5 ms·

> support the Nazis right to express themselves I'm not particularly fussed over nazism getting a raw deal in the free speech debate. It's not the 'thin end of

by vacri 9y ago

> support the Nazis right to express themselves I'm not particularly fussed over nazism getting a raw deal in the free speech debate. It's not the 'thin end of the wedge' when an ideology that caused the deaths of over 50M people in a mere half-decade is verboten. That's not a particularly 'slippery slope' to slide down. Nazism has had its run, and it proved to be the single worst ideology in the history of humankind. If someone thinks that perhaps the Nazis had some good ideas, fine, argue for those... but grab a new name. After all, if it's the ideas that matter, then losing the branding shouldn't be a problem.

KGIII 9y ago
Unless they were making credible threats, I don't really care. If they were making credible threats, that's a matter for the courts - and shouldn't (in my opinion) be a matter for Google to decide. Not with domain names, no. They took property, without judicial oversight. They can get their domain back after sixty days, if they can find a new registrar. I don't like what they had to say, and I'm not white so they pretty much hate me, but the freedom of expression extends to even stupid people. Freedom of speech shouldn't be about just the absolute barest considerations of legal protections, it should be a social ideal. Yeah, the Nazis hate me. Yeah, they pretty much suck in every way. I kinda like being able to say they suck and I really don't care that they think the same about me. I care when it becomes a credible threat. Well, slander is not acceptable so long as truth is an assertive defense. We are probably not going to agree about this. That's okay, I know I hold a very strong view. It doesn't bother me that they speak. It just makes them easier to identify.
- mirimir 9y ago
  > If they were making credible threats, that's a matter for the courts - and shouldn't (in my opinion) be a matter for Google to decide. That is, in my opinion, the key point.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    It is my sincere hope that Americans will at some point realize that they are the only ones that feel this way. Almost everyone else on the planet feels strongly that at least some opinions should be repressed. These days it's mostly "racist" views, which may or may not actually be racist. For instance, the old leftist view of isolationism and protectionism as a way to defend workers rights worldwide is repressed as racist because it advocates closed borders (for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with ethnic or religious differences, but to prevent worker competition from crushing wages). But various ideas that have somehow acquired protected status are being censor-protected against criticism as well. From religions, quite a few individuals, and even events. In some ways quite successfully. Since I regularly stay in Paris, for instance, I can tell you that the constant riots and car burnings that were reported for a short while in 2011 are still going strong and it is almost absurdly normal for riots to occur in all the large cities in France, with constant violence, victims and all you'd expect from riots, except it's now a constant part of life. I even hear that the same happens in large neighboring cities, like Brussels. It's beyond absurd how this is reported, reminiscent of how anti-government actions are reported in places like the middle east or Africa. The issue is that, as absurd as it sounds, there is a large-scale mostly-immigrant uprising against the French state constantly happening in France. Reading French or international press, I find this idea absurd, and yet, you can easily go out and see this happen near where I normally stay (as long as you're male). But this is obviously the new normal, and it mostly makes you wonder what is happening. The government, for it's part, has actually published that they're indeed doing this. Again, it's utterly surreal that this is normal in Western Europe.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      You mentioned that only Americans felt this way. I've traveled and, I kind of agree - as a generic statement. A very generic statement. (Not even all Americans feel this way and some individuals elsewhere think this way.) My question is, I can't tell what your views are by your post. I tried, and I can't really tell. I can't truly infer them, either. So, do you support this way of thinking? What are your personal views on the freedom of expression? For those not from the area, the ACLU has gone to bat to ensure that people representing the Nazi Party (of America, I think) had the right to march down predominately Jewish neighborhood roads. I don't think it is clear, but I really don't like Nazis. I do, however, like the freedoms to speak, assemble, and believe - I like those more than I dislike Nazis. (This is kind of hard to articulate.)
- vacri 9y ago
  > and shouldn't (in my opinion) be a matter for Google to decide ... why in hell not? Google is not a government-supplied service. They're a private company. How can you be for blanket freedom of speech, yet restrict a private party from expressing themselves? Google already curates your experience for you - see the 'google bubble'. How come blanket-freedom-of-speech advocates don't complain about that? It's not like Google's decisions jail anyone or impound cars or similar. For that matter, why don't blanket-freedom-of-speech advocates complain about Apple's 'walled garden'? > that's a matter for the courts That's a terrible way to go for social justice as a first port-of-call. The courts are not particularly available for poor or uneducated people. And in the US, public defenders have to be extremely careful about not touching political cases or they can lose their funding. The courts are overloaded, slow, expensive, time-consuming, confusing, and often enough don't 'get it right'.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    They deprived them of property without due process. I'm not okay with that. Justice, social or not, is a matter for the courts. Otherwise, it's known as vigilante justice. Freedom of expression is more than just a matter of meeting the barest legal requirements. It's an ideal, to be aspired to and inspired by. Google didn't just curate content they linked or hosted, they took a domain name away without due process. It's obvious that you're okay with that. I'm not.
    - vacri 9y ago
      What's the 'due process' for cancelling a domain registration?
      - KGIII 9y ago
        None. That's the problem.
        vacri 9y ago
        Let's wrap some context around the situation here. Party X is an organisation that proudly boasts about its hatefulness, misery-spreading activities, and sticking its finger in the eye of 'the establishment'. They approach one of the biggest members of 'the establishment', corporation Y, for services. For the first half of corporation Y's existence, they famously ran under the slogan "don't be evil". Party X then willingly signs on to a business relationship with corp Y, who has terms of service that have an entire line item stating that they can reject applications at corp Y's sole discretion. Right here, this is your due process. Corp Y then exercises their rights as per the ToS - they didn't lean on anyone (which is what this thread was originally about), they were exercising the rights granted to them by the business contract. Party X agreed to these terms. Party X is at fault here for not doing their due diligence with their business partners - something they really should have paid attention to, given their situation at the time. Regarding the 60 days, this is not corp Y applying extrajudicial punishment. It's a matter of 'falling between the cracks'. ICANN rules set this 60 days[1], not corp Y, and this 60-day limitation info is also available in the ToS. Google offered a service with terms, Stormer accepted it, Google exercised their rights as per the terms, and the 60 days is an accidental by-product of interaction with the overseeing body's rules, not a 'fuck you' from Google. A marker of a chilling dystopian future, this domain cancellation ain't. [1] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/text-2012-02-25-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/text-2012-02-25-en
tryingagainbro 9y ago
It's not the 'thin end of the wedge' when an ideology that caused the deaths of over 50M people in a mere half-decade is verboten. How many deaths were caused by religion? People simply believing that God plainly told them to do certain things (It's God's will). Shall we ban "climate deniers" too? Imagine the death from climate change? Animal rights activists? slippery slope. Been dealt with it by SCOTUS perfectly
- vacri 9y ago
  I think you should follow your handle.
notyourday 9y ago
Umm.. So why are we allowing pro-communism advocacy?
- RightMillennial 9y ago
  It's not like the Soviet Union and Communist China didn't commit mass killings which likely exceeded the number of deaths caused by Nazi Germany.
- vacri 9y ago
  Can you please link me to some examples of violent pro-communist rallies in the US? Besides, did you miss the whole McCarthyism thing in the '50s in your history class in school? And even here on HN, there are plenty of people who use the term 'socialist' as a pejorative. Note also that communism is an ideology that is broader than the Soviets or the Chinese of the 50s and 60s. Modern-day communist activists don't go around trying to relive the 'glory days' of that era; they don't wave the hammer-and-sickle flag. As I said elsewhere, if you think that the ideas of the nazis are worth pursuing, then argue for the ideas. Just get a new name. After all, if it really is the ideas that are important rather than the branding, they should stand on their own. You can argue for fascism without specifically identifying with the Nazis, just like you can argue for communism without specifically identifying with the Soviets.
  - RightMillennial 9y ago
    I think @notyourday was saying that Communism has a bad track record similar to Nazism. So if Nazis do not get freedom of speech, then neither should Communists. As for modern-day, pro-Communist activists being violent you need look no further than Antifa. According to the Washington Post, Antifa consists of "predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists" [1]. While Antifa is not exclusively Communist, a large portion describe themselves as such. And they are violent regardless of their self-justification: the Atlantic, "The Rise of the Violent Left" [2]; BBC, "Antifa: Left-wing militants on the rise" [3]; Politico, "FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks" [4]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/16/who-are-the-antifa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-ris... [3] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40930831 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40930831 [4] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesvi...

by vacri 9y ago

KGIII 9y ago

Unless they were making credible threats, I don't really care. If they were making credible threats, that's a matter for the courts - and shouldn't (in my opinion) be a matter for Google to decide. Not with domain names, no. They took property, without judicial oversight. They can get their domain back after sixty days, if they can find a new registrar. I don't like what they had to say, and I'm not white so they pretty much hate me, but the freedom of expression extends to even stupid people. Freedom of speech shouldn't be about just the absolute barest considerations of legal protections, it should be a social ideal. Yeah, the Nazis hate me. Yeah, they pretty much suck in every way. I kinda like being able to say they suck and I really don't care that they think the same about me. I care when it becomes a credible threat. Well, slander is not acceptable so long as truth is an assertive defense. We are probably not going to agree about this. That's okay, I know I hold a very strong view. It doesn't bother me that they speak. It just makes them easier to identify.

mirimir 9y ago
> If they were making credible threats, that's a matter for the courts - and shouldn't (in my opinion) be a matter for Google to decide. That is, in my opinion, the key point.
- candiodari 9y ago
  It is my sincere hope that Americans will at some point realize that they are the only ones that feel this way. Almost everyone else on the planet feels strongly that at least some opinions should be repressed. These days it's mostly "racist" views, which may or may not actually be racist. For instance, the old leftist view of isolationism and protectionism as a way to defend workers rights worldwide is repressed as racist because it advocates closed borders (for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with ethnic or religious differences, but to prevent worker competition from crushing wages). But various ideas that have somehow acquired protected status are being censor-protected against criticism as well. From religions, quite a few individuals, and even events. In some ways quite successfully. Since I regularly stay in Paris, for instance, I can tell you that the constant riots and car burnings that were reported for a short while in 2011 are still going strong and it is almost absurdly normal for riots to occur in all the large cities in France, with constant violence, victims and all you'd expect from riots, except it's now a constant part of life. I even hear that the same happens in large neighboring cities, like Brussels. It's beyond absurd how this is reported, reminiscent of how anti-government actions are reported in places like the middle east or Africa. The issue is that, as absurd as it sounds, there is a large-scale mostly-immigrant uprising against the French state constantly happening in France. Reading French or international press, I find this idea absurd, and yet, you can easily go out and see this happen near where I normally stay (as long as you're male). But this is obviously the new normal, and it mostly makes you wonder what is happening. The government, for it's part, has actually published that they're indeed doing this. Again, it's utterly surreal that this is normal in Western Europe.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    You mentioned that only Americans felt this way. I've traveled and, I kind of agree - as a generic statement. A very generic statement. (Not even all Americans feel this way and some individuals elsewhere think this way.) My question is, I can't tell what your views are by your post. I tried, and I can't really tell. I can't truly infer them, either. So, do you support this way of thinking? What are your personal views on the freedom of expression? For those not from the area, the ACLU has gone to bat to ensure that people representing the Nazi Party (of America, I think) had the right to march down predominately Jewish neighborhood roads. I don't think it is clear, but I really don't like Nazis. I do, however, like the freedoms to speak, assemble, and believe - I like those more than I dislike Nazis. (This is kind of hard to articulate.)
vacri 9y ago
> and shouldn't (in my opinion) be a matter for Google to decide ... why in hell not? Google is not a government-supplied service. They're a private company. How can you be for blanket freedom of speech, yet restrict a private party from expressing themselves? Google already curates your experience for you - see the 'google bubble'. How come blanket-freedom-of-speech advocates don't complain about that? It's not like Google's decisions jail anyone or impound cars or similar. For that matter, why don't blanket-freedom-of-speech advocates complain about Apple's 'walled garden'? > that's a matter for the courts That's a terrible way to go for social justice as a first port-of-call. The courts are not particularly available for poor or uneducated people. And in the US, public defenders have to be extremely careful about not touching political cases or they can lose their funding. The courts are overloaded, slow, expensive, time-consuming, confusing, and often enough don't 'get it right'.
- KGIII 9y ago
  They deprived them of property without due process. I'm not okay with that. Justice, social or not, is a matter for the courts. Otherwise, it's known as vigilante justice. Freedom of expression is more than just a matter of meeting the barest legal requirements. It's an ideal, to be aspired to and inspired by. Google didn't just curate content they linked or hosted, they took a domain name away without due process. It's obvious that you're okay with that. I'm not.
  - vacri 9y ago
    What's the 'due process' for cancelling a domain registration?
    - KGIII 9y ago
      None. That's the problem.
      - vacri 9y ago
        Let's wrap some context around the situation here. Party X is an organisation that proudly boasts about its hatefulness, misery-spreading activities, and sticking its finger in the eye of 'the establishment'. They approach one of the biggest members of 'the establishment', corporation Y, for services. For the first half of corporation Y's existence, they famously ran under the slogan "don't be evil". Party X then willingly signs on to a business relationship with corp Y, who has terms of service that have an entire line item stating that they can reject applications at corp Y's sole discretion. Right here, this is your due process. Corp Y then exercises their rights as per the ToS - they didn't lean on anyone (which is what this thread was originally about), they were exercising the rights granted to them by the business contract. Party X agreed to these terms. Party X is at fault here for not doing their due diligence with their business partners - something they really should have paid attention to, given their situation at the time. Regarding the 60 days, this is not corp Y applying extrajudicial punishment. It's a matter of 'falling between the cracks'. ICANN rules set this 60 days[1], not corp Y, and this 60-day limitation info is also available in the ToS. Google offered a service with terms, Stormer accepted it, Google exercised their rights as per the terms, and the 60 days is an accidental by-product of interaction with the overseeing body's rules, not a 'fuck you' from Google. A marker of a chilling dystopian future, this domain cancellation ain't. [1] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/text-2012-02-25-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/text-2012-02-25-en

tryingagainbro 9y ago

It's not the 'thin end of the wedge' when an ideology that caused the deaths of over 50M people in a mere half-decade is verboten. How many deaths were caused by religion? People simply believing that God plainly told them to do certain things (It's God's will). Shall we ban "climate deniers" too? Imagine the death from climate change? Animal rights activists? slippery slope. Been dealt with it by SCOTUS perfectly

vacri 9y ago
I think you should follow your handle.

notyourday 9y ago

Umm.. So why are we allowing pro-communism advocacy?

RightMillennial 9y ago
It's not like the Soviet Union and Communist China didn't commit mass killings which likely exceeded the number of deaths caused by Nazi Germany.
vacri 9y ago
Can you please link me to some examples of violent pro-communist rallies in the US? Besides, did you miss the whole McCarthyism thing in the '50s in your history class in school? And even here on HN, there are plenty of people who use the term 'socialist' as a pejorative. Note also that communism is an ideology that is broader than the Soviets or the Chinese of the 50s and 60s. Modern-day communist activists don't go around trying to relive the 'glory days' of that era; they don't wave the hammer-and-sickle flag. As I said elsewhere, if you think that the ideas of the nazis are worth pursuing, then argue for the ideas. Just get a new name. After all, if it really is the ideas that are important rather than the branding, they should stand on their own. You can argue for fascism without specifically identifying with the Nazis, just like you can argue for communism without specifically identifying with the Soviets.
- RightMillennial 9y ago
  I think @notyourday was saying that Communism has a bad track record similar to Nazism. So if Nazis do not get freedom of speech, then neither should Communists. As for modern-day, pro-Communist activists being violent you need look no further than Antifa. According to the Washington Post, Antifa consists of "predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists" [1]. While Antifa is not exclusively Communist, a large portion describe themselves as such. And they are violent regardless of their self-justification: the Atlantic, "The Rise of the Violent Left" [2]; BBC, "Antifa: Left-wing militants on the rise" [3]; Politico, "FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks" [4]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/16/who-are-the-antifa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-ris... [3] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40930831 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40930831 [4] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesvi...