Hacker News Reader

Comment by trianglem | Hacker News Reader

Good. I would much rather have a good amount of censorship then let bigots hide behind the “free speech” argument.

I hate bigots as well, but I hate your kind of thinking even more.

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Who decides what needs to be censored? How do we ensure a fair process if we could be silenced for just questioning the censors?

The hate speech slope is slippery and unscrupulous politicians will always want to interfere.

Anything you cannot biologically change is hate speech. It’s not complicated and it’s objective.

Great news for those who don't like certain religions.

Modern racism probably is focused much more on cultural attributes, perceived to be universal or common among certain people, than melanin level. That makes your test useless for the most obvious thing a hate speech law would seek to protect.

I look forward to the compliant version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralympic_Games

With this law in place, your (or anybody else's) stance on what constitutes hate speech or whether it's objective doesn't matter at all. What matters is who is in charge of defining and applying these policies, and you wouldn't have noticed how you'd become a criminal one day. Capisce?

You can tie a whole hell of a lot of things to biologically immutable attributes. Are these hate speech?

- I don't like short men

- I like blondes

- We want to hire smart people

- man how can he/she be so dumb?

So now I can't say any of these things?

So you can’t criticize people’s personality?

That sounds bigoted against people for free speech to me. You should be banned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com