Hacker News Reader

"Give me the man and I will give you the case against him" [0]

It isn't that they're discussing anything which would traditionally be considered risky or out of bounds - that's the whole point. It's that they're discussing anything to do with an organisation which has made it quite clear that if it disagrees with you, it will find some way to make your life miserable. Even if it doesn't disagree with you today, who knows what it will disagree with tomorrow? This is the absolute classic way of instilling fear in a population, the original chilling effect - when you don't know what will be forbidden tomorrow, better to say nothing today.

Your latter point on assassination attempts is also very odd. It conflates some broadly disconnected things (an actual attempt on a presidential candidate) with an apparent murder based on political views, two unrelated but very direct consequences which you could perhaps correlate through the types of people targeted. On the other hand you completely ignore the wider systemic violence inherent in stripping people of jobs, healthcare, social security, etc. Do you think those actions will have no consequences? That no deaths will result? Just because a chain of action might have more than one link, doesn't mean the consequences can be dismissed.

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

> "Give me the man and I will give you the case against him" [0]

And in the opposite direction as well, where someone is probably guilty of something and prosecution is held back if they're on the 'right side', e.g.:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_U.S._Department_of_Justic...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_Eric_A...

People think of authoritarianism as going after someone, which was prevalent in the 20th century; but it can also be protecting (and enriching) your friends, which has become popular in 21st century regimes.

Oh absolutely - both are already quite apparent.

> It is unclear exactly what these students are worried about

> They worried about any record of their words that might be viewed as criticism of the current administration, and somehow weaponized against them.

hth.

> And somehow in all of this, people on one side are forgetting the numerous attempts at assasination. And the successful assasination of a CEO.

Has the side you're thinking of pardoned the (would be/alleged) assassins? Or perhaps mounted a coup attempt, blamed others for failing to suppress it sooner, then called it a "day of love"?

This is literally not what free speech is as defined in the US Constitution.

Constitutionally protected speech is speech criticising or commenting on the government, and defines the right of citizens to do so.

The government has never had a reaponsibility to ensure all speech is heard, it certainly is not granted a monopoly on power of censorship (again, literally the opposite - no one else has to grant you a platform, but the government cannot take it away), and if you're worried about the power of "the mob" then you really should've worried more when the Supreme Court ruled the police had no duty to protect citizens.

> People forget what free speech really is though. The most important point is a contract with the government: that they hold a monopoly on the ability to censor and control speech. That any other group who threatens anyone for their speech must be dealth with using even hand of the force of law by the government/legal regime

WHAT?

This is literally the EXACT OPPOSITE of free speech, at least as it is defined in America. The 1st Amendment SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY prevents the government from putting its thumb on the scales.

Private parties are necessarily allowed to respond to speech with whatever other speech they wish to use, including utilizing their rights to free association (or non-association) in response to what you say.

This is absolutely 100% backwards. I highly suggest reading some basic American civics material or something.

> Mobs suppressing your free speech is never ok

Of course it is sometimes ok. There is no absolute here. It's neither always nor never. If it's never okay, then it is "tyranny of the majority". If it is always ok, then it is "minority rule".

1) Are we pretending the two assassination attempts were by left-wingers now, in addition to all the rest of the pretending? Trump gave them permission, anyway. I mean he had a different candidate in mind, but still.

2) The CEO thing was popular across the board, not just with democrats. Health insurance companies are that bad. Everyone who’s not taking their bribes hates them, and I mean hares. Also: again, not a left winger, so yes, I agree with you that right wingers should be regarded as dangerous.