Would they have done the same for a right-wing website? Just as importantly, would HN be just as pro free speech if they had?
Free speech as a value and ideal must be content-neutral.
Free speech as a value and ideal must be content-neutral.
The ACLU understands this, which is why they defend such people.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2017/08/13/the-misguided-attacks-on...
Those trying to harm other people _must_ be less free to do so.
Freedom is not neutral
This is a tactic that seems to be more common recently: trying to equate expression of ideas with violence, and then claiming that violence is acceptable to suppress this supposed "speech violence".
it is indeed!
"This article reflects the tremendous interest in the freedom of information in the postwar years. The Soviet Union proposed an amendment that would deny this right to Nazi and fascist groups. This forced the drafters to discuss the question of how tolerant an already just society should be of intolerant groups like Nazis. Taking together Articles 19 and 7, they solved the dilemma by giving everyone two rights: the right to free speech (subject to the limitation of Article 29) and the right to be protected against hate speech."
they're granted by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/udhr/article_19.html
"Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."