Kiwi Farms is down across all domains as DDoS-Guard terminates service

>"Sit down, and don't open your mouth again while I'm here."

so they don't allow him to speak? I don't think you're proving the point you're trying to prove.

>What that means, though, is that if there are sentiments so odious (and in some cases, literally dangerous, but not illegal) that our free society doesn't think it's appropriate to support a venue for their discussion, it's up to that society writ large, not government, to limit that discussion. There is nothing wrong with fostering a societal sense that there is no room in our world for the kind of shit that Kiwi Farms spewed, even if it is legal. There is nothing wrong with expecting large companies to live up to that standard.

300 years ago, the "odious shit that society should limit" would be anything blasphemous. 200 years ago, it would be calls to allow black people in public office. 100 years ago, it would be communism. 80 years ago, it would be gay rights. Can you explain to me exactly who determines which free speech is odious and which isn't, and when did we perfect morality, so that no controversial discussion should be allowed?

Your analysis is absurd. First, supposing we only care about "free speech" and no other values is absurd from the outset*. It should be obvious that people can't make use of any right to free speech" if they get swatted and killed, so the idea that free speech as a value exists in a moral phantom zone of its own where no other ethical considerations have any weight is pretty much false.

Let's put aside for now the incredibly insincere enforcement of 'free speech' principles that exists in the US, where black community organisers like MLK and Fred Hampton are blackmailed and murdered (respectively) intentionally by top levels law enforcement for their speech, and put aside the historical record that shows how the anti-war movement of the 1970s was suppressed by an intentionally manufactured war on drugs (as admitted to by ringleaders), a war on drugs that is still costing lives 50 years later. Let's put aside the clear legislative efforts to suppress speech (in the forms of suppressing speech of say the BDS movement) that is occurring at the moment. Let's put aside the decades of law enforcement targeting gay and trans people.

Let's pretend, just for now, that we sincerely felt only "free speech" was the only relevant ethical concern. We still have to ask: Whose? Who is speaking, is it more than one party? Who is being protected for their speech? Against who?

I cannot see a planet on which the speech rights of kiwifarms forum members is somehow relevant but the speech of trans people who they target is either not relevant or is 'less' relevant.

If trans people get harassed, stalked and even have the armed apparatus of state sent to have them intimidated into silence or murdered, for the speech of posting what amounts to "I am trans, and I think that's good", then it is incoherent even for 'free speech adovcates' to place the speech of kiwifarms users (up to and including stalking and harassment) as some noble idea worth protecting while the speech rights of trans people to say even benign things like "i exist" *isn't even part of the ethical considerations*.

Basically, there are two ways of approaching 'free speech' issues. For it to be genuine, it cannot be concerned about protecting the speech of one of the groups, and not the other. It cannot be concerned about the speech of one group and think that the speech of a different second group isn't important if that second group gets killed or is forced to move out of the town or nation due to the clear threat to their wellbeing. Anything less than this sincere interest in all parties and a clearheaded interest in how the abstract moral position plays out in practice and our 'free speech advocacy' becomes an insincere figleaf for perpetuating the violence of thugs.

Maybe I'm just pissed off because kiwifarms users have harassed and stalked people I care about for over a decade, chased them into their homes, accosted them at their places of work, for literally nothing except being trans, and then I come to HN and see people willing to dismiss all that, or dismiss the rebuke of the unfathomable damage that has been done by this site as this as "twitter outrage" without so much as acknowledging the extraordinary grounds for that criticism.

* we should pretty surely concede that further considerations like safety, privacy, health, life, the right to the "pursuit of happiness", etc have relevance here

and deliberately not protecting a paying customer as they are attacked by DDoSing criminals is just censorship by another name. it's a critical piece of infrastructure; large sites just can't survive on the modern internet without it. it's like if the police and fire services announced they wouldn't protect a specific house from roving packs of arsonists.