15 ms·

Did you ever watch 12 Angry Men? There's a scene in that movie where an unabashedly racist man is making his point as loudly and angrily as he can. One by one,

Did you ever watch 12 Angry Men? There's a scene in that movie where an unabashedly racist man is making his point as loudly and angrily as he can. One by one, all the others in the room turn their backs on him. When only one man is left, that man has a short message for the racist: "Sit down, and don't open your mouth again while I'm here." Nobody puts him in jail. Nobody takes away his right to make a living or his children or his home. They just send a clear message: Don't bring that sort of thing around here. Don't bring it around us. There's no point in engaging in a dialogue with that person. Sure, you allow them to speak, in that you don't respond to that speech with violence or prosecution. But you don't have to make room for it. We can't and shouldn't have the government stepping in to say what speech is or is not allowed. And in the United States, we don't. Russia is another matter, but as the post says, the idea that that means every Russian person or company is OK with things this awful is not true. 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. So I don't see this as scary, at all. I see it as a relief. I see it as a free society working the way it's supposed to, with some caveats. (I still don't love how much power large corporate entities have, but not for this reason, exactly.) And I think there are a lot of people out there whose lives are safer because of it. Edit: For people who haven't seen it, here's the scene I reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXlHKTPfLVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXlHKTPfLVA

bergenty 4y ago
- borski 4y ago
  Have you ever been on a jury? That’s pretty much exactly how it works, aside from the fact that overt racists usually don’t make it onto the panel.
- wavefunction 4y ago
  It seems there's a distinct historical lack of lynching of violent racists and bigots. They appear to be the perpetrators of the vast majority of lynchings. Where "lynching" is not the getting rejected by an internet service provider but getting dragged by some violent thugs to be leered at in your final moments as you struggle and choke to death gasping for air for no reason at all. To equate the two is to insult the rest of us and I, for one, despise being insulted.
- ivraatiems 4y ago
  Gets riled up and does a lynching of... the white person? I'm not following you.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
mikl 4y ago
DDoS’ing is quite different from just turning your back on someone. It’s more akin to following someone around with a megaphone and shouting over everything they say so no one can hear them. Sure, you might celebrate when that’s done to someone you dislike, but a lot less appealing if you imagine it done to a cause you agree with.
- akira2501 4y ago
  Also, DDoS is a crime. Saying racist things isn't. We shouldn't blur the line here.
  - ivraatiems 4y ago
    Companies are not prosecutors of crimes. They're entities acting in a society. The whole point of my comment is that there is already a clear line and by removing Kiwi Farms from circulation this way, rather than by government edict, we are observing it.
  - borski 4y ago
    Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group. Kiwi Farms absolutely incited imminent criminal activity (harassment, among other things) and made lots of specific threats against specifically targeted people and groups. This is a false equivalence.
    - akira2501 4y ago
      > when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group Aren't these already crimes? Isn't the "hate crime" charge just a way to enhance the sentencing for someone thus convicted? And isn't the original charge required for this enhancement? Thus, mere "hate speech" in and of itself cannot be a crime? > Kiwi Farms absolutely incited imminent criminal activity According to you and some twitter threads. I'm not comfortable accepting this prima facie, though. > This is a false equivalence. Does Section 230 not apply to Kiwi Farms? Is Kiwi Farms actually guilty of crimes here, or is it specific forum users? If so, why are there no efforts to go after the users but just go directly to banning the entire site?
ChicagoDave 4y ago
I don't know the entire history here, but my understanding is that KF was a forum where doxing and swatting was openly pervasive. Sounds like a perfect example of society holding a site accountable and producing the correct outcome. There was no government involved, so it's not a "free speech" issue. I always talk about the wild west of the late 90's when the Internet was brand new. My colleagues and I all talked about the myriad sketchy ways we could make money. We chose not to. It's as simple as that. If you want to develop something you think is beneficial to society, don't support bad behavior and certainly not dangerous or illegal behavior. This idea that a "dangerous idea" should somehow be a protected normality is ridiculous. Society has limits. Get used to it.
- philippejara 4y ago
  Well, doxing by public means seemed to be pretty open and shut yes, but while there are accusations galore of swatting I'm yet to see a single piece of evidence of them being to blame for it, and on paper they actively prohibit illegal things of that sort, for whatever that's worth. Hell the obvious false flag on the congresswomen straight up saying it was a specific user on the forum should be enough to cast suspicions on all these accusations as far as I'm concerned and at least expect some proof, some archive, something.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  - sonofhans 4y ago
    > Doxing, as in compiling public information about people on the internet did happen, but … There’s no “but” here. This is a common talking point defending this forum — “at least they didn’t explicitly do something worse” — but doxxing is unethical and illegal. Period. This forum encouraged, enabled, and glorified it. > the forums were not about swatting and doing so is against the spirit and the rules of the forums. That said if someone was swatted it is fair game for that event to be documented on the forums. This is bullshit designed to evade responsibility with a wink and a nod. The forum provides the means and glorifies the result, but believes that its hands are clean because they don’t explicitly setup a SWAT autodialer. > In the case of the internet where most of it is privately owned it will require the companies and individuals to protect freedom of speech to have freedom of speech on the internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
waffle_ss 4y ago
> And in the United States, we don't We don't? Didn't Zuckerberg just admit on Joe Rogan that during the last election all the major media companies were briefed by feds that were was a big "misinformation" news piece incoming, so that when the Hunter Biden laptop story finally dropped, they all censored it, sight unseen? Therefore it seems all the big social media tech companies have no problem with rubberstamping gov't requests for censorship. They almost made it glaringly obvious when they tried to roll out their Disinformation Governance Board, which fell flat.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  And, as it turned out, the Hunter Biden laptop story was 100% right wing bullshit, so it was the right thing to do. Fancy that!
  - richbell 4y ago
    The content was 100% real, though the "I found this laptop and it happened to belong to Hunter Biden" story was obviously a pretense to release content that had been obtained illegaly — likely from a hostile foreign state. I guess it wouldn't have looked good if Rudy Guliani came out and said "the Kremelin gave me compromising videos of Joe Biden's son".
    - deanCommie 4y ago
      Which is what makes it a "misinformation" campaign. Folks on this site have a childishly simple view on information and propaganda. I've heard many people say if it's true it can't have an agenda. But what you say is just as important as what you DON'T say. When the Russians hacked both the DNC and the RNC and leaked only the DNC emails to WikiLeaks who gladly posted them (because to be fair Clinton and Obama wanted Assange's head), and used the RNC info to blackmail Republicans, that's a misinformation campaign. Doesn't matter if all the emails were true.
  - waffle_ss 4y ago
    It's far more real than the so-called "Steele dossier" that the media made hay with for years, unsuppressed by the professional-managerial class. If you're in favor of suppressing your political opponents' speech rights that's fine I guess, just don't lecture me about "our democracy."
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
I regret that I have but one upvote to give. Well said.
systemvoltage 4y ago
I've seen 12 Angry Men it was impressive when I was in highschool, but now it seems like there were a lot of aspects of it which had holes. Protagonists were on the right, but they needed to do more, it isn't super convincing to me.
serf 4y ago
>Nobody puts him in jail. Nobody takes away his right to make a living or his children or his home. They just send a clear message: Don't bring that sort of thing around here. Don't bring it around us. There's no point in engaging in a dialogue with that person. the problem with this allegory is that in the movie the 12 jurors are also trying to associate and cooperate due to their need to re-acquire their own freedom. They must work together in order to create a verdict and avoid being held sequestered indefinitely. They turn their back primarily due to a self-interest in escape, alongside the moral implications. The other problem with that allegory within this comparison is that the '12 angry men' in this scenario are mega-conglomerates that label themselves as public infrastructure yet have no transparency or public accountability like a government entity might in that position. The burden of transparency and government oversight is supposed to be bundled atop the premise of being or becoming a public infrastructural entity; if not then whatever conglomerate is making private decisions on behalf of the public's interests will continue to make self-important decisions until they reach a point of total corruption and public disservice.
- freeopinion 4y ago
  As if human beings have transparency? Why does that matter? People don't have to explain themselves any more than corporations do. Government entities don't have transparency either. When the FCC or SEC or whoever takes some action, we don't know how may of their employees agree with that action. One administration spend years fashioning the TPP or Paris accords or Iranian agreements and the next administration can pull out a year later.
dabbledash 4y ago
I think that would be more analogous to a situation where KF's traffic dwindles to nothing because no one wants to visit. DDoS is more of a heckler's veto.
dxuh 4y ago
People aren't just ignoring Kiwi Farms and letting them know that no one likes them, people are shooting them down (with DDoS attacks). And if they make use of services that are intended to prevent that, people shout these services down until they comply. How is that fundamentally different from what Kiwi Farms was doing itself? If null kills themselves, are you even? Is the anti Kiwi Farms crowd just as bad as Kiwi Farms? Or will it be fine if he was a bad person? What if the people on Kiwi Farms thought the people they were harassing are bad people? I think this is yet again another example of a group of people thinking that something bad is not bad if it happens to the right people and another group thinking that something bad is bad no matter who does it. I am firmly in the latter group and to me Kiwi Farms and the people that kept harassing Cloudflare all look like bloodthirsty psychopaths with the difference being that the Kiwi Farmers knew they were disgusting and horrible and the others thinking they are brave saviors.
phatfish 4y ago
smsm42 4y ago
> Nobody puts him in jail. Nobody takes away his right to make a living or his children or his home We're way, way past that standard. We're way past when ACLU was defending Nazi's right to speak and were proud of it. Nobody would even think about doing this now. In fact, if you defend a "wrong" client as a lawyer, you may lose your whole career now and become unperson among your peers. If you say a wrong thing publicly, your right to make a living will very likely be taken away, and your physical security would be in serious danger. Your home - if you can keep it while being denied income - surely. But in some countries they government also may lock your bank accounts. Hope you don't have a mortgage and have enough cash stashed to pay your utility bills, because otherwise your house is going bye-bye. As for jail, no, the US is not there yet. Other countries on the West already very much so, so I wonder for how long that one would hold. After all, the government is already talking about a "clear and present danger" from their political opponents - and this is not a random set of words. This is the legal standard that until 1969 was being used to jail people for saying wrong things. So we may be just one SCOTUS ruling away from going back there. Current SCOTUS may not be willing to do it, but judges are retiring, they are mortal, and then there's talk about court packing... The ice is very thin.
- ngetchell 4y ago
  The ACLU would fight for the Nazi marches against the government. These are private companies adjusting their priorities as a result of other people using their free speech rights.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    Would they? I don't think they would any more. Any recent examples? > as a result of other people using their free speech rights. Running a DDoS is really stretching the definition of "using their free speech rights", I think. But firing you from a job or closing your bank account for saying wrong things is "private companies adjusting their priorities" too. I wonder how long you could make a living if you can't use banking services, or phone services, or internet services - all of which are run by private companies? How long it would be before CPS shows at you door to take your children - because private utility companies refused to serve you and it's not safe for them to be there anymore? You can take that "private companies adjusting their priorities" pretty far. If you think in this situation you still have free speech because you can still stand on a public square and yell into the sky - you definition of freedom of speech is flawed, and honestly, pretty useless in practice.
istinetz 4y ago
>Sure, you allow them to speak, in that you don't respond to that speech with violence or prosecution. But you don't have to make room for it. >"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?
aaron695 4y ago
amadeuspagel 4y ago
Yeah, kicking a website off the internet is just like not listening to racist rants.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
verisimilitudes 4y ago
What happens when enough people realize coexistence won't be permitted? He made his own forum, and a relentless campaign has conspired to bring it down. We can't have freedom of speech if only one side gets to communicate and also has access to all of the help it could ever need. Without freedom of speech, we eventually won't have peace.
ironcurtain 4y ago
You are projecting a scene from a movie to an unrelated business issue.

bergenty 4y ago

borski 4y ago
Have you ever been on a jury? That’s pretty much exactly how it works, aside from the fact that overt racists usually don’t make it onto the panel.
wavefunction 4y ago
It seems there's a distinct historical lack of lynching of violent racists and bigots. They appear to be the perpetrators of the vast majority of lynchings. Where "lynching" is not the getting rejected by an internet service provider but getting dragged by some violent thugs to be leered at in your final moments as you struggle and choke to death gasping for air for no reason at all. To equate the two is to insult the rest of us and I, for one, despise being insulted.
ivraatiems 4y ago
Gets riled up and does a lynching of... the white person? I'm not following you.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

mikl 4y ago

DDoS’ing is quite different from just turning your back on someone. It’s more akin to following someone around with a megaphone and shouting over everything they say so no one can hear them. Sure, you might celebrate when that’s done to someone you dislike, but a lot less appealing if you imagine it done to a cause you agree with.

akira2501 4y ago
Also, DDoS is a crime. Saying racist things isn't. We shouldn't blur the line here.
- ivraatiems 4y ago
  Companies are not prosecutors of crimes. They're entities acting in a society. The whole point of my comment is that there is already a clear line and by removing Kiwi Farms from circulation this way, rather than by government edict, we are observing it.
- borski 4y ago
  Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group. Kiwi Farms absolutely incited imminent criminal activity (harassment, among other things) and made lots of specific threats against specifically targeted people and groups. This is a false equivalence.
  - akira2501 4y ago
    > when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group Aren't these already crimes? Isn't the "hate crime" charge just a way to enhance the sentencing for someone thus convicted? And isn't the original charge required for this enhancement? Thus, mere "hate speech" in and of itself cannot be a crime? > Kiwi Farms absolutely incited imminent criminal activity According to you and some twitter threads. I'm not comfortable accepting this prima facie, though. > This is a false equivalence. Does Section 230 not apply to Kiwi Farms? Is Kiwi Farms actually guilty of crimes here, or is it specific forum users? If so, why are there no efforts to go after the users but just go directly to banning the entire site?

ChicagoDave 4y ago

I don't know the entire history here, but my understanding is that KF was a forum where doxing and swatting was openly pervasive. Sounds like a perfect example of society holding a site accountable and producing the correct outcome. There was no government involved, so it's not a "free speech" issue. I always talk about the wild west of the late 90's when the Internet was brand new. My colleagues and I all talked about the myriad sketchy ways we could make money. We chose not to. It's as simple as that. If you want to develop something you think is beneficial to society, don't support bad behavior and certainly not dangerous or illegal behavior. This idea that a "dangerous idea" should somehow be a protected normality is ridiculous. Society has limits. Get used to it.

philippejara 4y ago
Well, doxing by public means seemed to be pretty open and shut yes, but while there are accusations galore of swatting I'm yet to see a single piece of evidence of them being to blame for it, and on paper they actively prohibit illegal things of that sort, for whatever that's worth. Hell the obvious false flag on the congresswomen straight up saying it was a specific user on the forum should be enough to cast suspicions on all these accusations as far as I'm concerned and at least expect some proof, some archive, something.
charcircuit 4y ago
- sonofhans 4y ago
  > Doxing, as in compiling public information about people on the internet did happen, but … There’s no “but” here. This is a common talking point defending this forum — “at least they didn’t explicitly do something worse” — but doxxing is unethical and illegal. Period. This forum encouraged, enabled, and glorified it. > the forums were not about swatting and doing so is against the spirit and the rules of the forums. That said if someone was swatted it is fair game for that event to be documented on the forums. This is bullshit designed to evade responsibility with a wink and a nod. The forum provides the means and glorifies the result, but believes that its hands are clean because they don’t explicitly setup a SWAT autodialer. > In the case of the internet where most of it is privately owned it will require the companies and individuals to protect freedom of speech to have freedom of speech on the internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

waffle_ss 4y ago

> And in the United States, we don't We don't? Didn't Zuckerberg just admit on Joe Rogan that during the last election all the major media companies were briefed by feds that were was a big "misinformation" news piece incoming, so that when the Hunter Biden laptop story finally dropped, they all censored it, sight unseen? Therefore it seems all the big social media tech companies have no problem with rubberstamping gov't requests for censorship. They almost made it glaringly obvious when they tried to roll out their Disinformation Governance Board, which fell flat.

KerrAvon 4y ago
And, as it turned out, the Hunter Biden laptop story was 100% right wing bullshit, so it was the right thing to do. Fancy that!
- richbell 4y ago
  The content was 100% real, though the "I found this laptop and it happened to belong to Hunter Biden" story was obviously a pretense to release content that had been obtained illegaly — likely from a hostile foreign state. I guess it wouldn't have looked good if Rudy Guliani came out and said "the Kremelin gave me compromising videos of Joe Biden's son".
  - deanCommie 4y ago
    Which is what makes it a "misinformation" campaign. Folks on this site have a childishly simple view on information and propaganda. I've heard many people say if it's true it can't have an agenda. But what you say is just as important as what you DON'T say. When the Russians hacked both the DNC and the RNC and leaked only the DNC emails to WikiLeaks who gladly posted them (because to be fair Clinton and Obama wanted Assange's head), and used the RNC info to blackmail Republicans, that's a misinformation campaign. Doesn't matter if all the emails were true.
- waffle_ss 4y ago
  It's far more real than the so-called "Steele dossier" that the media made hay with for years, unsuppressed by the professional-managerial class. If you're in favor of suppressing your political opponents' speech rights that's fine I guess, just don't lecture me about "our democracy."

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago

I regret that I have but one upvote to give. Well said.

systemvoltage 4y ago

I've seen 12 Angry Men it was impressive when I was in highschool, but now it seems like there were a lot of aspects of it which had holes. Protagonists were on the right, but they needed to do more, it isn't super convincing to me.

serf 4y ago

>Nobody puts him in jail. Nobody takes away his right to make a living or his children or his home. They just send a clear message: Don't bring that sort of thing around here. Don't bring it around us. There's no point in engaging in a dialogue with that person. the problem with this allegory is that in the movie the 12 jurors are also trying to associate and cooperate due to their need to re-acquire their own freedom. They must work together in order to create a verdict and avoid being held sequestered indefinitely. They turn their back primarily due to a self-interest in escape, alongside the moral implications. The other problem with that allegory within this comparison is that the '12 angry men' in this scenario are mega-conglomerates that label themselves as public infrastructure yet have no transparency or public accountability like a government entity might in that position. The burden of transparency and government oversight is supposed to be bundled atop the premise of being or becoming a public infrastructural entity; if not then whatever conglomerate is making private decisions on behalf of the public's interests will continue to make self-important decisions until they reach a point of total corruption and public disservice.

freeopinion 4y ago
As if human beings have transparency? Why does that matter? People don't have to explain themselves any more than corporations do. Government entities don't have transparency either. When the FCC or SEC or whoever takes some action, we don't know how may of their employees agree with that action. One administration spend years fashioning the TPP or Paris accords or Iranian agreements and the next administration can pull out a year later.

dabbledash 4y ago

I think that would be more analogous to a situation where KF's traffic dwindles to nothing because no one wants to visit. DDoS is more of a heckler's veto.

dxuh 4y ago

People aren't just ignoring Kiwi Farms and letting them know that no one likes them, people are shooting them down (with DDoS attacks). And if they make use of services that are intended to prevent that, people shout these services down until they comply. How is that fundamentally different from what Kiwi Farms was doing itself? If null kills themselves, are you even? Is the anti Kiwi Farms crowd just as bad as Kiwi Farms? Or will it be fine if he was a bad person? What if the people on Kiwi Farms thought the people they were harassing are bad people? I think this is yet again another example of a group of people thinking that something bad is not bad if it happens to the right people and another group thinking that something bad is bad no matter who does it. I am firmly in the latter group and to me Kiwi Farms and the people that kept harassing Cloudflare all look like bloodthirsty psychopaths with the difference being that the Kiwi Farmers knew they were disgusting and horrible and the others thinking they are brave saviors.

phatfish 4y ago

smsm42 4y ago

> Nobody puts him in jail. Nobody takes away his right to make a living or his children or his home We're way, way past that standard. We're way past when ACLU was defending Nazi's right to speak and were proud of it. Nobody would even think about doing this now. In fact, if you defend a "wrong" client as a lawyer, you may lose your whole career now and become unperson among your peers. If you say a wrong thing publicly, your right to make a living will very likely be taken away, and your physical security would be in serious danger. Your home - if you can keep it while being denied income - surely. But in some countries they government also may lock your bank accounts. Hope you don't have a mortgage and have enough cash stashed to pay your utility bills, because otherwise your house is going bye-bye. As for jail, no, the US is not there yet. Other countries on the West already very much so, so I wonder for how long that one would hold. After all, the government is already talking about a "clear and present danger" from their political opponents - and this is not a random set of words. This is the legal standard that until 1969 was being used to jail people for saying wrong things. So we may be just one SCOTUS ruling away from going back there. Current SCOTUS may not be willing to do it, but judges are retiring, they are mortal, and then there's talk about court packing... The ice is very thin.

ngetchell 4y ago
The ACLU would fight for the Nazi marches against the government. These are private companies adjusting their priorities as a result of other people using their free speech rights.
- smsm42 4y ago
  Would they? I don't think they would any more. Any recent examples? > as a result of other people using their free speech rights. Running a DDoS is really stretching the definition of "using their free speech rights", I think. But firing you from a job or closing your bank account for saying wrong things is "private companies adjusting their priorities" too. I wonder how long you could make a living if you can't use banking services, or phone services, or internet services - all of which are run by private companies? How long it would be before CPS shows at you door to take your children - because private utility companies refused to serve you and it's not safe for them to be there anymore? You can take that "private companies adjusting their priorities" pretty far. If you think in this situation you still have free speech because you can still stand on a public square and yell into the sky - you definition of freedom of speech is flawed, and honestly, pretty useless in practice.

istinetz 4y ago

>Sure, you allow them to speak, in that you don't respond to that speech with violence or prosecution. But you don't have to make room for it. >"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?

aaron695 4y ago

amadeuspagel 4y ago

Yeah, kicking a website off the internet is just like not listening to racist rants.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

verisimilitudes 4y ago

What happens when enough people realize coexistence won't be permitted? He made his own forum, and a relentless campaign has conspired to bring it down. We can't have freedom of speech if only one side gets to communicate and also has access to all of the help it could ever need. Without freedom of speech, we eventually won't have peace.

ironcurtain 4y ago

You are projecting a scene from a movie to an unrelated business issue.