Freedom of speech isn't just a part of the US constitution - it's also a human right and ethical value.
You can disagree with someone and still think they have rights.
You can disagree with someone and still think they have rights.
Why should anyone should suffer consequences for threats of harm online? You agree that someone should be allowed to threaten, harass, intimidate and harm someone else through speech online?
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences of said speech.
As far as I see it, Epik's hack is a consequence of the speech they allow. No need for government, constitution and laws to see the cause and effect here.
> As far as I see it, Epik's hack is a consequence of the speech they allow.
That's a scary logic and it's the kind of logic that harms societies. Most violent leaders have used this style of justification for their actions.
We can not fight uncivility with uncivility. Doing so only makes the situation worse.
And Epik continued to host sites that were taken offline specifically for those reasons.
That's your cognitive dissonance.
We can not fight uncivility with uncivility. Doing so only makes the situation worse.
Sounds like moral panic to me. Do you not think neo-nazis are real or something? Serious question.
Paradox of Tolerance.
https://i.imgur.com/ve1VDvK_d.webp?maxwidth=760&fidelity=gra...
> Doing so only makes the situation worse.
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
It is now worse since innocent users are involved in this leak.