Comment by AHappyCamper | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AHappyCamper | Hacker News Reader

One of the values I believe in the most is the right to free speech.

Free speech is a powerful thing, which means it can be used for good and for bad. Sometimes what appears to us today as bad can actually turn out to be good in the future.

The general rule of free speech is that it does not permit threats of violence or obvious incitement to violence.

Hate speech, on the other hand, is MUCH more subjective. What may appear to me to be a well-reasoned argument may to you appear to be hate speech.

With these complex issues in mind, I'd say that unless the groups that Reddit banned were advocating or threatening violence, banning them was counter-productive and hurtful to having an open and free discourse on the internet.

Of course, there is the go-to argument that Reddit is a private company, and as such they can do whatever they like, but because they provide a public service that is used by billions of people, they have an obligation to uphold the values and laws of our society - most notably the first amendment - which protects free speech.

You speak as if there is an objective definition of "threats of violence or obvious incitement to violence" but I've seen people argue that as no less subjective (and therefore no less a slippery slope) as defining hate speech.

I think there is a much more objective definition of "threats of violence or obvious incitement to violence" than there is for hate speech.

Some people could interpret a sentence like: "I don't like the taste of curry" to be hate speech, since it targets the ethnic food of a difference race. (For the record, I love curry...)

So yes, banning "hate speech" that does not threaten violence is a slippery slope, because it is simply too open to interpretation.

A "much more objective" definition is still subjective. Some people consider the fourteen words "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" to be a threat of violence, others consider it to simply a neutral statement. Some people consider wearing MAGA hats to be a threat of violence, others simply a form of patriotism. Was Trump making a racist, violent threat when he said "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," or just prosaically supporting law and order?

If it can be argued that one can apply a test of reasonableness as to whether or not a statement constitutes a threat of violence, then it should be the case such a test can be applied to hate speech. There's a risk of abuse involved in both cases, yes, but there is always a risk where the interpretation of language for political ends is involved.

No. If everything is subjective, then we must err on the side of being permissive, not restrictive, because if we choose restrictive, then everything is a threat of violence and illegal, and what you just said above is against the law and you need to go to jail for it (it isn't, and you don't - I'm just trying to illustrate a point).

Here's why you're wrong about your approach: if everything is subjective and the answer to everything is repression, then the law is no longer valid, and the only possible outcome is civil war.

If you do not want bloody, horrific, monstrous civil war with giant swarths of the population who don't agree with you, then you should err on the side of being permissive of questionable speech.

As you've seen from the mass riots recently in the USA, a massive violent response is only a single sensationalist news story away.

We need to support and encourage free speech.

> if everything is subjective and the answer to everything is repression, then the law is no longer valid, and the only possible outcome is civil war.

We already live in a world in which limits on speech exist, including the limit against threats of violence being discussed. We also already live in a world in which every law besides the laws of physics is subjective and open to interpretation.

If it is the case that subjective reality must render law invalid, then the law is and has always been invalid. Given that the law does not appear to be invalid, and civilization appears to remain intact, it cannot be stated as a certainty that the existence of laws themselves (restrictions) in a subjective reality must inevitably lead to anarchy.

Your error is the fallacy of the excluded middle, assuming the only possible paths to take here are towards unrestricted free speech or arbitrary repression.

>If you do not want bloody, horrific, monstrous civil war with giant swarths of the population who don't agree with you, then you should err on the side of being permissive of questionable speech.

Arguments of the type "x or blood will be on your hands" appear more extortionate than appealing to reason. I don't believe that Reddit banning these communities will lead to that outcome, and if you consider that a likely possibility, maybe you should reexamine your assumptions.

>As you've seen from the mass riots recently in the USA, a massive violent response is only a single sensationalist news story away.

There was a lot more behind that then a single sensationalist news story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com