Comment by chroma | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chroma | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Freedom of speech isn't about speech. It's about hearing. There are people who want to read or listen to what others have to say, and often for reasons besides agreement with the author's statements. By silencing someone, you are preventing others from reading what they want to read or hearing what they want to hear. I certainly don't agree with the posts and comments on kiwifarms, but I want to understand what they believe and why. Also, there is a diamond in that dung heap of a website. Kiwifarms users archive tons of stuff, and those archives are very valuable.

Moreover, I cannot help but notice the double standard you've created. You still provide services to godhatesfags.com. Hell, cloudflare provides DDoS protection for ISIS content. How can you say that kiwifarms is too dangerous when you're ensuring that copies of Inspire and Dabiq are available for extremists to read? If you want to talk about dangerous content, go after the people who claim that they want to murder innocent people and have done so many times in the past.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspire_(magazine)

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabiq_(magazine)

providing hateful content spreads hate. clinging to some idea that absolute freedom of speech allows us to be moral and just is quite frankly bs when the spread of fascist / terrorist / homophobic / racist propaganda contributes to the destruction of democracy and the very freedoms we hold dear

> providing hateful content spreads hate.

You talk as if hate is a kind of mind-virus which must be defeated with quarantine.

For one thing, this is illiberal. You're not respecting people as your equals if you want to stop hatred by preventing them from reading things that can make them hate.

But more importantly, if it's that way, we have lost already. The tools you want to fight these evils with, work just as well in the enemy's hands, if not better.

We need a way to fight propaganda which works better for us than for them.

> But more importantly, if it's that way, we have lost already.

Absolutely. If the status quo sees ideas as a risk to reduce, clearly it's fragile.

OK, apply that logic to the Bible and the Qur'an. Both endorse slavery. Both encourage believers to hate gays and to treat women as chattel. Countless followers have dedicated their lives to the tenets in these books, and in many cases they end up harming others because of it. Are you going to ban those books? If not, why not?

Because most people follow a neutered form of religion that isn't an acute or extreme threat to democracy and freedom. It is a diffuse threat to some freedoms for sure. But it doesn't compare to actual ISIS or fascist propaganda. There is no way to categorically separate these things. It's about matters of degree and pragmatically deciding to draw a line somewhere, instead of being ideologically pure and pretending that the best thing to do is draw no line.

You do know we have documented proof that broadcasting hate speech tends to cause people get violent, right? Should we allow free radio of a thousand hills [0] to broadcast?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Télévision_Libre_des_Mil...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com