Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanmarsh | Hacker News Reader

That this comment is being so aggressively downvoted proves that HN does not care about free speech FOR ALL.

Take all my karma. Downvote me into oblivion. Good good, let the hate flow through you.

Edit: I know what "free speech" means. I'm talking more generally about not silencing opposing voices.

You're confused. This has nothing to do with "free speech" rights. This is a confusion that many right-wingers seem to suffer from.

There's no "free speech" relevance when you act like an asshole, and people call you on it. It just means that you're being treated like an asshole should be treated.

Free speech includes being an asshole. HNs voting algoritym is popular speech however. Lets not conflate.

Free speech also includes calling other who are being assholes out on being an asshole, and choosing not to associate with them.

One is entitled to say what they want. One is not entitled to a platform to say it on, nor are they entitled to not have consequences of saying those things.

Free speech includes being an asshole and not being jailed for it; it doesn't include the absence of other consequences.

Legally protected free speech is roughly as you describe. A platform built on providing free speech would be held to a different (higher?) standard. If twitter considers itself the latter would be a separate debate.

How was I being an asshole? I mean in my first comment. The second one was angry of course.

By trying to equate actual free-speech issues with a noted white supremacist and hate speech, maybe?

Hate speech is free speech. I think you're the confused one.

In the US, according to the constitution. But it is mostly not free speech in Germany, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

No it isn't. Hate speech proposes reducing freedoms for other people on the basis of their essential characteristics rather than their opinions.

Not just right-wingers.

The United States government did not seek disclosure of the owner of that account. You are conflating two unrelated issues.

Twitter is no paragon of morality is what I'm trying to say.

Morality as you define it. What's funny is how all the free speech supporters were so quiet when Milo was banned from speaking at CPAC. Nobody has any principles, it's all political.

That wasn't' a violation of his right to free speech, so there's no reason anyone would be vocal about it. CPAC isn't the government.

Neither is Twitter. They are free to ban people who violate the ToS.

You appear confused about what is "moral", as well. Let me give you a hint: defending politically-protected rights to anonymously criticize the government is moral, and defending hate speech is not moral.

Please don't complain about downvotes or make generalized claims about the community. Controversial and divisive threads are already on edge, so we have to take even more care to comment civilly and substantively.

Please refer to this instructional cartoon: https://xkcd.com/1357/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com