If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people, you're supporting violating the victim's rights.

One of these has a real social cost, and the other is just literal lip-service.

> If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people...

Did that person's comment say that they support those things? Weird, I didn't read that...

When it comes down to the fundamental rights of an individual you can't pick and choose when something is an unalienable right and when it is not. We can either have free speech (warts and all) or we can live in a world that dictates what a person can and cannot say (a world I want nothing to do with).

Back to the previous point, I support someone's right to say something, not what they say. I think white supremacists are morons who sadly misunderstand there position in the world. I support their right to SAY what they want, but I don't support the contents of their speech.

The discussion around free speech requires nuance; none of it is even remotely close to as black and white as you paint it.

But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. And if stoking panic in the easily-panicked is something you ARE okay with forbidding, why is it then ok to stoke hatred in the easily-manipulable?

I guess that wart makes this a world you want nothing to do with, because of slope's slipperiness...

Of course you can yell fire in a crowded theater. Perhaps you smelled smoke from the popcorn machine (or were having a stroke) and everyone would get up pretty calmly and leave the theater (or tell you to shut up and watch the movie/play). If someone twisted their ankle or even managed to get trampled to death few lawyers would even consider a case against you.

Now, if you had clear intent to cause injury, blocked exits to ensure harm, and started the fire you'd be up on several charges related to fire safety codes & arson laws long before you had a prior restraint on speech claim (i.e. 1st amendment).

The original Supreme Court case (Schenck v. US [1]) from which the rhetorical flourish about fires and theaters came [2] has been pretty much abandoned in favor of later rulings like Brandenburg v. Ohio [3].

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47

[2]: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

[3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

One more interesting read on this topic: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-expl...

> But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

This cliche comes from a WWI era Supreme Court ruling and was part of the argument for how imprisoning anti-war protestors for “sedition” wasn’t technically a violation of the First Amendment.

No law or censor is stopping anyone from yelling fire.

Censorship is prior restraint. Stopping speech before it is utterred, read, or heard because reasons.

I honestly would have to read up more on the arguments for the restrictions that are currently in place.

A problem with this whole discussion is that no one has the same definition of "hate speech"; it is too subjective of a term. We all (the majority) agree when it is wrong to declare imminent danger.

But like I said, I need to read up more on the rationale for those restrictions.

> If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people, you're supporting violating the victim's rights.

Can you diagram how you arrived at this travesty of a logical leap? You're mixing in at least 5 suppositions completely outside of the stated parents post. Ignoring the other foundations coming alongside by implication.

Let me simplify further, in the face of your ad hominem:

If you're not actively trying to make the world a better place for everyone, you're passively making it worse for everyone.

> Let me simplify further, in the face of your ad hominem:

Sorry? I attacked your phrasing and logic, not YOU. Its like you're wanting to get angry at nothing.

I'm done here if you don't want to act civilized.

Okay, I clearly got a bit too passionate. Let me try and clarify, civilly:

Hate speech is always an attack.

Whether it's overt (Westboro, the N-word, Swastikas, homophobic slurs, etc.) or more subtle ("the 14 words", "88", etc). Supporting the "right" of someone to use hate speech is supporting their right to attack (and thus violate the rights of) others.

Whereas, by preventing those attacks, nothing of value is lost, and real harm is prevented.

Absolutism is also dangerous. You're dividing the world into 'good' and 'bad' and giving no quarter to the bad.

That can go sideways. You think any of the monsters of history thought they were the bad guys?

Thus, Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.[0]

[0]https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6492090-the-open-socie...

By these rules, you just committed an attack and violated the rights of others by saying "88". If you were banned to prevent this attack, nothing of value would be lost.

Oh, "but I wasn't SAYING it" you say? Who judges whether hate speech is excused by context? Facebook interns? AI algorithms? Sorry, the algorithm has pronounced you guilty, you are now banned.

That is the world you would create.

Okay, nevermind then. Nothing to be done. Thinking about this is too hard!

Let's just throw in the towel folks!

Or maybe social media companies get rid of any kind of algorithmic selection. Feeds are completely ordered by date. You can follow/unfollow people who you like or dislike. If you don't want to be offended by jackasses, don't go on the public feeds.

That said, you've shot down a lot of people's arguments but I haven't seen you promote a sensible alternative. Given your personal belief framework and given the first amendment, what do you see as a solution to this problem?

I don't claim to know the answer, but I firmly believe that if all the energy being poured into protecting hate were instead put into eradicating it, the world could only become a better place.

> I firmly believe that if all the energy being poured into protecting hate were instead put into eradicating it, the world could only become a better place

HOW? How do you eradicate hate speech? What is hate speech? Anything that makes you feel bad? So do you single-handedly decide what speech is ok or not?

You're lambasting people's protection for free speech as "protecting hate speech" (which is a false dichotomy) and not offering any alternatives. I don't really get what the point of what you're saying is other than "This upsets me." And that's fine if hate speech upsets you, but understand that it upsets other people too, even if those people support free speech as defined by the US bill of rights and legal framework.

I guess what I'm saying is...stop complaining unless you start examining the problem critically (ok, you don't like hate speech... who enforces what hate speech is? how is it enforced? etc. right now you're attacking free speech but not offering ANY compelling or thought-out alternatives) and for the love of everything stop thinking in absolutes. You seem to have forced yourself into black and white thinking. That's not only counterproductive, it's dangerous. People who think in absolutes are targets to become tools of hate. If you don't start seeing nuance in things, you will be easily swayed and manipulated by anyone who has a Nice Shiny Solution to "end hate speech."

Asking "who defines hate speech?" is a cop-out. No one ever asks "who defines privacy?" in discussions about that. Hate speech is just as obvious to anyone with a modicum of empathy.

It's plenty easy for people in general (except HN, where no one seems to have any notion of what that could possibly be without a grand arbiter to define it down to the spin of each quark) to recognize hate speech.

Platforms already have frameworks for dealing with bad actors. Hate speech is just like any other abuse of a platform, and should be treated as such.

In short, I have come to realize that I'm never going to convince this highly-privileged audience to genuinely care about actual marginalized people over some imagined, theoretical bogeyman. So this will be my last wasted effort on the subject, here.

You're right, you haven't convinced me. Every opportunity everyone has given you to define hate speech, you asy "I don't need to!! It's obvious what hate speech is!!" That's not an acceptable definition. Apparently it's anything you highly disagree with. From talking with you, I'm convinced you would classify a discussion on freedom of speech as hate speech. That scares me. I get the sense you want complete control of all speech just so hate speech dies. In other words, a casual stroll toward tyranny.

I don't think you're examining the problem (and censorship IS a problem) critically. Forgive me, but you are the one copping out. And actually, people do ask "what is privacy." It is being redefined all the time and there are people actively fighting for their definition of it. They at least have a definition.

You think anything that is an attack should be illegal?