Hacker News Reader

Comment by bduerst | Hacker News Reader

"Free Speech" isn't a blank check to say and do whatever you want. Even SCOTUS says that direct threats of violence aren't protected by the first amendment.

I'm tired of reading people nebulously defining "free speech philosophies" online to act as a shield to justify nefarious behavior on private property.

Free speech exists as a protection from government censorship, and it doesn't protect you for acting like a dick on someone else's website. This sums it up pretty well: https://xkcd.com/1357/

View on HN

Defending your position by citing that comic is basically the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling argument you can make for GitHub's actions is that they weren't illegal. (For anyone who doesn't get the reference, look at the hovertext on that xkcd.)

I wasn't citing the comic, I said it was a summation.

The SCOTUS example points out that the people whose jobs are to interpret free speech say it is limited, and that claiming "free speech" a blank check to escape consequences is merely semantics to support a bias.

"Free speech exists as a protection from government censorship"

So what happens when the line between government and corporation is blurred? The common justification why that corporations aren't beholden to free speech is that you can just choose another corporation to spend your time/money on.

What if you can't choose? What if it's prohibitively expensive to just setup an alternative (perhaps due to regulatory capture)?

What if there's no competition because corporations have subtly merged with government?

Maybe it's simply just not right anymore to assume that if it's a private organisation that they're exempt from societal/governmental principals.

>Slippery slope

Github isn't even remotely "blurred" with a government organization. This is some pretty out-there FUD.

Slippery slope doesn't have anything to do with this. My point was that societal standards & expectation shouldn't end with the government. Yes it's not required, but that's irrelevant.

People are paying for these corporations through tax breaks, subsidies & other governmental projects (Tesla for example).

I think the fundamental misunderstanding we're having here is that people on the left side of the political spectrum believe the solution to all answers is more government control. The idea that the government isn't the beginning and ending of social control is outside of their realm of understanding.

It is a slippery slope because you're trying to extrapolate public policy onto private property.

If you're upset with the tax breaks and subsidies, then elect someone who will deal with them. That and your arbitrary expectations doesn't give you entitlement to someone else's private property.

I'm tired of reading people nebulously defining "free speech philosophies" online to act as a shield to justify nefarious behavior on private property.

This thread has been very instructive for me. I've come to the conclusion that you either get free speech as a social virtue or you don't. It's clear to me that most people don't and even can't understand it from that point of view.

What that XKCD comic doesn't even consider is what happens when you're the one being shown the door? Would you go quietly?

>you either get free speech as a social virtue or you don't.

False dichotomy. Many people get that free speech is a social virtue, because many people see protection from government censorship as a social virtue. What it sounds like is that you wish was a social virtue is the ability to behave or act in any manor on privately-owned websites without having to face the consequences of your actions.

We can consider hypothetical slippery-slopes about private websites implementing tyrannical policies, but that doesn't suddenly make it a "free speech" issue. Asking "Would you go quietly if banned from a privately held website" doesn't suddenly mean it's a "free speech" issue. Does making a certain amount of noise make something a free speech issue?

There are distributed networks (like bitcoin or other P2P) that are owned and controlled by the communities that support them. Maybe you should consider supporting those instead of trying to redefine "free speech" to fit your beliefs.

Many people get that free speech is a social virtue, because many people see protection from government censorship as a social virtue.

QED. Thanks for playing the home game. We'll mail you your prizes.

Thank you for proving your comments aren't worth reading.

> privately-owned websites

If GitHub used their privately-owned website to deliberately offend people, would you be defending them? To me it seems like this argument based on ownership is chosen purely because it is convenient in this particular case.

> having to face the consequences of your actions

This sounds ominous, except the "action" we're talking about is forking a repository that used the "wrong" vocabulary in its assembly title. Taking that into consideration, the response is disproportionate and selectively enforced.

Nobody would say a word if GitHub sent a polite request asking (rather than demanding) the change. I am willing to bet the owner would gladly indulge them.

I'm not defending anyone. Re-read the part about how people keep making a "freedom of speech" issue.

Worst xkcd ever. http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ is a decent reply if less pithy.

Actually this is the worst xkcd: https://xkcd.com/457/

For pithy, I prefer this reply: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w33mawVRXdE/VL6Wd6Bc3rI/AAAAAAAABE...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com