61–67 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A corporation spending money to host and spread speech in order to make a profit.
Ironic considering a for-profit organization is paying to host and spread your speech right there.
Wow, horrifying. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt for such a tradgedy and the emotional stress and grief it causes; but this is illogical, dangerous and counterproductive. Terrorism seeks to change our way of life and sueing a company for providing a platform for[0] free speech (which those companies actually already curtail) will not only cause problems to this already slippery slope, but simply displace…
They're not being sued for providing a platform for free speech; they're being sued for providing material support to terrorists. Maybe it's impossible to do one without doing both, maybe it isn't. I don't know. Maybe it's just unprofitable. If it's the deaths of your family that pay for a whole planet's free speech, you deserve to be compensated.
The way this is phrased really changed my perspective on this. Thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the Charlie Hebdo attack was in response to the editors and their... what taking oil from somewhere??
in case you are not aware France was already involved in the middle East before Charlie Hebdo happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not being sued for providing a platform for free speech; they're being sued for providing material support to terrorists. Maybe it's impossible to do one without doing both, maybe it isn't. I don't know. Maybe it's just unprofitable. If it's the deaths of your family that pay for a whole planet's free speech, you deserve to be compensated.
> If it's the deaths of your family that pay for a whole planet's free speech, you deserve to be compensated. The way this is phrased really changed my perspective on this. Thanks.
- we have a legal framework for punishing law breakers. If these killers were affecting a political message (e.g. anti-US ideals like freedom, safety) our society has police and judicial means to extract "payment" or prevent this.
- At the civil level if someone/an entity is responsible for stripping civil liberties (this case through murder) I think we must draw a reasonable line. I don't have FB and am concerned w/ Google's privacy policies; however; to pretend a platform provided material support is absurd. Where does it end? Did googling weapons, posting pro-ISIS rants; a search interface and messaging/social network really count? This is reductionist?
- Consider this precedent and then why not sue Verizon for providing the data / internet and phone connectivity? What about Apple or Toshiba for the phone and hardware?
- I see this incident as a mental health issue, that is the underlying cause-- in my opinion.
- There really isn't a "price" for freedom or human life. No amount of money would likely convince me to give up my life. The responsible party is dead, so justice doesn't feel dispensed. Financially, they may be entitled to the estate assets.
- There is a degree of unfairness. Teaching tolerance and treating mental and health issues can help avoid this. This is a tradgedy, the family is likely to have damages >a million dollars (although there is no substitute for a human life) but we can't arbitrarily transfer those costs to a non-complicit party.
TL;DR I am glad you are open to changes in perspective; my comments are my opinion (as is the parent) but that framing struck me as reductionist and a bit of a disingenuous stawman. There are no easy answers unfortunately
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A tweet isn't designed to kill someone. A truck isn't designed to kill someone. Unless you think an AR15 is specifically designed for killing exotic animals.
And a knife isn't designed to kill someone. And here in Texas we use AR15s for killing wild hogs every single day.
Wild hogs aren't exotic animals, which is why you can use normal hunting rifles, and don't need an AR15.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironic considering a for-profit organization is paying to host and spread your speech right there.
I suspect if a user began to promote and recruit for ISIL on HN that they would be banned.
Terrorism seeks to change our way of life... That sounds like the "they attacked us because of our freedom". No, pal. Terrorists are pissed off because of what your govt is doing overseas. They're really not interested in your way of life or your freedom.
> No, pal. Terrorists are pissed off because of what your govt is doing overseas. What about the islamic terrorists attacking in Sweden, Germany, Belgium? Are they also pissed off of what those countries are doing overseas?