Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmc | Hacker News Reader

> I am staggered by the amount of people here who object to Imzy's "Be Nice"-policy on the basis that it limits free speech.

It's especially curious, because HN does try to have a free speech uber alles approach. If limiting speech is good for HN, why isn't it good for Imzy?

It's also important to remember that reddit is very pro-free speech, but bans some protected speech, namely, doxxing. Redditors started to dox people who ran some of the more ahem controversial subreddits. And then reddit banned doxxing.

View on HN

No right is limitless. I don't know about other countries but in elementary school where I am we're taught a person's freedom is limited by the freedoms of others, and freedom of speech is certainly limited by other people's human rights, including the right to human dignity. AFAIK the declaration of human rights include that right. There is no freedom without responsibility, and that's why people who aren't or can't be responsible are often excluded from the community temporarily or permanently.

"No right is limitless" I agree. But some want no limits on speech, they want to be able to say any homophobic thing they want, on any forum. And when/if that is banned/removed they complain about free speech.

This was downvoted for some reason I couldn't see so I upvoted it.

Well, thanks, but some downvotes were quite foreseeable as there are those who believe every right is limitless and that a functional society on that base is possible. I suggest those to go up to someone on the street and try using their right to free speech to the extent they believe it's okay, and see if that person gives them a punch or calls for help.

Elementary school is not the place to learn about the subtleties of human cultural conflict.

I must have been doing something wrong then... Elementary school was exactly where the subtleties of human conflict first appeared to me. IMO, it's as good of a place as any to have some of your first (and due to that, perhaps the most important) encounters with what it means to exist within a society.

Reminds me of the book. "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten".

Early education is generally where people get most of their socialization and first learn about conflict resolution.

A good starting point though.

I'll let you on on a secret that you aren't thought in elementary school. Real human rights are intrinsic and inalienable. Things like the right for your pursuit of happiness and freedom of thought and speech. All supposed rights that require other people's labor or permission (health, education, shelter) are bogus, they are just organizations moving goalposts. Real rights are not bestowed.

Bogus rights are to not be offended, not be attacked, be given dignity and respect. Real rights are to defend yourself, stand your ground and use your body how you want. You just want a few more social norms in some spheres of interaction than some of your neighbors that's all.

And just how are you going to pursue happiness or use your freedom of speech if you do not have the ability to defend yourself? A healthy body to stand your ground with? An education that enables you to express what you want to say?

You are not advocating human rights, you are advocating social Darwinism in its worst form.

I am not advocating. It's just what we have. Decreeing we have the right to health doesn't make diseases disappear.

I am advocating not calling this a discussion about human rights but about human wants.

There's no such things as "real rights." Rights are granted to people by the entities willing to defend those people in the exercise of those rights. There's no "real" right to a pursuit of happiness, there's no "real" right to freedom of thought, and there's no "real" right to freedom of speech.

> Real rights are to defend yourself, stand your ground and use your body how you want.

A right that you grant to yourself is called an "ability."

That is false, or maybe just semantics. Imagine an enslaved man. I believe he has the right to attempt to free himself from slavery. By your definition he doesn't because those around him haven't granted him that right. In my definition he may or may not have the ability to actually free himself or attempt to.

Did slaves in the 17th century have the right to free themselves from slavery? No. That right was limited by law. They had the ability to do so, in some cases, but certainly not the right (as is legally recognized).

Well I hope then that you end up in a society like what you describe, where there are no bogus rights. All the best.

I know I won't, it is too far away I would probably not be alive even it came to pass.

My point was that at least some people recognize that these rights are made up and want to be in a place where they may be offended, they may be riled up, and laugh, and be insulted, and be seriously challenged in their beliefs. We are the smartest known species in the world and yet most of us make such a darn effort not to upset our childhood-imprinted beliefs.

My point was that at least some people recognize that these rights are made up

All rights are "made up". Rights can only exist in a system that recognises them, definitionally.

HN does try to have a free speech uber alles approach

Could you explain what you mean by this? I take uber alles to mean "above all", which would imply that HN aspires to have no moderation. But this clearly isn't the case, as your next sentence says. Did you maybe mean to write "HN does not try"?

> Could you explain what you mean by this?

The HN FAQ[1] has the rules/guidelines. e.g.: " Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.". It says guidelines, but you will be banned if you keep breaking those things.

I think this rule for HN is a great idea BTW.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com