Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsder | Hacker News Reader

> 1. No, there should not. People should have the freedom to congregate and to discuss. If people are hurt by this, too bad. There is no solution.

Hogwash. We have harassment, stalking, libel, defamation, and slander laws in meatspace for a reason. The fact that doing it on the Internet exempts you from these laws because enforcement isn't "cost effective" is a problem.

The Libertarian Internet(tm) was tried and failed. People suck; groups of people suck worse; individuals need to be protected at some level.

The question at this point is whether we put laws in place such that individuals can seek cost-effective justice, or whether we wait until so many people get burned that they start clamoring for the government to step on the Internet with jackboots.

View on HN

> Hogwash. We have harassment, stalking, libel, defamation, and slander laws in meatspace for a reason. The fact that doing it on the Internet exempts you from these laws because enforcement isn't "cost effective" is a problem.

All those are illegal online too. But if I go to the pub and discuss some harassment with my friends that I'm going to do later, the pub clearly isn't held liable for this. Why? Because even if he owns it, the pub owner has no responsibility for what is said inside of the tavern walls.

So, what is taking place on these forums is rarely illegal.

> The question at this point is whether we put laws in place such that individuals can seek cost-effective justice, or whether we wait until so many people get burned that they start clamoring for the government to step on the Internet with jackboots.

And then they move to mailing lists, or FMS. Then what? You going to shut down Tor as well?

My opinion is this: people should grow thicker skin. Those who fail to do so pose a threat to society, insofar as they call for further censorship. Therefore, anyone who is harmed by these people can post-hoc be considered to have deserved it.

It used to be the case that people were recommended to not use their real name on the Internet for basic safety reasons. Now they are encouraged to do so, and whoever doesn't is branded a 'troll'. Who is really at fault here?

> My opinion is this: people should grow thicker skin.

A motivated harasser or mob can basically force you completely offline. You cannot answer that with "grow thicker skin".

The problem is especially acute if your harasser or mob is in a different state, for example.

> It used to be the case that people were recommended to not use their real name on the Internet for basic safety reasons.

And what about if your business is online? Most states require that your public business filing include your real name.

Your glib solutions betray your lack of experience with the problem.

> A motivated harasser or mob can basically force you completely offline. You cannot answer that with "grow thicker skin".

If they have observed proper precautions, the psychological issues are the only factor that remains. Those are solved by growing a thicker skin.

> And what about if your business is online? Most states require that your public business filing include your real name.

If so, they should vote with their feet and observe proper precautions, such as incorporating in a jurisdiction with strong privacy laws, or not incorporating at all (Bitcoin). Examples of the former include New Mexico, Wyoming, Nevada, Seychelles, British Virgin Islands, and more.

> Your glib solutions betray your lack of experience with the problem.

No, your glib solutions betray your lack of experience with the problem. Censorship is never an answer as it is, unto itself, a moral failure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com