4 ms·

Where you, and ever other "Free Speech" person misses the point is this isn't the government. There's no "banning and suppression" because you can still legall

Where you, and ever other "Free Speech" person misses the point is this isn't the government. There's no "banning and suppression" because you can still legally host your views yourself. The idea that private companies are required to distribute your speech is like implying freedom of the press means that any article you write NYT is required to print. Turns out, most companies don't want to be associated with Nazis; shocking I know. And, as Nazis are not a protected class in the United States, it's fully within their rights not to do business with them. It's easy to say "let's all support a version of free speech that's never existed because we believe in the ideology" when these groups aren't targeting you. It's a bitter pill to swallow if you happen to be Jewish, Black, etc.

xaa 9y ago
This viewpoint confuses the legal meaning of the First Amendment, which indeed only applies to the government, with its rationale. The rationale is the theory that having a diversity of viewpoints, including some that are dangerous or repugnant, is the best approach towards a robust civil society and intellectual growth. If you disagree with something you hear or read, you can ignore it, or you can criticize it, but banning speech causes two undesirable outcomes: 1) The speech will continue anyway, but not in the public eye, where it can be criticized 2) The popularity of an idea is different from the correctness of an idea. It has happened many times that an unpopular or even heretical idea has turned out to be right. Almost certainly these people are no Galileo. But this approach to free speech is intended to protect the Galileos of the world. It should be kept in mind that talk of revolution in the U.S. during the late 1700s would have been considered extremely dangerous and repugnant by many as well.
- lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
  This is historical revisionism in the extreme. That rationale is younger than a good number of people on this board, not the golden ideal in the minds of the founders. You're literally posting to a forumn where certain speech is moderated; it's because of that moderation that you post here, otherwise it would be a cesspool of off topic memes and spam (a la /r/programming et al). A private company or even a cabal of private companies cannot ban speech. Nothing is stopping anyone from hosting which ever content they'd like. You are not entitled to the walled garden that Google and others insist is "The Internet". Private businesses and lay people not wanting to do business with you is fundamentally different from official prosecution. I will gladly fight for any group's protection from governmental over reach; I can't even begin to understand the rational behind choosing "private businesses can't have moderation" as the hill you choose to die on.
  - xaa 9y ago
    Hmm, perhaps instead of "rationale", I should have said "philosophy behind" the 1st Amendment. Obviously the 1st Amendment is not directly intended to cover entities other than the government. But almost everything in the Bill of Rights is essentially intended to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority, whose representative is the government. It is not necessary to protect popular views, from either the government or from others. This philosophy is as old as the university and modern science. It is certainly no younger than the "free speech, but not consequences" argument, which I read as a thinly-veiled way to threaten unpopular views with unspecified "consequences". > "private businesses can't have moderation" I wasn't arguing that they can't. Only that it can be unwise and a net negative for our society for them to choose to do so. I would draw a distinction between trolling/spam and someone honestly espousing an unpopular view. It is true, some kind of filtering is needed, because there's too much information for any individual to absorb. The question is, who (if not me myself) is doing the filtering and what are their incentives? dang's incentives are aligned with mine: good-quality technical discussion, and people aren't blacklisted purely for espousing unpopular views. The incentives of corporations are not. Google, Facebook, and in this instance, Namecheap, are presumably taking these actions to safeguard their image and maximize profit, not to actually make their users maximally informed. There is a conflict of interest here. Finally, I think all this becomes much more important when it comes to political speech, because people have a marked tendency to want to shout down, ignore, misrepresent, or otherwise not engage with political views that make them uncomfortable. Look how the media misrepresented the Damore memo. I take no position on the memo itself, but do assert that people are better off knowing actual arguments from all sides, rather than side A blacklisting side B and then giving strawman representations of what B thinks.
    - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
      See this is where we'll probably never agree. The "all sides" argument, I think, is terribly flawed. There will always "be another side" however there's no guarantee that that side is equally rational or any way valid. That's how you end up with anti-vaxers sitting at the table next to doctors, oil exec sitting next to climate scientists, and intelligent design proponents sitting next to biologists. It's impossible to rationally debate ideas with no rational foundation; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence not calls to physical violence or pronouncements of superiority. A world in which "whites are the master race" is just an unpopular view that we should welcome as opposed to an unfounded assertion backed by no evidence is not a world in which any "net positive" has been added to society. When the burden is put on rational people to offer counter arguments as opposed to the extremists to offer evidence rationality loses every time; just look to vaccines and climate change.
tweedledee 9y ago
I'm not saying it's illegal to kick them off. I'm suggesting it's bad tactics and will make them stronger. I would prefer we could all go back to ignoring them. I know that that isn't going to happen but I'm trying my bit to help.
- Clubber 9y ago
  You are absolutely correct. The smartest thing the US citizenry could have done is ignore it, but the US citizenry isn't known for doing smart things collectively. Now everyone knows who they are. They've gotten so much press, it's probably would have cost millions to get that much exposure. I suspect they would have doubled or tripled or more their followers and might actually become a real movement. Now it's a first amendment issue, so people who wouldn't normally associate with these sorts of people are forced to defend their right to say something, because collectively, we've decided it's ok to try to squelch them. I mean I'd be hard pressed to pick a worse possible reaction if we want to marginalize this type of thought. See, even calling them Nazis is stupid. They are nowhere as dangerous as Nazis. Nazis conquered Europe in what? A year? Killed 6 million Jews, etc. 12 million Russians. These people are pissed off at life and where they are, and are looking for an excuse that doesn't involve self examination of their own choices. But they sure as hell ain't Nazis.
- lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
  They have the support of the President of the United States. It's naive to the extreme to say "ignore them and they'll go away". As Cloudflare learned, if you let them stay they'll point to you as and claim you as a supporter which is bad for business. Because again, I feel like we forget, these are literal Nazis.
la6470 9y ago
Yep!!!

xaa 9y ago

This viewpoint confuses the legal meaning of the First Amendment, which indeed only applies to the government, with its rationale. The rationale is the theory that having a diversity of viewpoints, including some that are dangerous or repugnant, is the best approach towards a robust civil society and intellectual growth. If you disagree with something you hear or read, you can ignore it, or you can criticize it, but banning speech causes two undesirable outcomes: 1) The speech will continue anyway, but not in the public eye, where it can be criticized 2) The popularity of an idea is different from the correctness of an idea. It has happened many times that an unpopular or even heretical idea has turned out to be right. Almost certainly these people are no Galileo. But this approach to free speech is intended to protect the Galileos of the world. It should be kept in mind that talk of revolution in the U.S. during the late 1700s would have been considered extremely dangerous and repugnant by many as well.

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
This is historical revisionism in the extreme. That rationale is younger than a good number of people on this board, not the golden ideal in the minds of the founders. You're literally posting to a forumn where certain speech is moderated; it's because of that moderation that you post here, otherwise it would be a cesspool of off topic memes and spam (a la /r/programming et al). A private company or even a cabal of private companies cannot ban speech. Nothing is stopping anyone from hosting which ever content they'd like. You are not entitled to the walled garden that Google and others insist is "The Internet". Private businesses and lay people not wanting to do business with you is fundamentally different from official prosecution. I will gladly fight for any group's protection from governmental over reach; I can't even begin to understand the rational behind choosing "private businesses can't have moderation" as the hill you choose to die on.
- xaa 9y ago
  Hmm, perhaps instead of "rationale", I should have said "philosophy behind" the 1st Amendment. Obviously the 1st Amendment is not directly intended to cover entities other than the government. But almost everything in the Bill of Rights is essentially intended to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority, whose representative is the government. It is not necessary to protect popular views, from either the government or from others. This philosophy is as old as the university and modern science. It is certainly no younger than the "free speech, but not consequences" argument, which I read as a thinly-veiled way to threaten unpopular views with unspecified "consequences". > "private businesses can't have moderation" I wasn't arguing that they can't. Only that it can be unwise and a net negative for our society for them to choose to do so. I would draw a distinction between trolling/spam and someone honestly espousing an unpopular view. It is true, some kind of filtering is needed, because there's too much information for any individual to absorb. The question is, who (if not me myself) is doing the filtering and what are their incentives? dang's incentives are aligned with mine: good-quality technical discussion, and people aren't blacklisted purely for espousing unpopular views. The incentives of corporations are not. Google, Facebook, and in this instance, Namecheap, are presumably taking these actions to safeguard their image and maximize profit, not to actually make their users maximally informed. There is a conflict of interest here. Finally, I think all this becomes much more important when it comes to political speech, because people have a marked tendency to want to shout down, ignore, misrepresent, or otherwise not engage with political views that make them uncomfortable. Look how the media misrepresented the Damore memo. I take no position on the memo itself, but do assert that people are better off knowing actual arguments from all sides, rather than side A blacklisting side B and then giving strawman representations of what B thinks.
  - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
    See this is where we'll probably never agree. The "all sides" argument, I think, is terribly flawed. There will always "be another side" however there's no guarantee that that side is equally rational or any way valid. That's how you end up with anti-vaxers sitting at the table next to doctors, oil exec sitting next to climate scientists, and intelligent design proponents sitting next to biologists. It's impossible to rationally debate ideas with no rational foundation; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence not calls to physical violence or pronouncements of superiority. A world in which "whites are the master race" is just an unpopular view that we should welcome as opposed to an unfounded assertion backed by no evidence is not a world in which any "net positive" has been added to society. When the burden is put on rational people to offer counter arguments as opposed to the extremists to offer evidence rationality loses every time; just look to vaccines and climate change.

tweedledee 9y ago

I'm not saying it's illegal to kick them off. I'm suggesting it's bad tactics and will make them stronger. I would prefer we could all go back to ignoring them. I know that that isn't going to happen but I'm trying my bit to help.

Clubber 9y ago
You are absolutely correct. The smartest thing the US citizenry could have done is ignore it, but the US citizenry isn't known for doing smart things collectively. Now everyone knows who they are. They've gotten so much press, it's probably would have cost millions to get that much exposure. I suspect they would have doubled or tripled or more their followers and might actually become a real movement. Now it's a first amendment issue, so people who wouldn't normally associate with these sorts of people are forced to defend their right to say something, because collectively, we've decided it's ok to try to squelch them. I mean I'd be hard pressed to pick a worse possible reaction if we want to marginalize this type of thought. See, even calling them Nazis is stupid. They are nowhere as dangerous as Nazis. Nazis conquered Europe in what? A year? Killed 6 million Jews, etc. 12 million Russians. These people are pissed off at life and where they are, and are looking for an excuse that doesn't involve self examination of their own choices. But they sure as hell ain't Nazis.
lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
They have the support of the President of the United States. It's naive to the extreme to say "ignore them and they'll go away". As Cloudflare learned, if you let them stay they'll point to you as and claim you as a supporter which is bad for business. Because again, I feel like we forget, these are literal Nazis.

la6470 9y ago

Yep!!!