Hacker News Reader

Comment by tannedNerd | Hacker News Reader

As much as I hate doxxing anonymous accounts, I’m kinda ok with this. You want to release heinous statements without a retraction you deserve real world consequences. The student groups that issued retractions should be spared but anyone who supports barbarism should be shunned and punished. Also don’t give me the bs that they posted they hate all civilian lives lost, they only posted that after the NYU student lost their job for that horrible newsletter and got worried about consequences. Before that there was no mention of them caring one bit about the innocents massacred at a music festival or dragged out of their safe rooms, then beheaded. Instead there was a celebratory undertone in all their posts as if they were celebrating the massacre of innocents Typo edit

View on HN

All of this is just awful.

The posturing over it in America is terrible, it's not about you and your political tribes, but you're somehow making it about you, when people are dying. Did their statement cause deaths in the Levant? No, it's just posturing. Does this truck prevent any deaths in the Levant? More useless posturing, with an added element of incitement to violence against those who dare disagree with us.

Jesus wept.

I know the Evangelical Right has been making the State of Israel about them for years, their eschatology demands its existence, but when the political hacks are trying to link Ukraine and Hamas to score some imagined point, it's disgusting.

And your support of these tactics for the suppression of thoughtcrime, in the alleged land of the free, is both terrible and awful.

So we shouldn’t have consequences for our actions? Are you saying I don’t understand forgiveness for mistakes? That is why I said the student groups that retracted their statements should be spared, but this is saying you should be able to run into a crowded theater and yell fire with no consequence.

Also like usual with the over reaction. This isn’t a thought crime. It’s simply amplifying their own hate speech. If they don’t like the attention so much maybe they shouldn’t be making such heinous statements. This is just the community reacting to something you are I guess are fine with. And good job trying to smear me instead of responding with facts!

edit for clarity

> That is why I said the student groups that retracted their statements should be spared

How would being spared work though? Would the truck run the route again with crossed over, corrected names? What if someone was doxxed by mistake, run an apology list truck?

So if I was a former member of the KKK and someone published that they are the bad guy?

But what if you weren't a member and someone published it, are they the bad guy? Can they "un-publish" it?

That’s not the case here. No mistake was made. And yes, typically you would issue a retraction or “unpublish” as you call it.

> No mistake was made.

The article in question disagrees with that.

> “... I’m even more appalled since many of them had nothing to do with the letter,” Furman wrote.

I guess they'll have to drive the truck backwards, and with mistaken names crossed out? And if anyone was affected the truck driver will personally vouch for them in an attempt to reverse the damages.

You might be okay with this, others are not:

    Harvard Hillel, the University’s Jewish center, released a statement Wednesday afternoon saying that it “strongly condemns any attempts to threaten and intimidate” members of co-signatory organizations.

    “We will continue to reject the PSC’s statement in the strongest terms — and demand accountability for those who signed it,” the statement reads. “But under no circumstances should that accountability extend to public intimidation of individuals.”

Solid response. The Jewish center remembers that Jews have too often been on the receiving end of "public intimidation of individuals".

I do wonder how, specifically, they're going to "demand accountability", though.

> ...displaying the names and faces of students allegedly affiliated with student groups that signed...

The article certainly makes it sound as though there is a definite possibility that the students who were doxxed did not actually sign anything. The accusation made by the doxxers is one that could lead to serious consequences, especially given the inflammatory nature of this.

I can't disagree with this strongly enough.

The whole "well their side did something bad so that justifies this action in return" is exactly what caused this problem in the first place.

To continue it only invites escalation.

This isn’t eye for an eye. It’s simply amplifying their own statements. If they don’t like the attention, don’t make such horrible statements that blame innocent victims for their own deaths. Plus many organizations have realized that this letter was not appropriate, I think that putting more pressure on people who think that this statement is fine is American. I would think we don’t support people who murder innocents is a universal moral concept in the USA.

See the counter argument there is that they weren't blaming innocents for their own deaths, they were saying the government of Israel is responsible for the situation.

And then it will turn into "oh but Israeli actions are/are not justified military action" etc etc.

And then it will turn out that many of the people doxxed didn't actually sign the letter and do not agree with it and merely signed up to a mailinglist/membership/something.

And then someone will physically attack someone who was doxxed.

etc

This cycle doesn't get stopped by amplifying bad actions.

Not giving a strong response ( 2014) invites more escalation by the agressor ( 2022 - Russia ).

Israel is almost surrounded by extremist Muslims/ Arabs, which hasn't changed much in those decades.

1948 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_Wa...

Tbh. I don't think Israel has much of a choice to be safe for another couple of decades.

Are you comparing writing a letter to invading Ukraine and saying both require similar deterrence? That seems a fairly extreme position to take?

Regardless of the circumstance, intimidation tactics like these undermine free speech.

I don’t agree. If you make public statements, you should be more than prepared for others to amplify your public statements with your name attached.

The solution to speech you don’t like is more speech. This is the system working as intended. Free speech does not mean freedom from social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions.

Threats of violence and guilt by association is not part of proper discourse.

This isnt more speech, its saying shut up or find out, its an attempt at mob justice, one makes websites with disregard for privacy and truth (did they say it or just associated to the organisation like the old student?), one amplifies the identified people with a truck, the other intimidates with death threats, and none feel very guilty because each carry through a fraction of the whole ordeal. More speech is great, but thats a romanticised view you have, because these people are putting themselves above the law.

Should we tolerate people that advocate the murder of civilians?

There’s also an easy solution. You can very publicly state that you don’t agree with the group that you were once part of. But this is saying you should be able to make a heinous statement and then walk back it when you get confronted about it.

> Should we tolerate people that advocate the murder of civilians?

What do you mean by "tolerate" here? You don't have to support their views. But they should absolutely be allowed to speak. In a society that values free speech, we often have to tolerate speech we don't like.

There’s a level of attenuation that makes a meaningful difference which you are not acknowledging.

    > displaying the names and faces of students allegedly affiliated with student groups that signed onto a controversial statement on Hamas’ attack on Israel.

The doxxed students didn’t make public statements, and it’s far from clear that they even approved the statements made by the groups they are allegedly affiliated with. In one case mentioned by the article, a former student who no longer attends Harvard was among those being billboarded.

Yeah, this is like, incitement to get them killed, so: no. Even if they were murderers, instead of people who said stuff - and believe me, I hate what they said - you wouldn’t stick their faces on a truck and flirt with getting them killed.

I don't think anyone is going to get killed over this at Harvard

Ok, but why should people who never received the statements some group signed with which they were affiliated be fired from their jobs? This is beyond a free speech issue. You can't ask people to always know everything happening and raise their hand for the right thing at the right time.

>Ok, but why should people who never received the statements some group signed with which they were affiliated be fired from their jobs?

Employers have the right to fire anyone for almost any reason in the US. That is a consequence of both freedom of speech and freedom of association.

>Employers have the right to fire anyone for almost any reason in the US.

Yeah, and that's a load of utter bullshit.

Who has been fired for being associated with these groups? Give me a link. The only one that has been fired was that NYU student sending out that horrendous newsletter

Because no-one would ever travel for some political violence?

At what point does it become incitement?

If I think you said something stupid and make a poster to that effect, is that incitement? If I make a digital poster, ie a website, with that same information is that incitement? If I add your major or club memberships, is that incitement? If I include your address is that suddenly incitement?

If people are scared of the consequences of speaking out and voicing their opinions, then they really should just shut up. Free speech is not a diode.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com