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

If you read the next paragraph, you can see they are talking about political violence. The people who use the "no freedom from consequences" language are intentionally vague about what form those consequences take, and often, those "consequences" are including violent reactions.

People who think it's ok to harass/threaten/attack people because they don't like their speech are in the same boat as people who catcall/harass/stalk women because of the way they dress, because they use the same rationale: "they were asking for it by expressing themselves that way"



>The people who use the "no freedom from consequences" language are intentionally vague about what form those consequences take, and often, those "consequences" are including violent reactions

Different speech has radically different consequences. Are you saying zero speech should be met with violence?


No I'm not, and there are very specific and careful legal guidelines as to what constitutes unprotected, threatening speech. The vast majority of people being punched/attacked/milkshaked for their speech do not come anywhere close to those legal guidelines.

If you feel the need to punch someone in the face for saying that abortion or illegal immigration is wrong, you need to take a serious look at your mental state, and not try to pretend in some abstract way that they are threatening your wellbeing in order to justify your violence.


But claiming that there are no consequences to speech means you cannot think that, because judging someone for judging someone for saying abortion is illegal violates that


>But claiming that there are no consequences to speech

I never said that, in fact I posted the opposite in the post you just replied to, where I demonstrated that some speech does have legitimate physical consequences. Your consistent misrepresentation of the posts in this thread make me think you are either trolling, arguing in bad faith, or genuinely don't understand what is being discussed.


>The vast majority of people being punched/attacked/milkshaked for their speech do not come anywhere close to those legal guidelines.

The law is not the same as public consensus, and it does not have the same guidelines/requirements.

I don't support punching nazis, but that is not the same as deplatforming them


The law protects peoples' rights in certain ways. However this does not mean that those legal protections limit the definition of those rights.

The rights are in fact more expansive than the laws which protect them. Hence just because something is legal does not mean it is not a violation of rights.

Many cases of 'deplatforming' are in fact a violation of the right to free speech. If a group of megacorps which own the systems we use to enact discourse and make a living decides to do everything to prevent you from using those systems, they are violating your rights.


Are you saying zero speech should be met with violence?

Zero speech should be met with vigilante violence. Speech which is direct incitement should be reported to law enforcement.




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: