Hacker News Reader

I'm okay with neonazis saying disgusting things, as long as they play by the rules and don't commit any violence. (Hell, people brought AK-47's and AR-15's to Charlottesville but didn't use them, despite the violent clashes.)

So intimidation and threats of violence are ok? Are you really commending these people for their restraint in not using AK-47s at a demonstration?

One of the lessons from the first round of Nazis is that, by the time the threatening talk turns to actual large-scale violence, it's too late. When Hitler got out of prison in 1924, he made sure that he would be seen as an "all talk" kind of guy by those who could have shut him down.

Think forward a little bit. The "all talk" guy with vile opinions backed by a violent mob is already in the White House. He won. Now is exactly NOT the time to try to curtail free speech in any way, lest that same precedent be used by the administration to stifle dissent by his opposition - you - in the future.

Freedom of speech (and in fact a lot of the Constitution) is constructed to curtail governmental powers so that dangerous groups in charge aren't able to fundamentally re-shape the country. Why would you want to undermine that when the country is arguably very close to being in that position?

(Personally I think CloudFlare is within its rights to fire a client it doesn't like; non-governmental entities don't have first amendment obligations, just a requirement not to break certain class-based discrimination laws. I don't know if neo-Nazis are a protected class in that respect but it's difficult to see how they would be, since they are not a political party or recognized minority group.)

edit: parentheses

Fortunately the all talk guy can not do much because there are still some other branches of government. But that doesn't mean that he wouldn't if he could.

The freedom of speech thing matters not one bit to the alt-right and the Nazis longer than it takes them to overthrow the present order, after that it will go out the window very quickly.

Democracy can be destroyed, it has happened before and it likely will happen again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that it could not happen in America.

Anyway, this whole discussion isn't about free speech to begin with, it is about hate speech and inciting to violence.

Well, those things aren't the same. 'Hate speech' is protected in America (by omission; it's not defined anywhere). Incitement to violence is emphatically not, and is an offense. That being said, I certainly don't intend to limit our debate to semantics when it's actually the broader thrust of your argument that I want to challenge. (There is quite a good write-up here on definitions[1])

I agree that there is no reason why such destruction could not happen here. That is why I believe it is particularly important not to argue for narrow exemptions to important constitutional protections on the grounds of a perceived acute threat. Those protections are shields against the kind of 'democracide' that we may face, so why would we take them apart ourselves?

Furthermore, I think we're safer for having these Nazis out in the open. Their ideas are more easily ridiculed; they are denied the romantic attraction of being driven underground; and their members are more easily monitored (and infiltrated) by the FBI such that any planned atrocities are more readily stopped. They are not an existential threat to the republic, rather, a tiny minority of dangerous people who need to be monitored and arrested whenever they break a law.

[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

I think your comment must have landed here through a time warp of sorts, it appears to have been written last Wednesday and does not take into account the developments since then.

Maybe you would like to update it to present day knowledge?

Since you didn't actually write anything substantive in your quite witty comment, I'll have to put words in your mouth. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You see Wednesday as a sign of an emboldened neo-Nazi movement, an indication of a growing threat, a sign that a formerly dormant group has begun taking direct action.

I see it as a new national awareness of a group of people who have been here all along, a desperately sad act of murder by a damaged man, and a discredited and clumsy president managing to align himself publicly with an evil ideology decried by everyone except those same neo Nazis.

And you're advocating for, well, I'm not actually sure, but some sort of legislative change to tackle the threat you perceive because you believe it will make us safer. I'm pushing for the opposite, because I believe that your way will drive dangerous people further into the shadows while undermining those defenses we talked about above.

Probably there is a middle way, maybe involving using existing laws such as those used to combat gangs to break apart specific groups of neo Nazis, or quietly increasing the funding of those parts of the FBI which are responsible for domestic extremism.

Probably I am wrong and you are right. I do not think I can convince you, but perhaps you can convince me.

> And you're advocating for, well, I'm not actually sure, but some sort of legislative change to tackle the threat you perceive because you believe it will make us safer.

No, I'm not advocating for that at all.

For the rest I would class your assessment as 'mostly accurate', but the devil is in the details.

If you would like to take this off-line I'd be more than happy to converse with you, jacques@mattheij.com.

Thanks Jacques, appreciate the offer. I've sent you an email.

> This is an extremely frightening statement to me. I'm terrified by the fact that you'd paint me as a Nazi sympathizer because my meta-level beliefs that text and speech should be protected are stronger than my object-level beliefs that Nazi philosophy is evil.

Well, your theoretical beliefs are now put to a much more practical test, sympathizing with the Nazis in any way shape or form, even if it comes down to just sympathizing with their 'right to a platform' is an excellent way to see how strong ones beliefs really are.

If this is the first time you are in a situation where your strongly held principles are put to the test then I sympathize with you, the longer you live the more this will happen and the more likely you will end up in a situation where there is a conflict between a strongly held belief and a negative consequence for yourself.

Note that bringing weapons (loaded or not) to a march sends a message: we're an army, and we're armed. Not using those weapons should not get them points. One of them brought his car and did use it, the damage was as bad or even worse as if he had fired a rifle.

> The Nazis are not reviled today because they had disgusting beliefs. They're reviled because they actually murdered millions of innocent citizens.

And they would do so again in a heartbeat if they knew they could get away with it.

> I'm okay with neonazis saying disgusting things, as long as they play by the rules and don't commit any violence. (Hell, people brought AK-47's and AR-15's to Charlottesville but didn't use them, despite the violent clashes.) Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"? Do kids not learn that mantra anymore?

Neo Nazis only say disgusting things because they know they are still living in a society where they can not get away with doing more but make no mistake, the overthrowing of that very society is their goal and I'd love to see you arguing for 'free speech' in the society that they wish to create.

You'd be up against the wall faster than you can say 'jack shit'.

The internet archive? https://web.archive.org/web/*/daily%20stormer

And they'll gag be back up by tomorrow no doubt. "Hell, people brought AK-47's and AR-15's to Charlottesville but didn't use them, despite the violent clashes." What restraint.

> I'm okay with neonazis saying disgusting things, as long as they play by the rules and don't commit any violence.

So people should be allowed to say anything? So you can organize any imaginable crime, threaten people and promote false information as long as you don't do any physical harm?

I agree that just objecting Cloudflare's decision doesn't make you anything. One being a potential Nazi sympathizer just because they don't see any limits to where free speech ends can just be a very crazy conspiracy theory - nothing else.

Speech intended to incite violence and threatening isn't protected by the 1st.

I'm not an American and I didn't talk about something being legal or not. I was lucky enough to leave Turkey before they started jailing people based on their ideas, so I know how bad it may get if legal protection on free speech is weakened.

If you are referring to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me", clearly you have other problems with sympathy and empathy.

Free speech does not protect dangerous speech.

See, and now you're attacking the character of a person: "clearly you have other problems".

This type of psychological attack is precisely the issue at hand with counter-nazi progress online at this precise moment in time.

Uh, ad hominems didn't just appear this year in counter-nazi speech. Really: "Many sides". Further, Nazi ideology and arguments are literally ad hominems anyway...

I think we can all agree that ad hominems must be put to bed.

"Free speech does not protect dangerous speech."

Yes, it does. Explicitly and confirmed by several Supreme Court cases.

Here's a quick and current take on the issue from Eugene Volokh: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1357/

For example, if you're a screenwriter in Hollywood who once said something nice about communism...oh, wait.

That's talking about hate speech, which is absolutely covered by the first amendment.

Sufficiently dangerous speech is not protected (Schenck v. United States, Dennis v. United States). Whether or not this speech was sufficiently dangerous is a matter of debate, but the comment you're replying to is correct.

I must have misread the parent comment then.

'Fighting words' as defined by the courts is a very very narrow definition, however, and I've seen a lot of really naive comments referrencing that exemption.

I think it's important to point out that almost every time you think speech is 'fighting words', it's not.

This has been proven in the courts over and over. If some idea or words really anger or disgust you, I can almost guarantee that it's protected speech.

I know, which is why I'm trying to be clear that how dangerous this is is a matter of debate. Just because speech is political does NOT mean it is protected (see Dennis v. United States).

To be 'fighting words', they have to be specific, actionable, and immediate. Typically, they also need to be specifically directed. 'Kill all the <insert chosen group>' is not. 'Kill those <specific bunch of persons> over there right now' is... probably...maybe.

That's talking about hate speech. Explicitly dangerous speech, or 'fighting words', as acknowledged in the article, are not a protected class of speech under the First Amendment, as established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942.

I challenge you to find even one instance of where citation of the Chaplinksy case has ever been used ever since the ruling itself to defend the merit of a clamp down on open speech anywhere in the U.S.

It's doubtful that the case would even be decided the same way today.

There doesn't have to be. The decision shows that the Supreme Court intended to exempt a narrow range of abusive speech from constitutional protection.

It's true that the definition of 'fighting words' has narrowed considerably over the years, but the Chaplinsky case is foundational to the debate on what counts as free speech and has weighed heavily on subsequent judgments.

the Chaplinsky case is foundational to the debate on what counts as free speech and has weighed heavily on subsequent judgments

It's been nothing but a hypothetical argument from the grab-bag of people looking to silence speech they don't agree with by people who write newspaper op-eds. It's never actually been used to deny anyone freedom of speech.

If I'm wrong, then cite its use.

To be 'fighting words', they have to be specific, actionable, and immediate. Typically, they also need to be specifically directed.

'Kill all the <insert chosen group>' is not.

'Kill those <specific bunch of persons> over there right now' is... probably...maybe.

The problem is who defines "dangerous speech"?

Dr. King himself was labeled as "the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro and national security"

Dr. King wasn't calling for the "cleansing" of our nation. This "but it's a slippery slope" thing is ridiculous when the analogy is to someone who was seeking equality and peace. You know, the EXACT opposite of what these idiots are doing.

Indeed, and yet Dr. King would likely have been censored on the internet by the EXACT same justification (he is dangerous to us) in the not so distant past, if the internet were around back then.

Which is why it is important to have equality of speech.

"Slippery slope" is a poor analogy for restricting speech. A more accurate analogy would be a double edged sword which cuts both ways.

No, he really wouldn't have. You act as though the minority racists ran the entirety of the country and that's just not true. If your statements were based in fact he never would've gotten television or print coverage, and he got ample amounts of both.

You can keep saying that it will be applied to both good and evil until you're blue in the face but it won't make it fact.

If we allow the government to punish people for rape, next thing you know they'll be punishing people for consensual sex. It's a double edged sword.

That's really how ridiculous the argument sounds.

Dr. King was in fact censored, ignored, slandered and misrepresented by the television and print media. Especially when he protested the war in Vietnam and began his poor people's campaign.

>You can keep saying that it will be applied to both good and evil until you're blue in the face but it won't make it fact.

How are you so sure corporate censorship can never be used for malicious purposes?

Was the war in Iraq a good thing? Because MSNBC censorsed/fired their popular TV host Phil Donahue for questioning it.

[EDIT] whoops wrong comment. I'll re-post this up one more level in the tree. My bad.

The Supreme Court defines 'dangerous speech'. Very specifically in fact. The First Amendment is one of the most well defined of the Amendments and has tons of legal decisions surrounding it.

Perfect example of the snowflake generation.

One of the neo-nazi's ran over a bunch of people with their car in attempt to kill and injure them. Did you miss that video? These nazi's are trying to kill people, they deserve life long prison sentences, not an internet platform to spew hate and calls to violence.

> This is an extremely frightening statement to me.

It truly is to me as well. It's something you expect nazis to say.

Imagine if the comment was

"The idea that I'm seeing any of these comments arguing to the contrary means HN is already infiltrated by israel and other jewish sympathizing groups."

It's a form of intimidation to silence groups one disagrees with. I can't believe his comment is the most upvoted on HN of all places.

All the pro-censorship people here are behaving no differently than the neo-nazis they claim to hate. Not only that, both groups share the hatred of free speech and the principles which kept the US from being a nazi germany.

Everyone here is forgetting that Nazi Germany happened because germans supported censorship. Censorship allowed a minority group like the nazis to take over the government and silence everyone else. If the germans had an appreciation for free speech back then nazi germany would have been impossible since most germans opposed hitler and the nazi party. Nazi germany happened because of censorship laws which allowed hitler to ban all political parties and all speech he disagreed with.

But nobody learns history or philosophy anymore it seems.

> Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"? Do kids not learn that mantra anymore?

It seems like kids are taking gender studies instead of philosophy and that is frightening. All the arguments are based on emotion rather than reason.

This is fundamentally untrue, but the nice knife twist against gender studies was a nice bit of rhetoric.

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle and ignoring our request to stop. That's not what this site is for, it destroys what it is for, and we ban accounts that abuse the site this way.

Would you please stop creating accounts to break the site guidelines like this?

I guess the idea coming out of this is that if you want to be forgotten on the Internet, commit wrongspeak. If you want your arrest record and record of your divorce to disappear from the Internet, add some wrongspeak in there - Google, Cloudflare, and others will pull it down in an instant.