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

51–60 of 204 posts

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

#51

Post by e9 »

ebola1717 wrote: post #36
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as unfortunate as it may be, you not only have to fight against the nazis ideals, but also for their right to hold them and speak them in a public forum, like any other citizen. That's from the history books about the country's founding.

Nope. Nazi speech is banned in Germany cause they learned their lesson.

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 how are we better? Have you talked to any Nazi? Are you sure they know history and what Nazi stands for? etc etc etc I personally haven't met one ever but when I do I won't punch them with a fist but punch them with debate.

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

#52

Post by lovich »

Pfhreak wrote: post #42
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's fine. You get to draw that line in the sand, but you have to do two things: 1) Don't say you are for freedom of expression. you aren't. 2) Be consistent. ISIS propaganda websites must be wholly refused to be hosted. Many (not as fringe as you'd like to think) websites in the Middle East, Eastern Bloc and Russia must also be taken down when discussing the Jews, as well. Any website that blatantly talks abou…

There's a lot to unpack in your comment. I do want to address a few things: > People told me that I was using a slippery slope argument when I said using the wartime powers act against "terrorism" was a quick sink to unjust presidential powers. Is it different to you that the actions here were taken by companies, not by the government? To the best of my knowledge, there was no mandate to take these sites down. > Be c…

On your consistency point I agree. On your point about whether its different if the government or companies take the action I pose another question. Is there a difference between the results of the two when companies take more and more power every day? If a company can remove you from interacting with a majority of the internet, is that any different from the FCC or some other agency removing you?

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

#53

Post by lovich »

ebola1717 wrote: post #34
apo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neo-nazis are such a different class of evil, that it's hard for me to see the same practices being used against someone who is not them. Do you remember how Communists were treated during the McCarthy era?

Do you know what a false equivalency is? They banned a site that no one, even the site runners, would argue isn't explicitly about white nationalism. If anyone bans the likes of Breitbart or InfoWars, then maybe we can start this slippery slope conversation, but until then it's completely disingenuous.

The problem is that whatever group is considered evil can change day to day. Right now 99% of people, myself included, can agree that supremacists or neo nazis are bad people and output evil ideas. However, it wasn't too long ago that the majority of people were against gays getting married, or even different races getting married. When we set up precedent or infrastructure to harm a group outside of the rule of law just because they are assholes, we leave the opportunity open for those in power to remove other groups they don't agree with even when those other groups are not as clear cut evil

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

#54

Post by mixedCase »

dandersh wrote: post #46

This fetishization of "free speech" has to stop. These people do not respect free speech. They do not respect an open society. They do not respect freedom. They wish to destroy all of these things and they are entirely upfront about it. And yet all I've read the past few days is hand wringing about the "rights" of those who wish to destroy that of which open societies have built. At least the citizens of the early 19…

> These people do not respect free speech.

You're right, they don't.

Are you suggesting you do?

And since we're talking about nazis and historical references, allow me to bring up four relevant words about something we've learned about their murderous regime and their abuse of power:

"First they came for..."

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

#55

Post by dandersh »

mc32 wrote: post #49
dandersh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there is no slippery slope. This is a group that advocates an ideology that, when it was put in place, resulted in catastrophe for mankind. In other words, what they advocate is what exists at the bottom of the slope. You know, Godwin's Law and all that?

So, what next, the communists or Marxists because the ideology they espouse caused even more deaths? I agree they are a hateful group. An odious group of people possibly only superseded in their vileness by extremist religious fanatics who won't hesitate to kill, but we're not shutting their speech down, are we? In my view, this is one of those things that is binary. Either you have free speech, or you don't. There i…

This post is wrong on so many levels.

Those ideologies did not have the hatred and violence at their core that Nazism did. That's why there is no "Godwins Law" when it comes to Marxism. That's my point: This is the most reviled philosophy that currently exists, and people are complaining about "free speech" when previously they would shriek "Godwins Law" whenever comparisons are made. That's how far we've fallen.

Saying that free speech is binary is incredibly misguided and a root cause of the problem. It's overly simplistic and absolutist and quite frankly, is complete and total nonsense. At some point something will be uttered that you or some other "free speech absolutist" will object to.

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

#56

Post by solomatov »

cup wrote: post #8

Should all forms of speech be defended and accessible in a public domain? Should instructions on how to make explosives be accessible and defended?

In Brandenburg v Ohio, Supreme court stated that only speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" should be punished. This is called Brandenburg paradigm and it's currently a legal standard for what's considered hate speech in US.

See more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

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

#57

Post by dandersh »

mixedCase wrote: post #54
dandersh wrote: post #46

This fetishization of "free speech" has to stop. These people do not respect free speech. They do not respect an open society. They do not respect freedom. They wish to destroy all of these things and they are entirely upfront about it. And yet all I've read the past few days is hand wringing about the "rights" of those who wish to destroy that of which open societies have built. At least the citizens of the early 19…

> These people do not respect free speech. You're right, they don't. Are you suggesting you do? And since we're talking about nazis and historical references, allow me to bring up four relevant words about something we've learned about their murderous regime and their abuse of power: "First they came for..."

You do realize it was THE NAZIS that "first they came for..." right? You are literally using the oppression that this group levied on other people as a defense for their views. I didn't realize I was on 4chan or Reddit. Are people seriously this detached from history?

I respect free speech. I don't respect absolutist speech. Unfortunately many people (including, apparently yourself) are unable to tell the difference.

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

#58

Post by mc32 »

dandersh wrote: post #55
mc32 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what next, the communists or Marxists because the ideology they espouse caused even more deaths? I agree they are a hateful group. An odious group of people possibly only superseded in their vileness by extremist religious fanatics who won't hesitate to kill, but we're not shutting their speech down, are we? In my view, this is one of those things that is binary. Either you have free speech, or you don't. There i…

This post is wrong on so many levels. Those ideologies did not have the hatred and violence at their core that Nazism did. That's why there is no "Godwins Law" when it comes to Marxism. That's my point: This is the most reviled philosophy that currently exists, and people are complaining about "free speech" when previously they would shriek "Godwins Law" whenever comparisons are made. That's how far we've fallen. Say…

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.

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

#59

Post by liberte82 »

e9 wrote: post #51
ebola1717 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Nazi speech is banned in Germany cause they learned their lesson.

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? They have none, save that of whichever system they hijack en route to their only real mission, which is the elimination and persecution of their perceived enemies. We fought the worst war the world has ever seen to stop them because once they got rolling, they had to keep growing to survive. That's the nature of hate. They certainly weren't going to be stopped by debate.

From Sartre: "The anti-Semite has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions about the rights of the Jew appear to him. He has pleased himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side."

It seems that America is going to insist on finding out what fascism is really about the hard way.

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

#60

Post by [deleted] »

e9 wrote: post #51
ebola1717 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Nazi speech is banned in Germany cause they learned their lesson.

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN