Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Falsely equating showing a harmless boob and hate speech, so typically intellectually dishonest. This is the most disturbing about US's entendre of free speech...

Hate speech is not speech, banning it is not censorship.

What does sex have in common with the actively and directly harmful Garbage that people go on Gab for? Nothing if you're not a troll.




Hate speech is literally speech.

You're welcome to argue that not all speech is good and some deserved to be banned by censoring it. But please at least be honest about what you're trying to do.


Do you think that incitement to violence should be protected speech? If not, you agree that some speech deserves to be banned; you're just drawing the line at a slightly different place than GP.


Sure, I think that "imminent lawless action" is a fairly reasonable standard.

But when I call for censorship, I don't pretend that it's something else.


Blasphemy/heresy isn’t speech and banning it isn’t censorship.

Now, I want to be clear. While many people when they give the examples of blasphemy and heresy, they mean those as things that they think are actually good, but which people in power in the past thought were bad and therefore censored/punished. That’s not how I’m thinking about these. Blasphemy and heresy are things I view as actually bad.

As such, what I’m not saying is not “you supporting restrictions on hate speech is just enforcing your own dead dogma over an actual critical eye!” . No, that’s not what I’m saying.

So when I oppose censoring blasphemy/heresy, I am opposing censoring some things which I think are actually bad.

Likewise, even though e.g. racism is bad, I don’t conclude that expressing racist fact-claims is “not speech”. It is clearly speech, just bad speech. And as speech, it should be permitted(in some senses of the term “permitted”) in some venues.

(Whether the use of slurs needs to be permitted, when there are ways to express whatever claims without using slurs, may be a different question, due to it being a restriction on how something is expressed rather than on what is expressed. However, on the other hand, I do find the definition of “slur” to be, hm, something to ponder? Something that can be initially confusing.)

Though, of course, there should also be venues where it is not allowed, just as there are venues where spouting heresies can get one banned.


> Hate speech is not speech, banning it is not censorship.

What on Earth makes you think so??



Good little fascist.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: