Any time you give people a button labeled "make my opponent shut up", they're going to mash it all day regardless of the ostensible purpose of the button. Preventing someone attending a professional conference because he agrees with half the country on a controversial issue is simply unacceptable in a democracy regardless of what words you use to justify this behavior.

Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say.

> Any time you give people a button labeled "make my opponent shut up", they're going to mash it all day regardless of the ostensible purpose of the button

Bis repetita, that's why you don't have a button: you have a process.

> Preventing someone attending a professional conference because he agrees with half the country on a controversial issue is simply unacceptable in a democracy regardless of what words you use to justify this behavior.

Please don't refer to US as "the" country, some of us come from another country, maybe even a democracy with gasp different rules.

And well, I agree it is certainly problematic, but the problem lies in the fact that half of your country defends hate speech. Which can be defined objectively, and has been by laws in my country (France). I used to be a fan of the first amendment, to believe in the slippery slope fallacy that it would lead to more violent censorship, that it would lead to the removal of controversial but worth content.

I have yet to find a single example of that.

> Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say.

Dude, I know I am pretty cool, but why do you think you have to ask me? Where did I propose you send me an email before speaking? Or that I set rules myself? I am merely saying that hate speech is something that can be clearly defined, that it has been in a way actually enforced by tribunals in France, that it does not lead to censorship of worthwhile content and it is applied a posteriori, not a priori.

Believe it or not, we manage to have a healthy democracy while still forbidding people from wearing nazi apparel (which is still illegal in France)

> And well, I agree it is certainly problematic, but the problem lies in the fact that half of your country defends hate speech

What definition of hate speech are you using and what event does it apply to?

On a related note, here's some statements that may or may not be hate speech:

1. Africans are stupid and criminal, we shouldn't let them into the country.

2. Transsexuals are crazy people. They need medicine, not coddling.

3. Muslims have evil beliefs and blow people up and I don't want them in my country.

4. Homos are unnatural, spreading disease and sickness. We need to keep our children away from them so they don't catch the gay.

I've written all four to imply a large amount of ignorance and strong emotional motivations, but they are nonetheless a crude attempt to express a public policy and a reason for it. Should they be banned?

Should they also be banned if written in the form of an eloquent 80 page paper with precise terminology, strong citations from numerous studies and polls and a grounding in commonly accepted principles in political science and ethics (assume such a thing were possible)?

Yes, all these 4 statements would fall under hate speech laws in France.

And yes, people have tried to turn these prejudice into eloquent pages with precise terminology or into stand up comedy and have been shut down for it.

Shockingly, France is not a den of conformism yet. It is in the US that Charlie Hebdo covers are censored and where people "agree to disagree" instead of exploring their disagreements.

And this process is a kangaroo court, to all appearances, until they show the evidence by which they made their judgment.

> Once again, I am still waiting of a single example of hate speech that would be valuable to a discussion and that can't be replace by non-offensive one.

So, you want people to make some statements that, depending upon their country of origin, might result in criminal or social penalties (including losing their job) because if the those statements were ever tied back to them it might be seen as endorsing "hate speech"? You realize how freaking insane that is, right?

You claim to be inviting argument, and yet you endorse a system which would penalize people for accepting that invitation.

Listen, if you really need an example or two of meaningful ideas that might qualify, I'll provide. But it ultimately doesn't matter whether you consider them a valuable contribution to the discussion, what matters is whether other people have the right express what matters to them. If they don't, then the root of these problems can never be addressed.

So you would let yourself be treated by a doctor that is open with wanting people like you to die? You want police that have stated they hate people like you? You'd trust a cleaner that despise you?

I will let you state your opinion, but you don't get to demand immunity from consequences.

Some opinions are genuinely indefensible.

I'd worry that the doctor might recommend dangerous and ineffective treatments, that the police officers would arrest me on false pretenses, and that the cleaner would steal my belongings and poison my groceries. So, yeah, I'd fire the cleaner, switch doctors, etc.

But... would I let myself attend an industry conference that's also being attended by someone who voted for a politician whose opinions or policies are hostile to me?

Yes. Of course.

I'd also attend a conference that's being attended by someone who thinks I'm going to hell when I die. I'd even attend a conference where one of the speakers thinks that. Because I don't have to trust conference attendees or speakers with my life or health; I don't have to interact with them at all, and if I do, it'll be in a busy public place; and if they were the kind of person to go into a blind rage when they meet someone like me in public, they probably would've done it already and gotten caught.

There's a very wide range of sleazy but not illegal behavior as well as hard to prove illegal acts which also might affect the equation.

For a conference organizer, the primary question is how to make it a positive experience for as many visitors as possible, and that's the criteria they will use when determining who gets to visit.

If allowing a particular person to visit means several others will refrain from visiting, is it then a good idea to permit that? That's a value judgement for the organizers to make.

And if you think they made the wrong decision, feel free to tell them so or even to boycott it yourself, giving them a reason to consider other potential solutions.

>If allowing a particular person to visit means several others will refrain from visiting, is it then a good idea to permit that? That's a value judgement for the organizers to make.

That's part of it, but it's also a value judgment for everyone else to make.

In many cases, the rest of us in society care enough about how those decisions are made that we've passed laws prohibiting businesses from rejecting customers for certain reasons.

For example, if your market research shows that allowing Jews into your event results in lower overall attendance, because too many of the other potential attendees are anti-Semites who refuse to go to an event that allows Jews, you still don't get to ban them. We've established that making those opportunities equally available to all religions, ethnicities, genders, races, etc. is more important than maximizing profit. Even when that discrimination isn't illegal, it's often frowned upon by the culture.

And one reason for that is that we distinguish between the business deciding you can't visit them, and you deciding you can't visit them. We expect businesses to be inclusive, even if that means more people choose to exclude themselves -- because this way, the people who are excluded at least get a choice.

>And if you think they made the wrong decision, feel free to tell them so or even to boycott it yourself, giving them a reason to consider other potential solutions.

I've got no reason to attend a Kubernetes conference anyway, but I have the same interest as any other member of society in ensuring that people get treated fairly.

We also purposefully do not extend that protection to literally everything distinct about a person. Even stuff like California's laws only protect employees from their employers when engaging in political action.

There's no universal legal protection against an entity responding to another person's general beliefs, if that entity consider those to be harmful.

We do not want to obstruct society from holding people accountable for harmful behavior.

> I will let you state your opinion, but you don't get to demand immunity from consequences.

Oh, you'll let me? How magnanimous.

How about:

* Nobody asked you.

* Who do you think you are that I would need your permission?

* I wasn't asking permission. I was asking for a indication of interest in genuine conversation. Something you clearly lack.

* What opinions I hold regarding controversial issues are my own. What I was offering was examples of (potentially) prohibited things some people believe that are more nuanced than the cartoon bigotry.

* whatever. Didn't say I consider myself as some benevolent dictator. It just means it doesn't seem bad enough on its own to require proactive intervention.

* see above

* your misinterpretation of my comment almost seems deliberate, so "no u"

* while they surely are your own, you don't get to demand that other people must ignore their own concerns if they belive your opinions make you untrustworthy or dangerous to them.

I am allowed to base my own opinions about you on what opinions you say that you have. And I am allowed to refuse to associate with you.

If you openly tell people that you want people like me dead, I will never let you do any job for me where my life might be at risk (like medical jobs or similar). You don't get to demand undeserved trust.

So, just to be clear: I don't want anyone dead, and especially not because of their status as a member of some demographic. Nobody posting here to debate these issues does. Why you even bring it up is a mystery to me.

The whole point of this conversation was the suggestion that there might be non-"hateful" ideas being repressed, and important conversations that are prevented, that are prohibited by hate speech legislation. To suggest that I might actually want other people dead is a far reach.

I'm not quite sure what there is to misinterpret. Whatever your intent may be (and if it is different that what I describe here, please clarify) your words are pretty confrontational. You suggest I might want people dead, and then seem to vaguely imply you might have some ability to stop me if you don't like what I have to say. You talk about "letting" me share, and about "proactive intervention". What exactly would "proactive intervention" look like? Are you a moderator, or someone else with authority here? Are you someone with the ability and willingness to dox random anonymous strangers on the internet? Or are you just another member here with the ability to downvote/flag?

I'm bringing it up because it's relevant because other people do that. What you personally believe isn't relevant to this argument, because this argument of mine is about the worst content which your proposed rules would protect. Because it WOULD protect bullying and racism and other abuse online under the label "protected opinion".

You would make it literally illegal to counteract such behavior online.

Your rule would necessarily punish Facebook for banning stalkers, punish reddit for banning racist subreddits if they're not strictly illegal, and so on.

The rule you suggest would protect their ability to harass others regardless of if that's what you intend or not. You can't just handwave away those consequences.

Can you prove that it's in fact not super trivial to circumvent bans on non hateful ideas (in non-totalitarian states)? Are here not millions of more websites besides Facebook et al? Is it not easy to go to another website?

The fact is that your proposed rule is far worse than the alternatives.

You're suggesting it's a better tradeoff to forcibly kill quality standards online so that everybody can express literally anything that's not illegal, when it's equally possible to just... Not make a law like that, and instead encourage people to go to other websites.

Each and every person should have their individual freedom to set their standards for what opinions and beliefs they approve of (the edge cases where certain collective decisions are socially harmful are covered by antidiscrimination law).

This extends also to website owners. This means that I as a forum moderator (in a different place, on reddit) has the freedom to ban others from my forum for engaging in what I consider abusive behavior. I get to decide if and when I want to take action.

The admins on Hacker News can likewise ban me from here.

Proactive intervention usually involves government censorship or police action, but can also be considered to cover blocklists and spam filters online.

Each and every one of us decides over our own "domains".

In spaces where I'm not a mod/admin (most of them, that is), "letting you" only means not reporting the account, etc.

Today's trade-off is that every person either accepts the rules for approved content that somebody else has set on their own website... Or your start your own website. Or both at once for that matter, it's trivial to visit multiple websites at once since most browsers have tabs.

If your opinion is banned in one place online, it's easy to go to another to post it. That's how the web worked since the very beginning!

> The fact is that your proposed rule is far worse than the alternatives.

What proposed rule? Please quote me so I know what you're talking about.

> Each and every person should have their individual freedom to set their standards for what opinions and beliefs they approve of

Exactly! Which is why I oppose hate speech legislation. I believe that I, as an adult, have the freedom to hear whatever opinions or ideas I wish and the responsibility to come to my own conclusion on the truth of such ideas. To use the force of law to restrict the expression of ideas merely because they cause offense conflicts directly both with my rights and responsibilities.

> Proactive intervention usually involves government censorship or police action, but can also be considered to cover blocklists and spam filters online.

My question to you, is what are you specifically threatening the context of this specific conversation? It sounds like you're not threatening anything beyond the powers granted to every user on this site, which makes your initial comment look like nothing but useless posturing.

Please do provide.