Hacker News Reader

Comment by pauleastlund | Hacker News Reader

> No one is proposing laws about who can hold given positions. There is no free speech angle here.

This is a total straw man. The comment you are responding to does not mention "free speech" once.

The point is: you are part of a significant, vocal group that is enjoying using its clout to blackball public figures from the tech industry over certain political views that are only held by a minority in tech. Should any of your views ever put you distinctly in the minority, you will understand why the precedent you are setting is a dangerous one.

View on HN

>over certain political views

A misrepresentation.

Dropbox is being held accountable for associating with a person who has committed certain political actions that had immediate and far-reaching negative consequences on local and global scale.

So who decides when voicing your opinion is bullying or "blackballing" and when it's just exercising your free speech?

How exactly is my making the choice of whether or not to continue using a service "blackballing" someone?

It's not. Simple as that.

Straw man?

"In a free society, people can unite in their business ventures even though they might be far apart in how they view the world generally."

This is in contrast with what the author sees as the harrowing implications of user outrage about Rice: ie., an un-free society in which people cannot unite. He describes "rules" as if the mob is somehow enforcing a tyrannical reign over businesses like dropbox.

I'd say it differently: I'm part of a significant, vocal group that has strong opinions about the ethics of its members. This isn't "us against them," it's us holding ourselves to higher standards. The problem isn't that we disagree with Rice. The problem is that when given power she repeatedly took actions that harmed both the united states and the world that many other people knew at the time she shouldn't have taken.

Also "free speech" means something specific: It means the government can't make laws limiting your speech. It does not say I have to do anything to support that "right". As long as I am not violating another law (ie racial prejudice) I can fight or limit your "free speech" as much as I want.

You are confusing free speech and the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects free speech against the U.S. government, but governmental control is not the only aspect of free speech. Free speech is a larger issue.

Edit: if what you are saying were true, there wouldn't be any free speech issues in any country besides the United States.

Clearly that is not the case.

It sounds like you're saying that if there are any consequences for speech then it isn't free. This probably isn't what you really mean so please feel free to clarify your argument. I'd rather debate your real position than rip apart a strawman.

I said nothing of the sort.

What I said was free speech and the First Amendment aren't the same thing.

Are you claiming that they are? If you are, we can have a debate. If not, there's no issue here to debate.

You're correct that all you said was that free speech and the first amendment aren't the same thing. The statement that you replied to indicated that a response to your speech was not limiting your freedom of speech. I read your response as disagreeing with this statement as well as pointing out the difference between the first amendment and the broader concept of free speech. Did I misinterpret what you wrote?

Dude, you didn't "misinterpret" anything. You just made shit up.

I've found that conversations with people who do that kind of thing are almost never a productive use of my time.

Sorry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com