3 ms·

I must admit, I've never visited KiwiFarms, so I can't defend the contents of the site even if I wanted to, but I still think it's a weird framing to suggest 'K

I must admit, I've never visited KiwiFarms, so I can't defend the contents of the site even if I wanted to, but I still think it's a weird framing to suggest 'KiwiFarms is against free speech because it supports killing people, and dead people can't speak'. That's like saying that Jack the Ripper is famous for not supporting free speech. If (as a hypothetical extreme) you believe that KiwiFarms (the community and/or the site) is "specifically dedicated" to killing people (via swatting or suicide), then you should make that case clearly, and explain why the forum rules and moderators made efforts to prevent violence (though I accept they could have done more to prevent it). A more reasonable claim would be that KiwiFarms was "specifically dedicated" to harassment of certain people, but I still don't think you can say that those people were targeted specifically because of their speech. (The fact that people were targeted for non-speech reasons doesn't make the harassment any more acceptable though, of course). Even more reasonable would be to say that KiwiFarms (if I'm not mistaken) was "specifically dedicated" to discussing and insulting certain people and communities, whose actions and lifestyles they disapprove of. However, the fact that some members approve of harassing those people could be more a symptom of lax moderation rather than actual malicious intent on behalf of the moderators or community as a whole (not to mention the possibility of false flag accounts).

olliej 4y ago
They collectively decide that some people shouldn't be allowed to talk on the internet, and then harass them through every means possible until they remove all presence from the internet. That is the goal, and they plan their methods and share doxxing information on the forum, which the forum owner actively encourages. They plan doxxing, they work to get them fired, they attempt murder by swatting, and attempt to push people to suicide (something they have succeeded in on multiple occasions). The goal is to stop their victims from exercising their own right to free speech. If it were not for those actions it would just be seen as yet another forum filled with assholes. But because the forum owner not only condones, but actually encourages those actions then it is morally acceptable as a defense to force it offline. It's a pretty standard moral concept - we allow people to use force, even lethal, when someone has attacked them, here when people are using their right to free speech to actively harm others (again, we're not just talking about people being transphobic on a forum, we're talking about people actively attacking their victims in every way that they can come up with). So I don't have a problem with kiwifarms being "censored" anymore than I have a problem with people losing their freedom of movement when they go to jail. Similarly I don't have a problem with a CEO that supports this behavior, which includes doxxing, being doxxed. I recognize that people have a right to say horrible things about others, and being what I would consider to be horrible human beings would not be a justification for censoring them (though I would also protect a private institution's right to not publish such content, the 1st amendment applies to government restriction, such as governments restricting access to accurate medical information or mandating what doctors can tell patients, as Florida is doing). But again, the free speech argument is unreasonable once the speech turns into targeted harassment and threats (and threatening someone _is_ a crime in the US).
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > the free speech argument is unreasonable once the speech turns into targeted harassment and threats For what it's worth, I agree with that. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

olliej 4y ago

They collectively decide that some people shouldn't be allowed to talk on the internet, and then harass them through every means possible until they remove all presence from the internet. That is the goal, and they plan their methods and share doxxing information on the forum, which the forum owner actively encourages. They plan doxxing, they work to get them fired, they attempt murder by swatting, and attempt to push people to suicide (something they have succeeded in on multiple occasions). The goal is to stop their victims from exercising their own right to free speech. If it were not for those actions it would just be seen as yet another forum filled with assholes. But because the forum owner not only condones, but actually encourages those actions then it is morally acceptable as a defense to force it offline. It's a pretty standard moral concept - we allow people to use force, even lethal, when someone has attacked them, here when people are using their right to free speech to actively harm others (again, we're not just talking about people being transphobic on a forum, we're talking about people actively attacking their victims in every way that they can come up with). So I don't have a problem with kiwifarms being "censored" anymore than I have a problem with people losing their freedom of movement when they go to jail. Similarly I don't have a problem with a CEO that supports this behavior, which includes doxxing, being doxxed. I recognize that people have a right to say horrible things about others, and being what I would consider to be horrible human beings would not be a justification for censoring them (though I would also protect a private institution's right to not publish such content, the 1st amendment applies to government restriction, such as governments restricting access to accurate medical information or mandating what doctors can tell patients, as Florida is doing). But again, the free speech argument is unreasonable once the speech turns into targeted harassment and threats (and threatening someone _is_ a crime in the US).

dane-pgp 4y ago
> the free speech argument is unreasonable once the speech turns into targeted harassment and threats For what it's worth, I agree with that. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.