being unwilling to sell items to LGBT couples.

Not the sharpest comparison since the LGBT community at large has never called for any ethnic cleansings as far as I'm aware

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#48

Post by DarkKomunalec »

steveax wrote: post #5
yock wrote: post #2

The title of the post is "In Support of Free Speech." I thought that kind of editorializing was generally frowned upon here?

Indeed, cue xkcd 1357

https://xkcd.com/1357/ makes it seem like it'll be your peers that get your message silenced, but what if it's some board of directors for a conglomerate, that dislikes any attention to the environmental impact of their industrial pig farms/how much they profited from post-war contracts after the most recent invasion/their push for privatization of water sources?

Almost all public speaking these days is done on private platforms, with ever fewer companies controlling them. Without them, almost no-one will hear you. The 1st amendment is just a legal codification of the broader goal of the free exchange of ideas. This goal is harmed by private censorship as well, even if it doesn't break the 1st amendment.

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#49

Post by chronid » 

   On November 8th, the day of the US election, the whole world got more black and white. 
   People in the center have been called upon to choose sides. In a way, my position 
   is an appeal to preserve some of the gray in the world. All solutions necessarily 
   have to come from the middle ground. No progress happens when ideas are censored 
   and everyone sorts into one of two camps. The world is a nuanced and complicated 
   place. Let’s accept that and use rational discourse to make the world — and commerce — 
   better for everyone.

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#50

Post by vaadu »

diyorgasms wrote: post #19

Refusing to voluntarily engage in commerce is hardly censorship. All this post is saying is "We're totally fine with neo-Nazis, so long as we make some money from them." A principled boycott is not censorship, it is further free expression. Shame on shopify for abandoning principles in favor of profit.

The Nazis are the folks calling for censorship. The Ctrl-left folks better do some introspection or they will be next.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/317248-dnc-boots-candid...

Post reply on HN