Hacker News Reader

Comment by x0137294744532 | Hacker News Reader

> Suppression of speech which does not explicitly advocate for violence is oppression.

In your opinion (and that of the US), "violence" in this context is defined as physical violence. However, one can argue that non-physical violence should be considered too. In that case, it could be said that hate speech is a form of indirect threat or intimidation against a minority.

> no government should be allowed to oppress the free expression of ideas

Are you okay then, with an intelligence or military defector (not a whistleblower), revealing all government secrets and publishing it publicly without any selection or redaction?

View on HN

Not the OP but there is a difference between ideas you generate and those generated, compiled by other people as well as appropriating and disseminating something that wasn't "yours".

My belief in whistleblowing is as follows. If the act of whistleblowing violates laws and go beyond the provisions in whistleblowing laws, but you or I dearly believe in what we are doing as proper and just, then we do it but understand the consequences and don't and should not seek understanding or forgiveness. If we believe so much, then it's our duty to sacrifice our selves in the face of adverse conditions. I compare it to revolutionaries. You believe in your cause enough that the negative consequences are part of the deal and you don't expect leniency or official pardons, else the issue is not that dire.

I think most people would agree that intimidation is a form of violence. Saying something that someone doesn't like, or that hurts their feelings, or that makes them remember something bad that happened to them is not.

From Wikipedia:

> In the law of some countries, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

So would you consider it censorship to forbid hate speech?

Most people would agree speech inciting violence should not be tolerated, whether it's against a protected group or not. "Violence" probably covers prejudicial action as well, and it certainly covers intimidation.

But no, I don't speech that simply disparages an individual or group of people (without inciting violence as defined above) should be a crime. There's a difference between disgusting speech and speech that should be outlawed and it's very dangerous to say simply that this speech or that speech is icky and therefore the person who said it should literally lose their freedom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com