A lot of freedom of speech policies and preferences, including US criminal law, make exceptions for speech that is likely to incite imminent violence. Look up the "true threat" doctrine. I'm not surprised that HN sentiment has a similar exception.
I am pretty sure US free speech exceptions do not prohibit threats by government to deploy the military against people, even if that is the very embodiment of a true threat that is likely to incite imminent violence.
But HN community is not against that. You can have a news article about Nation X declaring intention to send an army to against Y if people think Y deserve it. People in general love violence and encourage it when it is the right kind of violence against the right target.
Yeah, most speech that relates to violence is neither illegal nor necessarily opposed by HN commenters (and of course plenty of us disagree with each other on what we want to tolerate). The exceptions are a lot narrower.
When people talk treating everyone equal and banning speech that incite imminent violence, they don't talk about how they want exceptions when it is justified and scrutinized to incite imminent violence.
What is justified is also very subjective, an aspect which a lot of people brings up in discussions. Who get to decide when violence is justified? Is it the people, and if so, how should should we count the votes?
It is not decided by direct democracy and not by dictatorship. If people involved are unable to act responsibly, they are the wrong people for the job.
Agreed. The true threat exception to the First Amendment, which can indeed lead to a legally and constitutionally valid criminal conviction in the US, is a lot narrower than "might incite violence".
