Hacker News Reader

Comment by laughing_man | Hacker News Reader

We don't want a legal government apparatus in place for determining what can be said on the internet. The first thing that will happen is the categories of things you can't say will slowly start to expand to include everything that threatens the power of the government. What happened during covid is bad enough.

If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like.

View on HN

So what suggestion do you have for people who don't want to deal with hate speech on platforms if the platforms won't do anything because it cuts into their bottom line?

I'd suggest they stop using the platforms. Probably the best decision I ever made, never looked back.

[flagged]

Do you think there should be any kind of moderation for hate speech?

From the government? Absolutely not.

No, and I was not asking you

The people of the world seem to underestimate how important free speech is to the typical US citizen. No one else in the world has free speech rights. We view it as very important to have.

What this allows: - Hate speech (non-violent) - Holocaust/genocide denial - Blasphemy and religious mockery - Insulting leaders, judges, and the state - Burning flags and national symbols - Abstract praise of extremist ideologies - Offensive political misinformation - Harsh personal insults (non-defamatory) - Publishing leaked material - Advocacy of civil disobedience in the abstract

An outsider many view that as going "too far", but you limit one, it's the path to limiting them all.

This is just such a ridiculous joke in 2026 that nobody outside the US and many inside it could continue to take the idea that the US has any actual interest in free speech as a principled argument. We have all just watched for the last decade the people who cried the loudest about it immediately do a 180 the moment they got the political power to practice it. I can’t think of a single prominent “free speech absolutist” who didn’t fail this test miserably and immediately. So no, I don’t actually believe that the US values it above all else, I think that’s some bullshit that people say because they are only interested in the idea that they personally can say and do whatever they feel like and it doesn’t extend beyond that in practice.

The free speech absolutist is such a hilarious caricature these days. "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it!" Well, as long as it's hateful and not woke or about (shivers in disgust) labor unions.

You seem pretty upset. I get how it's difficult to think when one has high anxiety. But, when one slows down a little bit, it makes more sense.

please do go ahead and correct me and name your top 3 free speech absolutists so we can all see how I was “being too emotional” and couldn’t see the obvious truth right in front of me about how free speech really is a deeply held belief of the nation.

Apparently that is a term popularized by Elon Musk. Anyway ChatGPT can refer you to some scholarly work on the topic.

No, except what the site owner wants to do to foster a particular type of community.

Not from a government, or with any power, influence, or assistance imparted by government to effect or enforce it.

> If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like.

My natural sympathies lie with this position, but is it evidence based? At least currently, more problems seem to be caused by disinformation and hate speech than are caused by government censorship (at least in the US and EU).

That’s not to say that the dangers associated with disinformation and hate speech necessarily justify censoring them (any more than the dangers associated with alcohol necessarily justified prohibition), but if the argument for an absolutist stance on free speech is going to be the consequentialist argument that it’s the less dangerous option, then this has to be evaluated empirically.

How do you propose to evaluate something like that empirically?

Ok, maybe 'empirically' was a bit pompous. What I meant is, if you're saying that X is more dangerous than Y, then that's not a pure statement of principle, it's a claim about the real world. Right now, we're seeing a pretty big advertisement for the dangers of disinformation and hate speech, whereas political discourse in the US and EU remains pretty open. You could say that this is a blip and that in the long run, any form of censorship is more dangerous. But I think someone making your argument should at least acknowledge that present circumstances might appear to refute it.

I don't see hate speech and disinformation as much of a danger. There are plenty of countervailing voices on the internet. And we have plenty of evidence from literally all of human history on the dangers of censorship. Totalitarianism and free speech can't coexist.

It depends on how you feel about the current US administration. It’s there in significant part because of what I’d regard as disinformation and hate speech. It seems pretty dangerous to me, and there are historical parallels for that danger too. Meanwhile, as you say, people in the US and Europe are able to express all kinds of political opinions online, and we don’t seem to be in any kind of crisis caused by European censorship of hate speech.

Okay, but what if there was a strong robust mechanism for removing disinformation and hate speech from the internet & the current US administration was in charge of it?

Because if you're wrong & the current US administration was elected for other reasons than disinformation and hate speech, which could very well be more symptoms than cause, then our situation would be worse, not better.

Don't forget that our current laws & regulations would have been enough to stop Trump's election if not for Merrick Garland & the Supreme Court.

Figuratively, American politics works like a pendulum. Attempts to weaken the First Amendment are like placing an obstacle directly in the path of that pendulum.

All fair points. What I’m saying is that it’s no longer obvious that limited ‘censorship’ of hate speech and disinformation creates a greater danger than its objects. You’re making a positive argument based on real world facts that it is in fact more dangerous, which is fine. I’m not trying to argue one side or the other here so much as point out that it is necessary to do what you’re doing in order to make a convincing case.

Who is we? I do want exactly that.

You want to live under a totalitarian government?

We already are.

That's ridiculous.

What’s more totalitarian than going door-to-door and breaking in without a warrant in violation of the fourth amendment?

Where is this happening?

Minnesota

https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-immigration-us-citizen-...

ICE says he was living with two child molesters for whom they did have warrants.

That’s what they said. They can say that about anyone since it was completely untrue.

Either ways, one of many https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-federal-govern...

How do you know it's "completely untrue"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com