Hacker News Reader

Comment by debo_ | Hacker News Reader

He isn't boycotting. He is planning to peacefully protest, which I think is reasonable.

Disrupting a talk isn't really "peaceful". You're physically obstructing the talk and daring the conference organizers who rented the room and other participants who want to hear the talk to use force to remove you.

You're describing disruption, not violence.

Why is it reasonable to interrupt everyone else's freedom to hear someone talk?

If you believe someone is actively harming the audience (as he seems to), a peaceful protest is the way to go.

We'll learn soon enough if he is right and the community stands (sits?) with him or not.

But I couldn't not giggle on "freedom to hear someone talk" as an inverse of "free speech". Jack Dorsey has many platforms where he is welcome, and there are plenty opportunities to hear him share his thoughts. It's not like someone on the fringes is being shut off.

He's not "violating" someone's freedom to listen to a talk, but rather he hates the guy and wants him gone. At least he's doing something about it

>> He isn't boycotting. He is planning to peacefully protest, which I think is reasonable.

No. He's planning to forcefully disrupt by blocking the stage. Narcissistic to the core: "My views and need for attention are more important than the other 8000 people here who may want to see this talk."

Disrupting access with your physical presence is not a use of force. Without peaceful protests, people will resort to violence more often.

You're importing protest tactics developed for use against governments and large corporations into a context where they don't make any sense. There, this legalistic distinction between "force" and "disruption" is quite important, because ensuring you don't cross the line to "force" greatly decreases the legitimacy of any violent response. It doesn't matter at FOSDEM, because FOSDEM is not going to hire goons to beat you up regardless of what you do.

I don't fully understand your reply. Peaceful protests have existed for a long while before corporations did, for many different causes. They weren't always existential, nor were they always directed at the state.

I have participated in community events where venue security decided they had to forcibly remove protesters from the premises, and in one case they contacted police for help. I qualify those as peaceful protests, and I believe security / police took reasonable measures to respond. No one was hurt, and everyone got the message, whether they agreed with it or not.

>> Disrupting access with your physical presence is not a use of force.

When they try to move him, will that be use of force? When he tries to resist being moved will that not be forcibly staying?

It absolutely is. If security is standing in front of the door to the stage are they going to push past? How is security supposed to remove them from the stage without using force? It's force that's designed to make the protesters look like they're the victim if anyone tries to get in their way.

A peaceful protest would be standing outside on the sidewalk with signs.

Yes it is. You basically being a fascist by turning up using physical force to block free speech

You invoke violence by disrupting somebody elses rights. You force people to use violence/force to remove you in order to maintain the right to free speech.

Jack Dorsey would be free to say anything he wants outside of the stage, like Jordan Peterson once did, or pinned to the top of Bluesky, or to any mainstream media outlet of his choice, or on prime-time TV, or so on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com