And, yes, I believe in freedom of expression. Even ideas that are hateful.
No, no I'm not white. So, I'm not saying this because I want to say hateful things. In fact, I don't hate anyone. I don't even have anything controversial to say, except to support the liberty of free speech.
However, being censored by an organization is something that's very healthy for any organization of a decent size. It helps to keep the mission and culture of the organization consistent with what it's designed for. In reddits case, it decided that it would not harbor hate speech because it didn't want to make its culture include that. This is very similar to a group of friends not inviting you to drinks after you repeatedly said that you think genocide is a good solution.
It's censorship! Which, if done by the government, can be bad. But it's something that we all do when we want to change the culture of our group. It is very puzzling to me that so many smart people on hacker news do not understand why it's beneficial.
I'm not in it for the points. I'm in it to express the idea of liberty. Many people only want liberty for themselves and those they approve of, or so it seems.
Edited to add: See? It's back in the positives. It will bounce around a bit, but liberty is still popular. I think some people don't read what I wrote, so much as they insert ideas about what they think I wrote. Another post in this thread suffers similarly. It's all good.
Freedom of speech is an important right and necessary part of true liberty, but the people in the situations in question aren't exactly engaging in reasoned debate.
Speaking of which, "only want liberty for themselves and those they approve of"? Really?
And yes, really. See the replies to my post. Note, specifically, the comment regarding votes. I stand by my assertion. The evidence supports it.
In this case, I agree. But like "obscenity" or "pornography", determining what is reasonable or not is a slippery slope. Promoting concentration camps? Not reasonable. Protesting military action? Probably reasonable. What about protesting military action against a country that runs concentration camps?
(As North Korea does run these types of prison camps, and the chance of military involvement with the DPRK seems higher than ever, this is not a completely academic scenario)
Politically/socially correct speech doesn't need to be defended. However wrong someone is, the liberty to express their views, within the bounds of reasonable law, should be a social goal, not just an amendment that restricts the government.
What is socially acceptable today may not be socially acceptable tomorrow. What power is used against your enemies today may be used against you tomorrow.