Hacker News Reader

Comment by fweespeech | Hacker News Reader

> This is effectively saying that investigative journalists shouldn't get too political in unpopular causes, lest they have their livelihood taken away from them. This is a suppression of free speech (not legally ofc) on a platform that syndicates political news and opinions.

1) You are arguing now that journalists should have legal immunity.

> Patreon had no liability in this situation. Patreon doesn't support the sale of software, and software as speech is a much murkier area than... actual, literal speech.

2) She was taking actions that physically prevented other people from taking actions. That isn't literal speech and is much further from speech than software is.

> This is taking a political stance; anyone on either side of rescue missions for refugees is funding something that is likely to cause loss of life. One is just politically en vogue.

3) No. This is you attempting to frame outrageous criminal acts as "politics".

View on HN

1) There is a difference between legal immunity and the ability to raise funds -- for which she was banned according to the letter.

2) Her reason for banning, according to the company's letter was fundraising. That is certainly a type of speech.

3) Ships in the water circling to pick up people certainly makes them take riskier actions, or pushes the risk threshold low enough that people are willing to try.

I personally think that an open border solution would be much better for everyone. I also think that international law is valuable, and painting this situation in which these people are actually being transported by trafficking rings for at least some portion of their trip is not as black and white as you portray it. I'm personally against a modern day work and sex slave pipeline from Africa to Europe, and there is a non-negligible chance that that's what is happening here.

> Her reason for banning, according to the company's letter was fundraising. That is certainly a type of speech.

Fundraising to support a non-speech activity is not purely speech. e.g., if the activity is criminal, fundraising to support it is also criminal in virtually every jurisdiction on the planet, including those with the strongest free speech protections.

This is not necessarily true. I believe in the US, fundraising would make you an accessory, just as encouraging someone's criminal action where they have clear intent to commit a crime would be.

Fundraising for legal actions is certainly speech, and the effort Southern was supporting was in accordance with international law.

> This is not necessarily true. I believe in the US, fundraising would make you an accessory, just as encouraging someone's criminal action where they have clear intent to commit a crime would be.

And now you understand why they booted Lauren Southern. Money is fungible and she fund raised for an activity that was legally dubious.

It's not legally dubious. Fundraising money with an explicitly legal purpose is legal. The potential for misuse at some future date does not an accessory make

> It's not legally dubious. Fundraising money with an explicitly legal purpose is legal. The potential for misuse at some future date does not an accessory make

The purpose with patreon being to fund her "journalistic activities" which included the legally dubious action.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com