5 ms·
that's interesting, 'saying X should be against the law' is precisely not what I'm hearing. instead I'm hearing 'there shouldn't be a law that requires a priva
by dev-3892 4y ago
that's interesting, 'saying X should be against the law' is precisely not what I'm hearing.
instead I'm hearing 'there shouldn't be a law that requires a private entity to broadcast X' and 'you really shouldn't say X, and I would strongly suggest that you do not say X' and 'if you say X, there may not be legal consequences, but legal consequences are not the only kind of consequences'
so i don't agree that 'the way it works is ... saying it should be against the law'
I disagree, and in no way am i trotting out Popper quotes. I am questioning your willingness to actually listen to people.
- bandyaboot 4y agoOops, it appears your comment has been marked as wrong speech by the hn free speech society.
- dev-3892 4y agooh no... anyway
- renlo 4y agoYea! Why should phone companies be forced to carry conversations they don’t want you to have over their networks? Why should ISPs be forced to serve content they don’t want you to see? If you want to call the competitor of ATT to switch your service, well you need to do it using a competitor’s line, and, if you want to view competing plans over Comcast’s internet, well you need to do that at the library or on someone else’s network! Obvious \s, the issue is that these “broadcast companies” are used by everyone, and should be treated as a utility.
- MiguelX413 4y agoThis but unironically and unsarcastically, the problem is the centralization of infrastructure itself.
- LudwigNagasena 4y agoCentralization of infrastructure that benefits from the economies of scale shouldn’t be a problem.
- MiguelX413 4y agoCentralization is THE problem.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago> that's interesting, 'saying X should be against the law' is precisely not what I'm hearing. You've never heard anybody in the US advocating for laws against hate speech? I mean 'hate speech' which isn't inciting imminent lawless action, the present standard set by Bradenburg v. Ohio. Something like "ethnic group X are bringing crime to our community"; this sort of statement is called hate speech, but is legal in America. I have met a fair few people in America who believe that all hate speech such as that is intrinsically an incitement of violence, rejecting the imminent lawless action standard. They reason that any statement which could inspire negative feelings towards another, particularly a marginalized group, might also indirectly inspire people to commit acts of violence and should therefore be illegal.
- As_You_Wish 4y agoI always notice that "hate speech" is how people want it defined. For example, I personally think "toxic masculinity," "mansplaining," "patriarchy," showing men as stupid foolish and incapable in movies and tv shows, and all the rest of the anti-male bashing is hate speech. However, I'm shouted down every time I say one word about this on any online forums. That's because the matriarchy that we live in does not allow me to define those terms as hate speech. There's no corresponding "toxic femininity," "woman-nagging," "matriarchy," or showing women as stupid and inept. Well, there might be a few on either side, but the vast majority of hate speech is piled upon men.
- pstuart 4y agoMaking up your own definitions isn't how it works. And mockery is not hate speech. And I'm not shouting either.
- As_You_Wish 4y agoI'm not trying to be contradictory but my point is something different.
- 4y ago