4 ms·

Yes. Regardless of the content, GitHub violated our constitutional right to freedom of expression. Just because you don't like what someone is saying, that does

Yes. Regardless of the content, GitHub violated our constitutional right to freedom of expression. Just because you don't like what someone is saying, that does not necessarily make it wrong or bad, they have just as much to offend you as you do to offend them. I would highly recommend anyone who is currently using GitHub to switch to another version control system, as GitHub is most likely reading your emails, censoring your search results, and selling your information to proprietary software companies like Apple and Microsoft. Long Live GNU, Stallman, The Great and Powerful

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
virtue3 13y ago
There's a big BIG difference between expression and directly trying to create animosity. These are things that become more apparent as you mature. I honestly can't fathom why someone would waste time creating such a crude concept instead of something genuinely useful.
- RichStallman 13y ago
  It is simply a matter of perception. If one perceives, for instance, evidence of government surveillance programs being abused, and chooses to censor this information, this is wrong and goes against the greater good of GNU/America.
  - virtue3 13y ago
    2 things - no way in hell richard stallman would create a hackernews account (and definitely not 30 minutes ago). second - Your attempt at a straw man argument with equitating the vitrio that 4chan generates into something worth defending as freedom of speech in order to discriminate an entire group of the population is absurd. What 4chan did was pretty much make the equivalent of racial hate speech from the 60's against women. They might as well have told all the female programers to go back to the kitchen and code in there. You cannot use the constitution to defend hate speech. What classifies as hate speech is open to debate.
fennecfoxen 13y ago
> Regardless of the content, GitHub violated our constitutional right to freedom of expression. No they haven't. They've only violated our natural right to freedom of expression. The Constitutional part of our right to freedom of expression only applies to government control of that right.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

virtue3 13y ago

There's a big BIG difference between expression and directly trying to create animosity. These are things that become more apparent as you mature. I honestly can't fathom why someone would waste time creating such a crude concept instead of something genuinely useful.

RichStallman 13y ago
It is simply a matter of perception. If one perceives, for instance, evidence of government surveillance programs being abused, and chooses to censor this information, this is wrong and goes against the greater good of GNU/America.
- virtue3 13y ago
  2 things - no way in hell richard stallman would create a hackernews account (and definitely not 30 minutes ago). second - Your attempt at a straw man argument with equitating the vitrio that 4chan generates into something worth defending as freedom of speech in order to discriminate an entire group of the population is absurd. What 4chan did was pretty much make the equivalent of racial hate speech from the 60's against women. They might as well have told all the female programers to go back to the kitchen and code in there. You cannot use the constitution to defend hate speech. What classifies as hate speech is open to debate.

fennecfoxen 13y ago

> Regardless of the content, GitHub violated our constitutional right to freedom of expression. No they haven't. They've only violated our natural right to freedom of expression. The Constitutional part of our right to freedom of expression only applies to government control of that right.