Hacker News Reader

Comment by Latty | Hacker News Reader

The difference between neo-nazis and democratic protest?

The difference is content. I hate the tendency to fall back to arguments about free speech when that is not the point. Yes, of course everyone should be able to express views individually, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the content of what is being said. That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to the ability to ram that message down everyone's throat through every possible route.

Yeah, companies have a right to self-censor, and consumers have a right to punish them for that.

Hell yes I support CloudFlare kicking off neo-nazis, hell no I don't support Blizzard silencing HK protestors. No hypocrisy because what is being said matters.

View on HN

> I hate the tendency to fall back to arguments about free speech when that is not the point.

What you're saying isn't free speech at all; it's supporting the right to express speech you agree with and being ok with views you don't being taken down. In particular, free speech isn't "the point" to you.

Free speech is about not being arrested for expression. You are talking about companies being compelled to repeat speech, and that begs a lot of questions: what speech, by whom, how much relative time and visibility are different bits of speech given?

Free speech is an ideal, the constitutional protection is only an implementation and in the modern world arguably not the most important one.

As for compelling companies to do business with people they don't want to, we crossed that line long ago, they can't refuse service to people on the ground of race, sex, etc. Are you in favor of getting rid of anti-discrimination laws?

Protected characteristics i.e. things you can't use as a basis for discrimination are things that people can't change about themselves. Refusing to do business because you don't like what someone is saying is different from refusing to do business on the basis of a protected characteristic.

> Protected characteristics i.e. things you can't use as a basis for discrimination are things that people can't change about themselves.

That's not true, the list of protected classes includes religion, gender, familial status and veteran status. All things which people have control over.

But the point is we've already stomped all over any "right" a business has to deny service to someone. Instead of defending this right and the new age of corporate fascism that comes with it, why not go for something fully universal and remove a tool for CCP manipulation at the same time?

People have control over their gender? You should let everyone suffering from dysphoria know that!

Take that up with the people claiming gender is a social construct, that identify as gender fluid or making up the alphabet soup of modern genders. I had no part in that.

> Take that up with the people claiming gender is a social construct

There's gender expression, and there's gender identity.

The people that use that phrase to 100% include gender identity are pretty much all anti-trans bigots. I do take it up with them when the opportunity arises, but if you're going to say the same things then you're part of the problem. You can't say something and be blameless because you heard it from someone else.

> that identify as gender fluid or making up the alphabet soup of modern genders

Maybe some of them are going too hard on the need to categorize everything, but they're still not choosing that underlying nature.

If you have deeply held faith in Religion A and you convert to Religion B purely to avoid discrimination, I don't count it as a real change, and the person themselves would probably not either. The only way to really change your religion is to have a heartfelt change in beliefs, and who has conscious control over that?

Gender identity doesn't seem to be consciously changeable. Some people's gender may be different from their biological sex, but the identity itself is pretty deeply rooted.

Familial and veteran status are also not changeable i.e. if you already have children or are a veteran, you can't go back and change that fact. Even though people have some degree of control over having a family in the first place or serving/not serving, because they have been used as a dimension of discrimination in the past, they've been lumped in as a protected characteristic. There's also nothing bad about having a family or serving/not serving - in contrast to discrimination over a criminal record (legal in many places AFAIK), which like familial & veteran status also can't be changed and which people also have some degree of control over.

> The only way to really change your religion is to have a heartfelt change in beliefs, and who has conscious control over that?

Now consider how that applies to a white supremacist, the also have have a deeply held faith in their beliefs (as with most fringe groups), probably more so than most than most religious people. And their beliefs are often equally abhorrent. Why is it OK to discriminate against people that think the white race is superior but not to discriminate against people that think they're gods chosen people? What do we do when a religion thinks it's OK to discriminate against gay people?

> Gender identity doesn't seem to be consciously changeable. Some people's gender may be different from their biological sex, but the identity itself is pretty deeply rooted.

Some people switch based on mood, making it not an inherent characteristic:

> Genderfluid people often express a desire to remain flexible about their gender identity rather than committing to a single definition.[20] They may fluctuate between differing gender expressions over their lifetime, or express multiple aspects of various gender markers at the same time.[20][21] They may at times identify as bigender - shifting between masculine and feminine; or as trigender - shifting between these and a third gender. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender

And as a social construct it can change based on societal expectations and roles.

> There's also nothing bad about having a family or serving/not serving - in contrast to discrimination over a criminal record (legal in many places AFAIK)

On the military I disagree, there is something bad about being a willing participant in wars of aggression and I'd much rather be able to discriminate against them then I would a stoner that landed in jail.

So instead of arguing about grey areas of what is an inherent trait and what is changeable along with how to handle conflicts between protected classes that themselves discriminate, let's make it illegal for companies to discriminate against individuals/organisations entirely?

> let's make it illegal for companies to discriminate against individuals

What does that even mean though? You can't discriminate against anyone for any reason whatsoever? What if they have terrible hygiene? Insult everyone around them? A company can't discriminate against candidates who don't have the requisite job skills? They can't fire someone who subtly undermines or plots or otherwise plays politics? Isn't that anti-meritocracy?

Protected classes are (mostly) "what someone is" - that's why they're "protected". The stuff I listed above is "what someone does" and depending on context it's totally valid to use it as a reason for discrimination.

> Now consider how that applies to a white supremacist

White supremacy isn't a religion.

> Why is it OK to discriminate against people that think the white race is superior

How did anyone find out that this person is a white supremacist though? They probably said or did something, right? Seems like discrimination due to actions, not beliefs, to me. As a businessperson would you trust an employee who openly proclaims such beliefs to treat all their co-workers or your customers with equal respect? At the very least, I'd question their judgement in other matters, because they fell for such an idiotic and backward ideology and then talked about it. As a citizen, would you trust a government official who espoused such views to treat everyone they deal with equally?

> not to discriminate against people that think they're gods chosen people?

Because it's a religious belief (I understand that's a tautology - "it's illegal because it's illegal"). Nevertheless if your employee goes beyond belief into action - discriminates against a colleague or customer - you have grounds to fire them.

> What do we do when a religion thinks it's OK to discriminate against gay people?

Side with the party being discriminated against in that case. It's also not OK for a gay person to discriminate against someone based on religion.

> Some people switch based on mood

Not at all. Some people have different gender identities at different times. That's still part of their gender identity. Calling it "based on mood" makes it seem capricious and arbitrary. But if it was really so then wouldn't they choose not to do it so they could fit into what society generally expects - being cisgendered. Most people want a hassle-free life and don't want to be discriminated against.

> And as a social construct it can change based on societal expectations and roles.

This is a meaningless statement. "I'm female/genderfluid but I'm expected to act male in my society due to my body so I'll do that to fit in." is pretty oppressive. That same person may be able to live their true identity in a more free society. Voila gender changed due to "societal expectations", but the fault really was of society. It wasn't the individual's choice to hide their identity in the more repressive society.

> a willing participant in wars of aggression

People join the military out of a sense of patriotism, to get an education, to escape poverty, or travel and see the world. They don't decide to start wars of aggression, the politicians do that. It's also bad national policy (in terms of self-preservation) to allow discrimination based on veteran status, because that will discourage people from serving in future. Regardless of one's feelings about individual conflicts, most nations today can't do without a military and you have to treat service members well after they have served.

> Familial and veteran status are also not changeable i.e. if you already have children or are a veteran, you can't go back and change that fact.

Familial status is changeable: you can marry, have children, divorce, give children up for adoption, and be widowed. All of which change family status. Actually, even aging of children changes family status, since the age of children is itself a factor relating to the family that is covered by protections against family-status discrimination.

> discrimination over a criminal record ... which ... also can't be changed

Criminal record can legally be changed in both directions, though neither is under the full and exclusive control of the possessor of the record (though they certainly have an influence, in both directions)—new convictions, expungements, and pardons are all real things.

> you can marry, have children, divorce, give children up for adoption, and be widowed

Coercing someone into doing that under pain of discrimination is pretty cruel though.

> though neither is under the full and exclusive control of the possessor of the record

That's why I said not entirely in one's control. I'm aware pardons, expungements exist.

> No hypocrisy because what is being said matters.

Free speech - for people you agree with. Well, I'm glad we sorted out that mess.

The government shouldn't be able to lock you up for your expression, but we are talking about if Blizzard can stop an employee from expressing a view on their product. How can you possibly enforce that anyone should be allowed to express anything in that context? How must time be allocated? Who must be allowed to speak? Can they promote rival products or badmouth Blizzard?

Hell yes I support waterboarding terrorists. There's no way the definition of 'terrorist' will ever change. There's no way it will be ever done to me.

Hell yes I support civil forfeiture with no due process. There's no way it will be ever done to innocent people.

Hell yes I support the executive branch getting more and more power. There's no way someone terrible would ever be the President and use that power.

and now:

Hell yes I support corporations policing free speech. They are on our side! There's no way it will ever be done to me or people I like.

do you get the idea?

Am I a fucking terrorist sympathizer if I speak out against torture and extrajudicial indefinite detention? No. I don't give a shit about them, but whatever I support done to them might be done to me.

Am I a fucking Nazi sympathizer if I speak out against abuse of power by unaccountable private entities? No. I don't give a shit about them, but whatever I support done to them might be done to me.

Your first examples are all completely different. The government should not be able to punish the expression of ideas (usual caveats, calls to harm, etc...), no.

Beyond the government? It's just not that simple. The solution is compelled speech? If I run a company, I have to broadcast people calling for my death, for example?

Should Blizzard be forced to allow anyone to say anything on their show? What if someone starts promoting a competing product? How do you deal with who is allowed to demand airtime on their particular thing? What proportion of exposure are given bits of speech given?

I'm not saying there aren't issues with companies having control over speech—this case is absolutely an example of that—but you are pretending that compelling companies to allow any speech is simple.

I understand how people arrive at this position, but it's not a free speech position. You can't be pro free speech as long as you agree with it, that undermines the entire concept. You can't be pro free speech, as long as there are horrible consequences for free speech you don't agree with. If right-wing extremism and other factors are making people re-think the value of free speech, fine, there are plenty of compelling points to make about the dangers and downsides of free speech, but enough of the mental gymnastics where people convince themselves they're still pro free-speech when they are very clearly against the concept.

Free speech is about the government not punishing you for your expression, not that all speech should be without limit or repercussion in general.

How would it possibly work if I couldn't be fired for insulting a customer at work, or telling them to shop at a rival instead. How would it work if news networks were required to broadcast my rant about whatever I want? Do I have to associate with the neo-nazi who wants me dead because I can't apply consequences for their speech?

I agree that this case is an example of unjust consequences of speech, and I think Blizzard did the wrong thing. It is not the same as being arrested and convicted for it, and it's not that simple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com