by generic_user on 8/18/17, 12:29 AM with 180 comments
by Overtonwindow on 8/18/17, 2:20 AM
Well said. I'm glad EFF is not burrying their heads in the sand and hiding behind the "but they're nazis!" Excuse.
by emmelaich on 8/18/17, 3:15 AM
I think my favourite is Mencken's.
> The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
A close second is Wilde's:
> “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”
by meri_dian on 8/18/17, 3:18 PM
1. A Reasonable Position is expressed, in this case - 'Nazi's are very bad'. The Reasonable Position often involves an Enemy that must be stopped. Most reasonable people will agree with the Reasonable Position.
2. The Reasonable Position becomes the overriding factor in any situation that involves it. All other factors and considerations are dwarfed by it and forgotten.
3. Because the Reasonable Position comes to dominate the thinking of the Extremist - who often means well - they come to believe one can only ever be for or against the Reasonable Position. There is no room for moderate positions that try to balance the Reasonable Position with other important considerations and values - in this case, freedom of speech.
4. In order to show support for the Reasonable Position, third parties are forced to action in accordance with the world view of the Extremist. If they try to balance other considerations against the Reasonable Position, they are seen by the Extremist as sympathizing with the Enemy.
5. The fervor of extremism charges through society, trampling on other values and considerations.
Some historical examples:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
by CaptSpify on 8/18/17, 3:10 AM
If you can: https://supporters.eff.org/donate
by Pfhreak on 8/18/17, 2:56 AM
Great, 100% agreed with that. Be clear and up front about terms of service, and be clear and open when they are violated.
That said, I'm not 100% agreed that "Whatever you use against Neo-Nazis will be used 'against the ones you love'." That's a slippery slope argument that I personally don't believe. Neo-nazis are such a different class of evil, that it's hard for me to see the same practices being used against someone who is not them.
by yarg on 8/18/17, 2:48 AM
The neo-nazi sites themselves should in general not be interfered with from a governmental level - but there should be limitations of even this restriction, when it comes to the advocacy, planning and execution of violence.
In a more general sense I see the silencing of free-speech on the internet as a call to move to a more decentralised structure - as per what seemed to be the original intent - we generally seem to be moving yet further away from such a structure; although there are a significant number of emerging distributed technologies - as yet they seem to be niche in their utilisation.
(Somewhat tangentally, I see the free speech and public emergence of the now emboldened neo-nazis as somewhat a good thing, they were always there - but now they're in the public eye.)
by cal5k on 8/18/17, 2:23 AM
by ameister14 on 8/18/17, 4:06 PM
For example, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (not a group with an incentive to deflate numbers), at its peak the National Alliance had 1,200 members. All together, there are a few thousand active Neo-Nazis in the United States.
In contrast, let's take 2 countries where advocating Nazi ideology is illegal: Austria and Germany.
In Austria, the Freedom Party, founded by a former SS officer, has 50,000 members, 13 seats in the Upper House (similar to the Senate in the US) and 38 seats in the lower house as well as 4 in the European Parliament.
In Germany, the NPD received over 600,000 votes in the most recent election and now has a seat in the European Parliament.
by deckar01 on 8/18/17, 2:40 AM
https://payments.google.com/payments/apis-secure/get_legal_d...
I wonder which clause they cited to execute the suspension.
by xupybd on 8/18/17, 3:08 AM
Wait, what, they can do this? So if I get Google to host my domain they can just take it at will? Given the value of some domains that's insane. Google must be on shaky legal ground here.
by jeffdavis on 8/18/17, 3:55 PM
That is a scary, clever manipulation of language. Inciting violence is an exception to free speech because it is directly linked to a specific violent result.
"Hate" is non-specific, and not an action at all. It often means nothing more than offending someone or violating some political correctness. Hate speech is and should be protected speech.
by tekromancr on 8/18/17, 5:09 AM
Now, the minute either group is harassed or arrested by the government over things is when it becomes a problem. That is actual censorship, and should be resisted.
by nsnick on 8/18/17, 2:46 AM
by sangnoir on 8/18/17, 4:59 PM
When Brendan Eich was ousted[1] from Mozilla, I warned that the boycott threat set a bad precedent. The counter argument at the time was that "his donation wasn't free speech" and rights weren't negotiable. In the aftermath of 3 people losing their lives in Charlottesville, supporting the Daily Stormer is clearly Bad for Business™ - even if none of the companies are explicitly stating how commercially toxic DS has become.
1. He was ousted, his resignation was a technicality
by narrator on 8/18/17, 5:34 PM
Has Google decided they are now the truth police? Is Google taking it upon themselves to be like the Chinese censorship bureaus except for the whole world? I think this shows that the hate speech censorship is a real slippery slope.
by tim333 on 8/18/17, 11:13 AM
by nkristoffersen on 8/18/17, 3:11 PM
by forthefuture on 8/18/17, 5:30 AM
It seems duplicitous to force someone else to bear the cost of facilitating toxicity.
by generic_user on 8/18/17, 2:56 AM
by rev_null on 8/18/17, 5:40 AM
by dgudkov on 8/18/17, 4:34 PM
by cup on 8/18/17, 2:47 AM
Should instructions on how to make explosives be accessible and defended?
by Raz2 on 8/18/17, 7:39 AM
by tchaffee on 8/18/17, 3:20 PM
The EFF is confusing a free speech problem with a monopoly problem. One would hope they aren't suggesting that the government be allowed to interfere with Google's speech.
So if they aren't, they are basically saying "bad boy, shame on you" to Google and others. It will have zero impact.
The right way to solve this problem is to name the actual problem and forget about free speech: monopoly. Break up Google and these other companies and problem solved.
by unityByFreedom on 8/18/17, 6:30 AM
> CANTWELL: "a lot more people are gonna die before we're done here" [1]
I'm pretty sure the Daily Stormer said something similar. I don't need that crap in my backyard.
by dredmorbius on 8/18/17, 5:43 AM
I've sided against Google on numerous causes.
The EFF are wrong. Google is correct.
And yes, the reasons are complicated. But "slippery slope" is a facile fallacy.
Ultimately, society can, does, and must defend itself from attacks. Including attacks on the underprivileged (of whom the Fascists and Nazis at question here are not).
The history of media and new-media utilisation in demagoguery, totalitarianism, mob incitement and rule, and fascism is rich. It should give strong cause to pause to those who've sung (and believed) the narrative of the all-positive, peace-and-harmony bringing Internet. As I long had.
And am now pausing.
Epistemic systems gain significance when they can be abused for personal, political, nationalistic, or fascistic gain. That was the insight of a friend of mine some months back. Call it "the paradox of epistemic systems".
This includes Hacker News itself, which seems to have quite the fascist problem, and an unwillingness, at the moderator level itself, to face that, over concerns of "dignity".
Those concerns are very, very, desperately and sadly misplaced.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_ep...
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6ufeu1/does_ha...