6 ms·

For those who support this, could you name another instance throughout history where people restricting speech of others ended up being "in the right", no matte

For those who support this, could you name another instance throughout history where people restricting speech of others ended up being "in the right", no matter the circumstance?

a-priori 3y ago
If you went into most restaurants or bars or similar spaces, and you started talking publicly about pro-Nazi stuff, you’d have the owner of the establishment come over and ask you to leave. I don’t see how anyone can think this is unusual or new or not expected.
- google234123 3y ago
  It should be noted that for many, pro-Nazi might mean you are against immigration laws or for trump.
  - a-priori 3y ago
    That’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about newsletters that are explicitly pro-Nazi in nature.
    - missingcolours 3y ago
      One of the problems with labeling your political opponents Nazis is that no one believes you when actual Nazis show up.
      - a-priori 3y ago
        Except that these are “actual Nazis” who have shown up. We’re talking about publications that, in some cases, use terms like “national socialist” and “reich” in their name and/or bio.
        wormius 3y ago
        Curious that someone tries to sidestep an actual concrete example with some weird hypothetical to avoid actually confronting an actual issue at hand. What is up with the lack of good faith from so many in this thread (not you, the parent)? They don't want to be confronted with the breaking points of their ideology, but instead have to misdirect with some straw-man about another scenario. And like a misdirected fool, I take the bait and comment on it.
        nvm0n2 3y ago
        Not so. Look at my post that goes through their examples, which HN being the bastion of well moderated tolerance that it is, is now at -1 and flagged. Only one meets your description and it's suspended for ToS violations. The ones that aren't suspended are just ordinary US politics that's being described as Nazis by the left.
      - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
        > One of the problems with labeling your political opponents Nazis is that no one believes you when actual Nazis show up. That's certainly true, but it sure is weird when a certain political leaning causes one to minimize the fact that actual Nazis showed up, which casts a hefty shadow on this perceived boundary between "actual nazi" and "not actual nazi". At what point does one stop imagining that enablement isn't a real thing? Shrug emoji, though, I guess.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  In practice you will be able to talk about whatever you want in most restaurants or bars, because the owners aren't in the business of listening in on their customer's conversations and picking fights with them.
  - a-priori 3y ago
    That’s why I said “publicly”, as in you’ve called attention to yourself in some way, enough for the staff to be aware and to see that the other patrons are also generally aware of you and what you’re saying.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      If you go into a restaurant or bar and start yelling at strangers about pretty much anything you're going to be kicked out, regardless of topic. Exception: during a football match.
      - a-priori 3y ago
        Sure, but without going too deep into hypotheticals, think of a group of neo-Nazis talking in the middle of a restaurant dining room or at the bar, sufficiently loud enough to be overheard by staff and patrons.
        nvm0n2 3y ago
        You would get kicked out for the same reasons as if you were a group of fanatical libertarian anarchists talking about politics sufficiently loudly to be overhead by staff and patrons. You seem to be badly missing the point here. A forum for eating is not a place for broadcasting political views. A newsletter platform is. The two aren't comparable.
        hn_acker 3y ago
        Restating your words: > A newsletter platform is [a place for broadcasting political views] I'm not saying that your assumption is wrong. I'm asking: 1. Why is it reasonable to make that assumption? 2. How much say does the platform owner have over the extent to which the platform is "a place for broadcasting political views"? Put another way, how much leeway should a general purpose newsletter platform have to ban certain topics/speech, including spam?
undersuit 3y ago
Twitter removing the revenge porn of Hunter Biden comes to mind. But that's my opinion. What about Kiwi Farms and Stormfront? I'm pretty sure that was right too.
krapp 3y ago
Laws against slander, libel, perjury, doxxing, threats of violence and false advertising? Child porn? Planning a crime? Society is replete with restrictions on speech that are considered uncontroversial even amongst most die-hard libertarians. It's weird that standing up against neo-nazis always seems to be a bridge too far. And this isn't even censorship. No one is restricting the speech of the nazis on Substack. Rather, people are choosing not to associate themselves with a platform that welcomes nazis. They're voting with their money and their feet. Free speech doesn't guarantee you a platform nor does it guarantee you an audience. If it's to be a market of ideas, then it's encumbent upon the proponents of ideas to negotiate with the market. You might reply that these efforts are putting pressure on Substack and attempting to influence Substack to change their policies. And so what? That's a perfectly valid use of free speech, isn't it?
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Slander and libel are considered controversial amongst die hard libertarians. It's much harder to use those laws to suppress speech in the USA than, say, the UK. Which is one reason why the USA produced South Park and nowhere else can. Do laws against "doxxing" even exist at all, or is that something you made up? Journalists "doxx" people they don't like all the time, apparently without consequence. Laws against threats of violence are extremely controversial because the left constantly tries to redefine the term violence to encompass any views they don't like. In the USA the exact definition of "imminent" in respect to violence speech has consumed considerable attention from the courts. Child porn is the least controversial, but even there, you will find controversy. Apple rolled back their plan to scan everyone's iPhones for child porn due to how controversial it is, right? And there is significant debate about what the actual legal age of minority is, because it varies around the world, and whether cartoons count or not. False advertising: this is the least controversial form of speech control for libertarians because they want informed markets, but even here, it's controversial because governments suck at enforcing such laws neutrally. Consider all the news agencies that advertise themselves as neutral whilst being obviously biased. Planning a crime: the border between people making idle threats and actually being legally liable is constantly being thrashed out by the courts even today, and usually convicting someone of this requires more than just speech. You have to actually take action towards carrying out the crime, not just saying you will. In short, none of your examples are free of controversy. So the allegation you're insinuating there - that everyone who disagrees with you on this is a secret Nazi - does not work. > No one is restricting the speech of the nazis on Substack. In fact they are, because Substack does ban genuinely Nazi accounts. See the Andikon Reich example. This doesn't bother anyone because it's a very clear and precise match. The fuss is the usual problem where the left label anyone to their right banned under whatever rules are the most emotive, even when they don't apply at all.
hn_acker 3y ago
Consider these two patterns: 1. The owner of a website hosting user-generated content (such as social media posts) voluntarily bans users for speech the owner didn't like. 2. A government forces the owner of a website hosting user-generated content to ban users for speech the government didn't like. Why and when is it reasonable to treat patterns 1 and 2 as sufficiently analogous to be counted under a single banner of "censorship"? Consider a third pattern as well. 3. A company offers tours of the buildings to outsiders who apply for tours. A tour visitor says something the owner doesn't like, so the owner voluntarily bans the visitor from continuing the tour. Is it reasonable to call pattern 3 censorship? And if it is, is the so-called censorship in pattern 3 "in the wrong", "no matter the circumstances"? Substack is a case of pattern 1. How should someone track which instances of Substack's moderation of XYZ ended up being "in the right" vs "in the wrong"? XYZ could be people who write in favor of Nazi beliefs (who Substack isn't banning). XYZ could be people who write in favor of sexual gratification (who Substack is banning). As Ken White (Popehat) wrote about Substack's policy regarding Nazis [1]: > My point is not that any of these policies is objectionable. But, like the old joke goes, we’ve established what Substack is, now we’re just haggling over the price. ... > Substack has made a series of value judgments about which speech to permit and which speech not to permit. Substack would like you to believe that making judgments about content “for the sole purpose of sexual gratification,” or content promoting anorexia, is different than making judgment about Nazi content. In fact, that’s not a neutral, value-free choice. It’s a valued judgment by a platform that brands itself as not making valued judgments. [1] https://popehat.substack.com/p/substack-has-a-nazi-opportunity https://popehat.substack.com/p/substack-has-a-nazi-opportuni...
mannyv 3y ago
In Singapore, LKY suppressed the communist party and their patsies to prevent a communist takeover of Singapore. Puritans back in the old days were basically the Taliban, oppressing anyone who disagreed with their beliefs and way-of-life. They were pretty successful overall. In Syria, Assad successfully crushed a revolt and is still in power by suppressing speech etc. In the Arab world, the Arab Spring was successfully squished in multiple countries. Communist China has been relatively successful by restricting speech. "In the right" is probably the wrong metric, because it's meaningless. "Succeeded in its goals" is probably a better way of categorizing whether a specific tactic is successful or not. And success depends on the timeframe as well.
janalsncm 3y ago
Free speech in the U.S. is pretty uniquely libertarian compared with most places. So depending on your politics, the answer could be “every day”. Even in the US, there are restrictions on speech. And the U.S. wasn’t always as unrestricted. Famously, people have been imprisoned for handing out antiwar pamphlets.
BobaFloutist 3y ago
Yes: the guidelines of Hacker News promote civility, good faith, and logical argument, which drastically reduces the amount of trolling, flaming, and general vitriol. Without moderation, forums quickly become unusable. If you disagreed, you'd be on 4chan, not Hacker News. So I think you recognize the utility of at least some level of content moderation, which is a specific type of speech restriction.
- jasonvorhe 3y ago
  But I'm on HN and on 4chan, for different reasons. While I find no joy in the tone on 4chan, I love how more open minded a lot of people there are on certain topics (that aren't related to politics).
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    Ok, so you find that HN provides something that 4chan cannot, most likely as a result of its moderation, which suggests that limiting speech is, at times, useful and of value. Fair?
  - SkipperCat 3y ago
    But by going to 4chan, you are providing ad revenue allowing them to host pretty racist and hateful content. You may be there for the altruistic content, but you can’t separate it from the rest. Is the openness of the other content on 4chan worth that?
    - jasonvorhe 3y ago
      I don't use the Internet without strict ad blocking, so that's a no for me.

For those who support this, could you name another instance throughout history where people restricting speech of others ended up being "in the right", no matter the circumstance?

a-priori 3y ago

If you went into most restaurants or bars or similar spaces, and you started talking publicly about pro-Nazi stuff, you’d have the owner of the establishment come over and ask you to leave. I don’t see how anyone can think this is unusual or new or not expected.

google234123 3y ago
It should be noted that for many, pro-Nazi might mean you are against immigration laws or for trump.
- a-priori 3y ago
  That’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about newsletters that are explicitly pro-Nazi in nature.
  - missingcolours 3y ago
    One of the problems with labeling your political opponents Nazis is that no one believes you when actual Nazis show up.
    - a-priori 3y ago
      Except that these are “actual Nazis” who have shown up. We’re talking about publications that, in some cases, use terms like “national socialist” and “reich” in their name and/or bio.
      - wormius 3y ago
        Curious that someone tries to sidestep an actual concrete example with some weird hypothetical to avoid actually confronting an actual issue at hand. What is up with the lack of good faith from so many in this thread (not you, the parent)? They don't want to be confronted with the breaking points of their ideology, but instead have to misdirect with some straw-man about another scenario. And like a misdirected fool, I take the bait and comment on it.
      - nvm0n2 3y ago
        Not so. Look at my post that goes through their examples, which HN being the bastion of well moderated tolerance that it is, is now at -1 and flagged. Only one meets your description and it's suspended for ToS violations. The ones that aren't suspended are just ordinary US politics that's being described as Nazis by the left.
    - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
      > One of the problems with labeling your political opponents Nazis is that no one believes you when actual Nazis show up. That's certainly true, but it sure is weird when a certain political leaning causes one to minimize the fact that actual Nazis showed up, which casts a hefty shadow on this perceived boundary between "actual nazi" and "not actual nazi". At what point does one stop imagining that enablement isn't a real thing? Shrug emoji, though, I guess.
nvm0n2 3y ago
In practice you will be able to talk about whatever you want in most restaurants or bars, because the owners aren't in the business of listening in on their customer's conversations and picking fights with them.
- a-priori 3y ago
  That’s why I said “publicly”, as in you’ve called attention to yourself in some way, enough for the staff to be aware and to see that the other patrons are also generally aware of you and what you’re saying.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    If you go into a restaurant or bar and start yelling at strangers about pretty much anything you're going to be kicked out, regardless of topic. Exception: during a football match.
    - a-priori 3y ago
      Sure, but without going too deep into hypotheticals, think of a group of neo-Nazis talking in the middle of a restaurant dining room or at the bar, sufficiently loud enough to be overheard by staff and patrons.
      - nvm0n2 3y ago
        You would get kicked out for the same reasons as if you were a group of fanatical libertarian anarchists talking about politics sufficiently loudly to be overhead by staff and patrons. You seem to be badly missing the point here. A forum for eating is not a place for broadcasting political views. A newsletter platform is. The two aren't comparable.
        hn_acker 3y ago
        Restating your words: > A newsletter platform is [a place for broadcasting political views] I'm not saying that your assumption is wrong. I'm asking: 1. Why is it reasonable to make that assumption? 2. How much say does the platform owner have over the extent to which the platform is "a place for broadcasting political views"? Put another way, how much leeway should a general purpose newsletter platform have to ban certain topics/speech, including spam?

undersuit 3y ago

Twitter removing the revenge porn of Hunter Biden comes to mind. But that's my opinion. What about Kiwi Farms and Stormfront? I'm pretty sure that was right too.

krapp 3y ago

Laws against slander, libel, perjury, doxxing, threats of violence and false advertising? Child porn? Planning a crime? Society is replete with restrictions on speech that are considered uncontroversial even amongst most die-hard libertarians. It's weird that standing up against neo-nazis always seems to be a bridge too far. And this isn't even censorship. No one is restricting the speech of the nazis on Substack. Rather, people are choosing not to associate themselves with a platform that welcomes nazis. They're voting with their money and their feet. Free speech doesn't guarantee you a platform nor does it guarantee you an audience. If it's to be a market of ideas, then it's encumbent upon the proponents of ideas to negotiate with the market. You might reply that these efforts are putting pressure on Substack and attempting to influence Substack to change their policies. And so what? That's a perfectly valid use of free speech, isn't it?

nvm0n2 3y ago
Slander and libel are considered controversial amongst die hard libertarians. It's much harder to use those laws to suppress speech in the USA than, say, the UK. Which is one reason why the USA produced South Park and nowhere else can. Do laws against "doxxing" even exist at all, or is that something you made up? Journalists "doxx" people they don't like all the time, apparently without consequence. Laws against threats of violence are extremely controversial because the left constantly tries to redefine the term violence to encompass any views they don't like. In the USA the exact definition of "imminent" in respect to violence speech has consumed considerable attention from the courts. Child porn is the least controversial, but even there, you will find controversy. Apple rolled back their plan to scan everyone's iPhones for child porn due to how controversial it is, right? And there is significant debate about what the actual legal age of minority is, because it varies around the world, and whether cartoons count or not. False advertising: this is the least controversial form of speech control for libertarians because they want informed markets, but even here, it's controversial because governments suck at enforcing such laws neutrally. Consider all the news agencies that advertise themselves as neutral whilst being obviously biased. Planning a crime: the border between people making idle threats and actually being legally liable is constantly being thrashed out by the courts even today, and usually convicting someone of this requires more than just speech. You have to actually take action towards carrying out the crime, not just saying you will. In short, none of your examples are free of controversy. So the allegation you're insinuating there - that everyone who disagrees with you on this is a secret Nazi - does not work. > No one is restricting the speech of the nazis on Substack. In fact they are, because Substack does ban genuinely Nazi accounts. See the Andikon Reich example. This doesn't bother anyone because it's a very clear and precise match. The fuss is the usual problem where the left label anyone to their right banned under whatever rules are the most emotive, even when they don't apply at all.

hn_acker 3y ago

Consider these two patterns: 1. The owner of a website hosting user-generated content (such as social media posts) voluntarily bans users for speech the owner didn't like. 2. A government forces the owner of a website hosting user-generated content to ban users for speech the government didn't like. Why and when is it reasonable to treat patterns 1 and 2 as sufficiently analogous to be counted under a single banner of "censorship"? Consider a third pattern as well. 3. A company offers tours of the buildings to outsiders who apply for tours. A tour visitor says something the owner doesn't like, so the owner voluntarily bans the visitor from continuing the tour. Is it reasonable to call pattern 3 censorship? And if it is, is the so-called censorship in pattern 3 "in the wrong", "no matter the circumstances"? Substack is a case of pattern 1. How should someone track which instances of Substack's moderation of XYZ ended up being "in the right" vs "in the wrong"? XYZ could be people who write in favor of Nazi beliefs (who Substack isn't banning). XYZ could be people who write in favor of sexual gratification (who Substack is banning). As Ken White (Popehat) wrote about Substack's policy regarding Nazis [1]: > My point is not that any of these policies is objectionable. But, like the old joke goes, we’ve established what Substack is, now we’re just haggling over the price. ... > Substack has made a series of value judgments about which speech to permit and which speech not to permit. Substack would like you to believe that making judgments about content “for the sole purpose of sexual gratification,” or content promoting anorexia, is different than making judgment about Nazi content. In fact, that’s not a neutral, value-free choice. It’s a valued judgment by a platform that brands itself as not making valued judgments. [1] https://popehat.substack.com/p/substack-has-a-nazi-opportunity https://popehat.substack.com/p/substack-has-a-nazi-opportuni...

mannyv 3y ago

In Singapore, LKY suppressed the communist party and their patsies to prevent a communist takeover of Singapore. Puritans back in the old days were basically the Taliban, oppressing anyone who disagreed with their beliefs and way-of-life. They were pretty successful overall. In Syria, Assad successfully crushed a revolt and is still in power by suppressing speech etc. In the Arab world, the Arab Spring was successfully squished in multiple countries. Communist China has been relatively successful by restricting speech. "In the right" is probably the wrong metric, because it's meaningless. "Succeeded in its goals" is probably a better way of categorizing whether a specific tactic is successful or not. And success depends on the timeframe as well.

janalsncm 3y ago

Free speech in the U.S. is pretty uniquely libertarian compared with most places. So depending on your politics, the answer could be “every day”. Even in the US, there are restrictions on speech. And the U.S. wasn’t always as unrestricted. Famously, people have been imprisoned for handing out antiwar pamphlets.

BobaFloutist 3y ago

Yes: the guidelines of Hacker News promote civility, good faith, and logical argument, which drastically reduces the amount of trolling, flaming, and general vitriol. Without moderation, forums quickly become unusable. If you disagreed, you'd be on 4chan, not Hacker News. So I think you recognize the utility of at least some level of content moderation, which is a specific type of speech restriction.

jasonvorhe 3y ago
But I'm on HN and on 4chan, for different reasons. While I find no joy in the tone on 4chan, I love how more open minded a lot of people there are on certain topics (that aren't related to politics).
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Ok, so you find that HN provides something that 4chan cannot, most likely as a result of its moderation, which suggests that limiting speech is, at times, useful and of value. Fair?
- SkipperCat 3y ago
  But by going to 4chan, you are providing ad revenue allowing them to host pretty racist and hateful content. You may be there for the altruistic content, but you can’t separate it from the rest. Is the openness of the other content on 4chan worth that?
  - jasonvorhe 3y ago
    I don't use the Internet without strict ad blocking, so that's a no for me.