Comment by ozlikethewizard | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ozlikethewizard | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ozlikethewizard

Thats still speech you just dont like it? HateAid have no legal authority, all they can do is utilise the already established channels to report content same as any other entity, but they do this in a more organised manner. Moreover, HateAid hasnt been sanctioned, individuals that work for or have worked with hateAid have been.

Look, im not saying I agree with everything or anything HateAid does, to be honest I dont care, its irrevelant to the matter. Several individuals have had their freedom of expression curtailed, for right or wrong.

The only point i take issue with is people pretending that that isnt what has happened. If you believe hateAid deplatform and cancel people, how can you not see the US removing individuals who supported hateaids's ability to access the country as the same thing? Don't allow yourself to be blinded just because you disagree with HateAid.

Not all norms and ideals are compatible globally. If a hypothetical group uses your ideals against you, do you remain bound by them out of consistency, or break from your rules to address the perceived threat?

Personally I think if you argue for free speech above all you should stick to free speech above all. What's the point in having morals if you're going to compromise on them when a charitable organisation half way around the world makes you scared?

To be clear, to this end is the exact reason why I dont believe in free speech above all, all people should have a right to expression, but you also have a responsibility for the consequences of that expression. I tried to get that across above, Im actually fine with both HateAid and what the US do / have done, I am neither American nor in the EU. but free speech absolutionists pretending that the US is in anyway protecting free speech is laughable. Look at Minnesota right now.

Nobody wants absolute free speech. The US government isn’t advocating for that either. They’re defending free speech as defined in their constitution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com