Hacker News Reader

Comment by cratermoon | Hacker News Reader

- Performative Hate Speech Acts. Perlocutionary and Illocutionary Understandings in International Human Rights Law: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334199177_PERFORMAT...

- Oppressive Speech: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/000484008023703...

- Why We Should Ban Oppressive Speech Acts: https://publicseminar.org/essays/why-we-should-outlaw-oppres...

View on HN

The speech in your post is oppressing me right now. Cease and desist your verbal oppression or else I will use state-sponsored violence to end your oppressively free speech.

Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater has never been protected speech.

In the US? Yes it is. You realize you are quoting a 1919 supreme court case (that used the "fire in a theater" argument to make protesting against the draft illegal)... which has been overturned 50 years ago, right?

Is there an easy copy pasta on exactly how bad the original judgment was? Because there really ought to be one whenever someone posts about fire in a theatre.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to constitutional scholars. What law school did you go to? How long have you been a member of the SCOTUS bar? What law reviews have published your work and how many constitutional law cases have you argued?

I think you should review the HN guidelines, as it appears your comment is breaking several of them. If you want to make posts like this you should build your own HN.

And you're literally advocating for legalizing speech that incites violence. I'm ok with where I am, are you?

That is a gross mischaracterization, although one that I would expect given the track record of this conversation. Your comments are filled with an unhealthy level of vitriol, and I think it would be a good idea to cool down for a while.

Straight out of the obfuscation and doubt handbook. Instead of addressing the issue, go straight for attacking the messenger and divert, deflect, and distract.

Stop peddling conspiracy theories and bad faith arguments.

Your "misinformation" is the notion that masks work, vaccines are not "100% effective" as originally claimed, and that the coronavirus strain causing covid-19 is man-made. You want to stifle political opinions that threaten your narrative, and you have twisted your words in such a way that you are framing state censorship as a form of liberation. Your advocacy for state controls on speech would be far more at home in a totalitarian regime such as the DPRK, and I suggest you pursue your ideals there.

Another diversion, and a wrong one at that.

Stop projecting yourself onto other people.

When did HN end up at this?

For a while now it's been understood that the "'fire' in a crowded theater" thing is a misinformed meme

https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...

I love how everyone is piling on about the legal ruling and ignoring the actual problem at hand: apologists for harmful speech and misinformation.

Your position is based on a provably fallacious argument. The posters in this thread have provided you with references, but instead you're doubling down and ignoring them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com