Comment by illuminerdy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by illuminerdy | Hacker News Reader

I can see how their conclusions play out in real life.

One of the common threads I've noticed across many people when trying to explain why defending freedom of speech, and the free and open exchange of ideas in general, is that they're not just defending some "right-wing" person's rights, they're actually defending their own rights. Because the same tactics and rationales that are being used to suppress and silence the "right-wing" (which is comically everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders these days) will eventually be turned around and used to silence and suppress them.

But so many people simple can't wrap their head around it.

The notion is perfectly illustrated by Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

By protecting the rights of everyone, even people you disagree with, you are ultimately protecting your own rights. Anything else is short-sighted and dangerous.

A common thread I see is a lot is people conflating freedom of speech and having a platform (more specifically an online one). Forcing private entities to host speech they don't want to goes against what I define as freedom of speech. Everyone should be entitled to speak and have their own ideas, no individual or company should be force to spread them.

> Forcing private entities to host speech they don't want to goes against what I define as freedom of speech.

What if a private entity owns the town square?

Then build a town square that is publicly owned, we as society decided to wave our hands of the responsibility of making a publicly owned the internet for the convenience of allowing big tech do it for us. The solution is not force private companies to host speech. It either create a publicly owned town square on the internet or collectively stop valuing/using these platforms so much.

> It either create a publicly owned town square on the internet or collectively stop valuing/using these platforms so much.

Great. How do you intend to accomplish this, practically speaking?

I suggest a tax cut for myself. The benefits will trickle down to society and they'll build a new public square.

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the scenario more closely:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Regulating corporations is common and I suspect you fully support regulation in many circumstances (such as utilities). It seems bizarre to me why people think speech should somehow be exempt.

There’s always a corporation that can potentially silence you. Even if you managed to build your own entire network from scratch, on which to host this ‘town square’, you could be shut down by banks or power companies refusing to do business with you.

Meanwhile, the size of mob needed to get something/someone deplatformed seems to be getting smaller as deplatforming tactics continue to be optimized.

> Forcing private entities to host speech they don't want to goes against what I define as freedom of speech.

What if the private entity is suppressing speech at the behest of the government?

That's obviously over the line, like a landlord searching your apartment as a 'polite favor' for the police who don't have a warrant and can't order him, but ask him nicely.

This is a bad-faith argument implying exactly the opposite of the post you are responding to. No one was forcing anyone, a large company caved in to outcry and a protest to which one (1) person showed up IRL.

This isn't reddit.

It's not about conflating freedom of speech and having a platform. It's about discrimination by businesses. We have laws in place preventing businesses from discriminating. A shop cannot say "we don't allow black people here" and hide under the excuse of "oh but there's plenty of other shops you can go to". A platform should not be able to saw "we don't allow X people here" and hide under the excuse of "oh but there's plenty of other platforms you can go to".

How do you protect the rights of those being bullied, trolled, harassed, doxxxed and revenge-porned.

With laws.

That’s exactly my point. Laws restricting speech. Free speech is a utopian nonsense, there are always restrictions (just ask the SEC). It’s just a question of where a society thinks the line should be drawn.

Only one of things you listed (revenge porn) is actually illegal. Republishing publicly available info nor calling someone a bad word is illegal.

Depends which country you live in.

Not by taking someone's right to free expression. That's not an option only because there's no way to decide who decides what speech is ok. As soon as you go down that road it will eventually get abused.

The problem I believe is that people don't understand that freedom and security not only don't go hand-in-hand, but they are often diametrically opposed. We can do something about direct or indirect inciting of violence. Being bullied, trolled, harassed and doxxed may be illegal if it can be shown that violence toward an individual or a group was the specific intent. But offending someone is not enough, at least not in the U.S.

Other place, certainly. Many places have laws against insulting another person, offending their dignity or decorum <-- I'm literally quoting.

However, America also has a long ways to go with regard to freedom of speech.

In 2022, the U.S. ranked 42nd in the "Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index"

Very sad.

Bullied, trolled - Tell them to get over it.

Harassed - online, tell them to get over it. In person (i.e. someone is actually harassing you in real life), call the police because we already have laws against that.

Doxxed - If someone posts actual protected information, then sue them if you can. If someone just posts public information, then I don't see what the issue is.

Revenge-porned - If someone makes secret recordings of someone without their permission in a situation where that person would reasonably expect privacy, then that should be a crime. If someone makes a sex tape with someone willingly and hands ownership/control of said tape to that person, then you should have to live with the consequences of your actions. Don't make sex tapes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> Revenge-porned

Go to the police, because most states have laws against revenge porn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn#United_States

Reply on news.ycombinator.com