Hacker News Reader

Comment by vilda | Hacker News Reader

This is sure road to hell. I'm from post-communist country and I clearly see how the freedom is slowly vanishing in EU.

The purpose of these regulations is to limit the speech within the boundaries of political correctness. And PC in Europe is mostly based on cultural marxism.

Interesting fact: Radio Free Europe was called Hateful Radio in communist media; not a coincidence. RFE would be banned because of hate speech.

Those interested to look outside their bubble, check this intoduction to cultural marxism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iB67rR3O3E

View on HN

Please don't post generic ideological boilerplate here. Such discussions all lead to the same few black holes (whence no thread returns) and those are what we're hoping to avoid.

I admit that I too am not quite happy with the Internet being subjected to 'traditional' law and order. I'm old enough to remember a time when the Internet was the playground of only computer scientists and some few nerds, before it was opened to commercial purposes. Before that, law never really applied to the Internet and I sometimes miss the time when it instead was this futuristic, anarchic, cyberspace that nobody but tech heads took serious.

Nowadays we spend a good deal of time every day online, we manage our money through the Internet, almost all communication would be impossible without it. It's become part of the real world.

So while I bristle at the thought that somebody has to delete post on their own servers - that users have to connect to and download information from, just because some weird law about inciting hate limits some certain public speech, it's their own computer! -, I have come to accept that since the Internet has become part of our life, it has to be governed by the same laws that govern our life. We cannot hide behind technical smartassery anymore.

So I don't see this as - put by you - 'cultural marxism'. This law follows the same maxim as the German constitution; human dignity aforefront. There's probably a giant philosophical debate what that implies versus putting free speech aforefront (the U.S. American constitution doesn't do that; it instead required an amendment to get free speech) and I'm pretty sure that just reducing it to 'marxism vs. free market' would simplify things a bit too much.

Have a good day!

Without the Bill of Rights having already been drafted and clearly having enough support for success, the Constitution would not have had enough support to have been ratified because of opponents that were concerned about the very rights that the Bill of Rights enacts (including freedom of speech).

It is obviously true that the first amendment is an amendment, but it is not accurate to suggest that it is (or was viewed at the time as) less essential than the document it amended.

This is something that is covered in most U.S. civics classes.

I never took U.S. civics, so that is news to me. I always found it weird that it took an amendment to get to free speech but apparently this was all set up in one go?

Thanks for that!

It's remarkably refreshing to see this comment on HN. The pirates have become the navy and it's time to grow up.

> human dignity aforefront

To me, human dignity includes the ability to form groups, state your political thoughts, and even state them to the government and voting public without becoming a criminal.

I think Nazis are scumbags, but forming "dangerous" dissenting groups has been a healthy response to oppression in the past. The American founding fathers were engaged in illegal and dangerous speech, for example. They were doing literally illegal things when publishing their pamphlets and such.

"Cultural Marxism" is an awful term that reeks of Fox News and Tea Party. It's a propaganda term to label (really quite disparate) others, designed to bait people who have a Pavlovian response to certain trigger words (Marxism, socialism). It feels like an insult to my intelligence when somebody uses such terms in my presence. I don't want to defend the sometimes grotesque excesses of internet SJWs, that is another issue. But don't talk to me like a dog.

Most importantly I can't work out what the hell it means or what it has to do with Marx.

It a conspiracy theory. The gist of it is that the government, the media, academia, and any other institution with authority, have been infiltrated, and are now controlled by communists who use this power to brainwash the country with social liberalism and progressivism. And when I say "communists", I mean Jews, sometimes rich capitalist Jews, like George Soros, who, according to the originators of the conspiracy theory, are also secretly communists. The end goal of these supposed communists, is to sabotage Western society, by spreading these, according to them, cancerous ideas.

I guess that explains the puzzling references I've seen to Marxist bankers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com