Hacker News Reader

Comment by zorpner | Hacker News Reader

At what point does someone's routine vocal endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of violence become problematic? Or are we obligated to welcome these people into our conferences (workplaces? homes?) so long as they confine their exhortations to speech and only work to encourage others to perform the actual violence?

The idea of a "Code of Belief" is a strawman -- the issue at hand is the expectation not of freedom of thought or freedom of speech, but a desire for speech without consequences (which inevitably requires that the freedom of speech of others be quashed).

View on HN

    > At what point does someone's routine vocal
    > endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of
    > violence become problematic?

The Americans have a whole load of case law around First Amendment rights, it would be worth familiarizing yourself with that for a few hundred years worth of considered thought.

    > Or are we obligated to welcome these people into
    > our conferences

Well in this case, their conferences - he's there under his own technical merit, isn't he? Do you really get to exclude him because you don't like his views, even though he may well be more qualified than you to claim a right to be there?

    > (workplaces?

Conveniently there's case law in employment too.

    > homes?)

Weird strawman.

    > the issue at hand is the expectation not of freedom of
    > thought or freedom of speech, but a desire for speech
    > without consequences

I would be curious to know what you think free speech means, if it doesn't mean speech without consequence. "We're free speech in this country, except you can go to jail for saying the wrong thing".

You have no understanding of the first amendment. It applies, of course, only to the government's response to speech.

I would be curious to know what you think free speech means, if it doesn't mean speech without consequence.

You can say anything you want, and the government won't intervene. That's all free speech means. Other people, groups, and corporations are free to judge you, criticize you, exclude you from their platforms and private events, organize boycotts against you, criticize people who agree with you, criticize people who choose not to exclude you, and so forth. You may dislike that they do those things, but they are free to do so without government interference, because of free speech.

You, in turn, are free to criticize and exclude them in a similar manner. This is dialogue, and a desire to promulgate your opinions but have others not promulgate their opinions (including when they're about you) is the height of hypocrisy.

> You have no understanding of the first amendment. It applies, of course, only to the government's response to speech.

Darn it, I thought we were going to get all the way through this discussion without someone wheeling out that old nag.

Once again: Attempting to ban people from unrelated fora based on their political views is not against the letter of the First Amendment to do this. But attempting to ban people from unrelated fora based on their political views is quite certainly against the spirit of the First Amendment.

What?! That has no support in law, history, or the documents surrounding the creation of the bill of rights. The idea that private fora would be required to accommodate all comers is antithetical to the ideas behind the Enlightenment philosophy which engendered the first amendment.

I honestly can't believe someone could be dumb enough to think that the founders would want the government to dictate who people were required to admit to non-public settings. There's no way you're being sincere.

You think that the fundamental principle behind the First Amendment and Enlightenment philosophy was that we really needed a natural rights justification to have people whose politics we disagree with ostracized from public life and prevented from earning a living?

So Donald Trump is against the 1st amendment? Along with any other politician who has people removed from events for political disagreement?

Along with any other politician who has people removed from events for disrupting them and preventing him from being heard by the other participants?

FIFY.

If you can cite cases where people silently disagreeing, e.g. with t-shirts or signs that didn't block the view of others, were removed, I'm all ears. But while I haven't watched this closely, I'm under the strong impression the removees were shouting him down, and were often physically violent.

To quote Ronald Reagan in an analogous situation, "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green".

> The Americans have a whole load of case law around First Amendment rights, it would be worth familiarizing yourself with that for a few hundred years worth of considered thought.

The First Amendment cannot prevent social ostracization.

He already has a platform for those views. What, is they guy's very presence at a conference going to make other people more racist by osmosis? Come on now.

And frankly, I am of the view that it's better for views like Yarvin's to be out in the open where they can be challenged, rather than left to fester. That means - yes - that his speech must be allowed "without consequences" for his employment, etc.

> At what point does someone's routine vocal endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of violence become problematic?

As long as the person does all that on their own time and is professional and respectful in the work context? Never.

Any other questions?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com