Hacker News Reader

Comment by current_call | Hacker News Reader

If I can say anything I want, but I have no infrastructure, then I can't communicate my ideas effectively. People who provide neutral infrastructure allow others to exercise their right to free speech. People who oppose neutral providers want to make communication difficult for people they disagree with.

Removing neutral infrastructure is restricting free speech through social conventions instead of through government. It's still censorship.

View on HN

It is definitely not censorship. Nobody is under any obligation to help, say, pedophiles, promote their ideas. To say otherwise is to deny freedom of action and freedom of association.

If you have an ideological attachment to the existence of neutral providers, nobody can stop you from creating one. But as 8chan is discovering, people are free to criticize them for who they are helping and what effects that has.

Nobody is under any obligation to provide infrastructure, but not providing infrastructure is different from trying to stop providers.

People are of course free to try and stop neutral providers. They are also free to lobby for a government that will censor them.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If people are free to speak, I am also free to speak out against them. If people support particular speakers, I am also free to speak out against those supporters, and to shun them.

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a lawyer who does a lot of free-speech work: https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/

Yes, it is legal to do many immoral things.

Edit: According to you, shouldn't Twitter be at fault for letting Pax say such hurtful things? They're providing him a platform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com