5 ms·

It wasn't free speech and public dialogue, it was a spineless witchhunt. Quit trying to sweeten the cyanide.

Crito 12y ago
Of course it was free speech. Every party involved were well within their rights to act as they did. What crimes do you believe were committed by those who voiced their displeasure?
- bzbarsky 12y ago
  None at all, by many. A number, though, arguably violated California Penal Code Section 422 (I say "arguably" because whether they did depends on how seriously the threat recipient took them). Of course they may not be in California, but many other jurisdictions have similar laws.
  - Crito 12y ago
    Can you point to any of the specific comments that you think arguably threatened others? I did not see any such comments on HN, although admittedly I did not follow the story closely on reddit, tumblr, or twitter.
    - bzbarsky 12y ago
      There were no such comments on HN, thankfully. I didn't follow the story on reddit or twitter much myself, but I _did_ talk to a fair number of people at Mozilla during the goings on. (I work at Mozilla, if that wasn't clear.) There were certainly mails or blog comments (I'm not sure which, and the two are equivalent anyway when comments are moderated) with such threats in response to Lars Lohn's blog post (quoted near the bottom of <http://www.twobraids.com/2014/04/back-into-light.html> http://www.twobraids.com/2014/04/back-into-light.html>). Of course I have no way to prove that to you. An earlier version of Lars' post (before he deleted it in his fit of pique) had an explicit edit mentioning the threats, but even Google's cache now only has <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eKzKHuOPsxYJ:www.twobraids.com/2014/04/the-mozilla-ceo.html>.. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eKzKHuO.... I'm told (more second-hand than in Lars' case, but by people I trust) that others received similar threats as well. Again, I have no way to convince you that this is true.
- mpyne 12y ago
  You must have never had the "I'm not touching you" game played to you. Surely you all are not imaginative enough if you think that the union of the set of behaviors one can form that are within their rights are all desirable behaviors. I mean, strictly speaking the NSA was well within its legal rights to do what it did. But what was that quote by Jon Stewart, "I think you're misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President. No one is saying you broke any laws. We're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to."
  - Crito 12y ago
    > You must have never had the "I'm not touching you" game played to you. > Surely you all are not imaginative enough if you think that the union of the set of behaviors one can form that are within their rights are all desirable behaviors. I didn't say that all of behaviors seen were desirable, and upon rereading my comment, I have no idea how you got the impression that I was. > I mean, strictly speaking the NSA was well within its legal rights to do what it did. But what was that quote by Jon Stewart, "I think you're misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President. No one is saying you broke any laws. We're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to." Exactly which behaviours seen during that scandal do you think should have been illegal or were borderline illegal? I am getting the feeling that you saw something that I did not. Bear in mind that I draw a strong distinction between "undesirable" and "should probably be illegal".
    - zorpner 12y ago
      > Exactly which behaviours seen during that scandal do you think should have been illegal or were borderline illegal? I wish you the best of luck with this argumentative approach -- I've been trying it for weeks, and no one on the other side appears to realize that legally or socially preventing what happened with Eich and the Mozilla community would be far, far more destructive to discourse, speech, etc than what happened here. The position itself (that what happened to Eich was somehow wrong, in a sense that can be well-defined) is internally inconsistent.
      - 12y ago
CamperBob2 12y ago
I don't understand the "witchhunt" terminology you're using. Want to run for Grand Dragon of your local KKK chapter? Fine, knock yourself out, but you're delusional if you think that won't come up when you're running for mayor several years later. Actions have consequences.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >Actions have consequences. That's also what KKK said, when lynching someone.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    The KKK, like Eich, is motivated by hatred for what certain people are, not what they do. They may claim otherwise but nobody with a three-digit IQ believes them. If you think your argument through a bit further, I'm sure you'll see the distinction.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      >The KKK, like Eich, is motivated by hatred for what certain people are, not what they do. They may claim otherwise but nobody with a three-digit IQ believes them. Well, zealot Christians (and organisations like the Inquisition) hated people "for what they did" (e.g extra-marital affairs, being an atheist, not going to church enough, magic spells, etc) not for what they were. I don't see how that's any improvement over hating them for what they are. Hate is hate. I also have a three digit IQ and I don't believe Eich hates gay people. In fact he has worked closely with lots of them perfectly for ages (by their own admission). He might love marriage too much as a specific, and historically specified, tradition though, which is a different thing.
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        He might love marriage too much as a specific, and historically specified, tradition though, which is a different thing. Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Crito 12y ago

Of course it was free speech. Every party involved were well within their rights to act as they did. What crimes do you believe were committed by those who voiced their displeasure?

bzbarsky 12y ago
None at all, by many. A number, though, arguably violated California Penal Code Section 422 (I say "arguably" because whether they did depends on how seriously the threat recipient took them). Of course they may not be in California, but many other jurisdictions have similar laws.
- Crito 12y ago
  Can you point to any of the specific comments that you think arguably threatened others? I did not see any such comments on HN, although admittedly I did not follow the story closely on reddit, tumblr, or twitter.
  - bzbarsky 12y ago
    There were no such comments on HN, thankfully. I didn't follow the story on reddit or twitter much myself, but I _did_ talk to a fair number of people at Mozilla during the goings on. (I work at Mozilla, if that wasn't clear.) There were certainly mails or blog comments (I'm not sure which, and the two are equivalent anyway when comments are moderated) with such threats in response to Lars Lohn's blog post (quoted near the bottom of <http://www.twobraids.com/2014/04/back-into-light.html> http://www.twobraids.com/2014/04/back-into-light.html>). Of course I have no way to prove that to you. An earlier version of Lars' post (before he deleted it in his fit of pique) had an explicit edit mentioning the threats, but even Google's cache now only has <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eKzKHuOPsxYJ:www.twobraids.com/2014/04/the-mozilla-ceo.html>.. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eKzKHuO.... I'm told (more second-hand than in Lars' case, but by people I trust) that others received similar threats as well. Again, I have no way to convince you that this is true.
mpyne 12y ago
You must have never had the "I'm not touching you" game played to you. Surely you all are not imaginative enough if you think that the union of the set of behaviors one can form that are within their rights are all desirable behaviors. I mean, strictly speaking the NSA was well within its legal rights to do what it did. But what was that quote by Jon Stewart, "I think you're misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President. No one is saying you broke any laws. We're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to."
- Crito 12y ago
  > You must have never had the "I'm not touching you" game played to you. > Surely you all are not imaginative enough if you think that the union of the set of behaviors one can form that are within their rights are all desirable behaviors. I didn't say that all of behaviors seen were desirable, and upon rereading my comment, I have no idea how you got the impression that I was. > I mean, strictly speaking the NSA was well within its legal rights to do what it did. But what was that quote by Jon Stewart, "I think you're misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President. No one is saying you broke any laws. We're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to." Exactly which behaviours seen during that scandal do you think should have been illegal or were borderline illegal? I am getting the feeling that you saw something that I did not. Bear in mind that I draw a strong distinction between "undesirable" and "should probably be illegal".
  - zorpner 12y ago
    > Exactly which behaviours seen during that scandal do you think should have been illegal or were borderline illegal? I wish you the best of luck with this argumentative approach -- I've been trying it for weeks, and no one on the other side appears to realize that legally or socially preventing what happened with Eich and the Mozilla community would be far, far more destructive to discourse, speech, etc than what happened here. The position itself (that what happened to Eich was somehow wrong, in a sense that can be well-defined) is internally inconsistent.
    - 12y ago

CamperBob2 12y ago

I don't understand the "witchhunt" terminology you're using. Want to run for Grand Dragon of your local KKK chapter? Fine, knock yourself out, but you're delusional if you think that won't come up when you're running for mayor several years later. Actions have consequences.

coldtea 12y ago
>Actions have consequences. That's also what KKK said, when lynching someone.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  The KKK, like Eich, is motivated by hatred for what certain people are, not what they do. They may claim otherwise but nobody with a three-digit IQ believes them. If you think your argument through a bit further, I'm sure you'll see the distinction.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >The KKK, like Eich, is motivated by hatred for what certain people are, not what they do. They may claim otherwise but nobody with a three-digit IQ believes them. Well, zealot Christians (and organisations like the Inquisition) hated people "for what they did" (e.g extra-marital affairs, being an atheist, not going to church enough, magic spells, etc) not for what they were. I don't see how that's any improvement over hating them for what they are. Hate is hate. I also have a three digit IQ and I don't believe Eich hates gay people. In fact he has worked closely with lots of them perfectly for ages (by their own admission). He might love marriage too much as a specific, and historically specified, tradition though, which is a different thing.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      He might love marriage too much as a specific, and historically specified, tradition though, which is a different thing. Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.