Hacker News Reader

Comment by mreiland | Hacker News Reader

idealistically, yes. practically, there has to be a limit on speech. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is the canonical example of this.

View on HN

I'm in favour of a few criminal limits - perjury can't be allowed for example.

A person who supports placing legal limits on expression because they offend a group, religion, political party, etc. can't sincerely claim to be an advocate for free speech. Better to avoid the doublethink and stop defining free speech as speech that you approve of.

With respect to that "canonical example": http://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackney...

The protections are practical and necessary, someone complaining that the example gets overused and abused in random arguments isn't really relevant to this discussion.

The discussion is free speech and "hate speech" (whatever that should be), the "example" used for free speech limits is the "fire in theater" ... how does this example even remotely relate to hate speech? And if it doesn't relate why is telling that not relevant to this discussion?

lmeter was clearly making the argument that free speech is defined as speech with no limits, I pointed out a practical reason for limiting speech.

There are also limits on the limits of speech.

The current state of reddit includes a large group going around trying to be offended and then bringing the outrage back to home-base so the group at large can also get that outrage-dopamine kick. For their troubles the person who found the offensive comment or post gets some internet points and their group membership is solidified.

It's fascinating in the sense that it happens but I don't think it's reasonable to lurk in social groups you don't belong to and complain about the local norms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com