3 ms·

You made a comparison and said they were equivalent. I showed they aren't equivalent. Now you want to compare a real-world event to a fictional alternative? Ye

You made a comparison and said they were equivalent. I showed they aren't equivalent. Now you want to compare a real-world event to a fictional alternative? Yes - I'm attempting to figure out what principle is being applied. As a result, I'm trying to find real or hypothetical cases as close to the dividing line of that principle as possible. So again, I ask: are legal attacks (e.g., photoshopping someone's head onto a porn star's body, releasing someone's address, encouraging people to shun them) without threats of violence something we should accept? Perhaps opponents of sexual promiscuity can create a registry of the name, photo, address and preferred sexual position of promiscuous women? And of course, list the employer's phone number of such women, and encourage people to call and advocate for firing her. If you find one particular act I described unacceptable but all the others acceptable (e.g., publishing favorite sexual position is ok but employers phone number is not), please explain why. Again, let me reiterate that I'm not asking whether this violates the US constitution. I explicitly stated in my first post that it doesn't. I'm asking whether we should accept it when people engage in such actions.

dalke 13y ago
I don't see this issue with Eich as CEO anywhere near the dividing line, so I don't see why I should participate in an investigation of where that boundary might be. Consider your hypothetical about "opponents of sexual promiscuity". It's reminds me of the real-world situation of the American Coalition of Life Activists, who posted pictures, addresses, etc. of doctors who would carry out abortions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physician_.22wanted.22_posters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physicia... . "In an en banc rehearing, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ACLA could be held liable in damages because the website made a threat unprotected by the First Amendment." (Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_of_Life_Activists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_of_Life_Acti... ) Your example of getting multiple people to call the employer and advocate dismissal likely falls under misdemeanor harassment. Here's an example of one such law: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02921.htm http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02921.htm . In general I support the right of private person X to call for others to shun person Y. Don't you? That doesn't mean I can't nor shouldn't shun person X in turn. The photoshopping example may count as libel or criminal defamation. Without actual details, it's hard to say anything for certain. This is why hypotheticals are lousy. "I'm asking whether we should accept it when people engage in such actions." No. The underlying premise is silly. Of course you could/should protest. Write HN comments. Blog about it. Boycott. Picket in front of Mozilla's offices. Do whatever you want (within the bounds of law) if you don't like what others are doing. Why would you have to accept it? I fully support that people can boycott Mozilla for selecting Eich as CEO. I fully support that people can boycott Mozilla now that Eich is not CEO, and complain that Eich was forced out by a witch hunt. I just wish they would explain how "witch hunt" is different than "boycott and picketing".
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  I have not at any point disputed that people have the legal right to call for firing Eich, or even to say it would be great if he were killed. I don't know why it's necessary to repeat myself 4 times. I find this whole thing troubling because it's an attempt at suppressing ideas. I always found the movement intellectually vacuous (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537168). But now they seem to be demonstrating a fear of rational arguments and simply attack those who disagree. I find that a bit scary.
  - dalke 13y ago
    How are any ideas being suppressed? Any more than boycotting Coors because of the anti-immigration policies of the Coors family suppresses ideas. Any more than boycotting Disney because of its support for Gay Days suppresses ideas. Any more than disinvestment of South African goods suppressed the idea of apartheid. It comes across like you think every boycott is an attempt at suppressing an idea. If that's what you believe, then know that I stand with the oppressors. Otherwise, is there any boycott you like which was done for social or political reasons and which didn't somehow "suppress ideas"?
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      > How are any ideas being suppressed? By "demonstrating a fear of rational arguments and simply attack those who disagree".
      - dalke 13y ago
        My apologies. "What" ideas are being suppressed? More in general, can't all social or political boycotts, ranging from the boycott against Boycott and absentee landownership, to the Indian boycott of British goods and British colonialism, to the Montgomery Bus Boycott and race discrimination, to the anti-apartheid boycott, to the US boycott of Cuban goods be interpreted as "suppressing" a disliked idea? If so, then I can understand how someone who uses that definition of "suppress" can object to any social or political boycott. While I do support the right to boycott, as part of the right to free association, so I don't have the same definition.

dalke 13y ago

I don't see this issue with Eich as CEO anywhere near the dividing line, so I don't see why I should participate in an investigation of where that boundary might be. Consider your hypothetical about "opponents of sexual promiscuity". It's reminds me of the real-world situation of the American Coalition of Life Activists, who posted pictures, addresses, etc. of doctors who would carry out abortions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physician_.22wanted.22_posters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physicia... . "In an en banc rehearing, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ACLA could be held liable in damages because the website made a threat unprotected by the First Amendment." (Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_of_Life_Activists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_of_Life_Acti... ) Your example of getting multiple people to call the employer and advocate dismissal likely falls under misdemeanor harassment. Here's an example of one such law: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02921.htm http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02921.htm . In general I support the right of private person X to call for others to shun person Y. Don't you? That doesn't mean I can't nor shouldn't shun person X in turn. The photoshopping example may count as libel or criminal defamation. Without actual details, it's hard to say anything for certain. This is why hypotheticals are lousy. "I'm asking whether we should accept it when people engage in such actions." No. The underlying premise is silly. Of course you could/should protest. Write HN comments. Blog about it. Boycott. Picket in front of Mozilla's offices. Do whatever you want (within the bounds of law) if you don't like what others are doing. Why would you have to accept it? I fully support that people can boycott Mozilla for selecting Eich as CEO. I fully support that people can boycott Mozilla now that Eich is not CEO, and complain that Eich was forced out by a witch hunt. I just wish they would explain how "witch hunt" is different than "boycott and picketing".

yummyfajitas 13y ago
I have not at any point disputed that people have the legal right to call for firing Eich, or even to say it would be great if he were killed. I don't know why it's necessary to repeat myself 4 times. I find this whole thing troubling because it's an attempt at suppressing ideas. I always found the movement intellectually vacuous (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537168). But now they seem to be demonstrating a fear of rational arguments and simply attack those who disagree. I find that a bit scary.
- dalke 13y ago
  How are any ideas being suppressed? Any more than boycotting Coors because of the anti-immigration policies of the Coors family suppresses ideas. Any more than boycotting Disney because of its support for Gay Days suppresses ideas. Any more than disinvestment of South African goods suppressed the idea of apartheid. It comes across like you think every boycott is an attempt at suppressing an idea. If that's what you believe, then know that I stand with the oppressors. Otherwise, is there any boycott you like which was done for social or political reasons and which didn't somehow "suppress ideas"?
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    > How are any ideas being suppressed? By "demonstrating a fear of rational arguments and simply attack those who disagree".
    - dalke 13y ago
      My apologies. "What" ideas are being suppressed? More in general, can't all social or political boycotts, ranging from the boycott against Boycott and absentee landownership, to the Indian boycott of British goods and British colonialism, to the Montgomery Bus Boycott and race discrimination, to the anti-apartheid boycott, to the US boycott of Cuban goods be interpreted as "suppressing" a disliked idea? If so, then I can understand how someone who uses that definition of "suppress" can object to any social or political boycott. While I do support the right to boycott, as part of the right to free association, so I don't have the same definition.