
In Support of Free Speech - jletroui
https://medium.com/@tobi/in-support-of-free-speech-275d62670203#.uvndx0e2f
======
notacoward
The headline is offensively misleading. A boycott, or severance of commercial
relationship, is not censorship. It's people using commerce to express their
values, which is also a form of free speech. Unlike true censorship, which
comes from the government, both parties are free to seek other partners in
promoting their products or messages. Lütke's attempt to paint this as a
defense of free speech is disingenuous, and his attempt to portray anyone who
disagrees as a censor is downright dishonest.

[edit: "refuses to censor" seems to be a local modification to the original
headline, which is _definitely_ supposed to be against the rules]

~~~
notcolin
> Lütke's attempt to paint this as a defense of free speech is disingenuous

Is it?

"To kick off a merchant is to censor ideas and interfere with the free
exchange of products at the core of commerce. When we kick off a merchant,
we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one. But who gets to define
that moral code? Where would it begin and end? Who gets to decide what can be
sold and what can’t? If we start blocking out voices, we would fall short of
our goals as a company to make commerce better for everyone. Instead, we would
have a biased and diminished platform."

~~~
abpavel
So you're saying that Shopify can be used for porn and that Shopify does not
have TOS and does not enforce it?

~~~
ZeroFries
Is that to be explained by legality rather than morality, though?

------
isleyaardvark
That's not censorship, and as such is not "consistent with the position of the
ACLU". In fact the ACLU has supported boycotts, which is what it would be.

[https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/power-
boycott?width=7...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/power-
boycott?width=700&height=540&inline=true)

A more accurate title would be "Shopify refuses to stop working with
Breitbart".

------
diyorgasms
Refusing to voluntarily engage in commerce is hardly censorship. All this post
is saying is "We're totally fine with neo-Nazis, so long as we make some money
from them."

A principled boycott is not censorship, it is further free expression. Shame
on shopify for abandoning principles in favor of profit.

~~~
tomp
Did you also support Visa's and MasterCard's decisions to stop transactions to
WikiLeaks?

~~~
diyorgasms
No but I don't think they should be legally required to process payments if
they don't want to. I found other payment methods where I could though and did
what little I could to oppose that decision.

------
jszymborski
I support their views on free speech, but as a matter of conscience,
principle, and (more cynically) optics, they should donate all proceeds they
make off of Breitbart or neo-nazi orders to civil liberties/rights
organisations like the ACLU (which they mention in their post).

~~~
aaron-lebo
Should Apple donate the profits of every Macbook sold to neo-Nazis? How do you
identify them?

Don't censor people and play into their victim complex. Treat them the exact
same way you would anyone else and if you can't convince them through argument
that they are wrong then you have nothing to stand on.

~~~
tedunangst
Add a checkbox to the order form. "Donate the profits from my purchase to the
ACLU."

~~~
mwpmaybe
These are neo-nazis buying products from a neo-nazi publication that happens
to use Shopify for their online store. They're not going to opt-in to an ACLU
donation. What the GGP is proposing is that Shopify take their cut of the
transaction and donate it to the ACLU.

------
AlexB138
Good. I've never read a Breitbart article, but there are few things they could
say that I would find more distasteful than censorship.

Interesting editorializing of the headline on this post.

~~~
fao_
> there are few things they could say that I would find more distasteful than
> censorship.

Perhaps being supportive of people who have called for the extermination of
black people and other minorities?

~~~
koolba
By your logic where does anyone that doesn't condemn BLM stand?

~~~
derrickdirge
When has BLM called for the extermination of anyone?

~~~
koolba
I consider throwing bricks as speaking through action:
[http://www.npr.org/2016/07/11/485593473/black-lives-
matter-p...](http://www.npr.org/2016/07/11/485593473/black-lives-matter-
protest-turns-violent-in-st-paul)

~~~
illuminati1911
\+ Dallas police shooting by BLM and endless amounts of online racism. Just
google "BLM + racism" and start reading.

~~~
isleyaardvark
BLM leadership condemned the shooting. Googling "BLM + racism" mostly results
in opponents of BLM calling them racist without backing up their arguments.

This showed up in the results, and is more informative:
[https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/07/19/black-lives-
matter...](https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/07/19/black-lives-matter-not-
hate-group)

------
DanielBMarkham
I find it odd that this needs to be either a post or something the community
talks about. It'd be like an article titled "Local gas station provides gas to
Nazis"

Why of course they do. A secular, open society means you can have whatever
opinion you like, as long as it is peaceful, and you can participate just like
anyone else. How else would you want it?

Modern activists seem quite odd to me. In the states, at least, you have the
right for free and open political support to seek redress for your grievances.
That is, something's not right about society or the government, so you use
persuasion to argue your case to the rest of us.

But that's not what's happening. Instead it looks a lot more like economic
warfare. Person A, B, and C are wrong. They must be punished. There's not the
usual outreach of persuading others that we've traditionally had. It's much
more about being in the right club.

~~~
diyorgasms
Being a Nazi is a priori violent. They have declared an intent to commit
genocide by subscribing to that ideology. They ought to be excluded from
society at every turn, because their goal is the destruction of our society
and the mass murder of our peers.

~~~
tomp
The problem with this argument is that everybody can be called a Nazi. The
only people who're using the word "Nazi" to describe "Breitbart" seriously are
those who completely disrespect the millions of _actual_ victims of the Nazi
regime.

~~~
diyorgasms
OK, so I would and have made the argument that brietbart is Nazism rebranded,
since identifying as a Nazi is unacceptable these days (but decreasingly so it
would seem).

However, there are far more clear examples of Nazis, like Richard Spencer, who
writes pieces on the best way to genocide the black race and things like that.
You do a disservice to the people they are harming by refusing to acknowledge
that actual Nazis exist, are recently emboldened, and are gaining state power
in some cases.

~~~
tomp
So what do you propose that we do? Kill him?

Crazy people can be as crazy as they want, as long as they don't harm others.
But restricting the freedom of speech is a slipery slope that I want to avoid
for all costs, lest people that are _not_ Nazis start being called Nazis and
are silenced.

This [1] is an article about what _real_ Nazis are like Ipossibly simlar to
Spencer, but definitely not similar to Trump).

[1] [https://regiehammblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/this-
hitler-n...](https://regiehammblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/this-hitler-
nonsense/)

------
paulgb
If they want to prove it's about principles over profit, they could donate
profits from the Breitbart account to the ACLU. Until they do that, they are
allowed to work with whomever they like, but they can't take the moral high
ground.

Edit: jszymborski beat me to make this comment

------
c0da
[http://lifehacker.com/5953755/what-exactly-is-freedom-of-
spe...](http://lifehacker.com/5953755/what-exactly-is-freedom-of-speech-and-
how-does-it-apply-to-the-internet)

Freedom of speech refer's to a government's responsibility to protect freedom
of speech. Private organizations are _not_ held to that same standard.

This is why websites can choose their advertisers and why reddit can ban a
subreddit.

Shopify _should_ censor Breitbart.

~~~
wvenable
Hacker news users were all up in arms when US financial giants VISA,
MasterCard, PayPal, the Bank of America and Western Union engaged in a banking
blockade against WikiLeaks. The argument was that these companies should be
neutral in their dealings.

I actually agree with you that Freedom of Speech does not compel any 3rd party
to provide a platform for that speech. Shopify is perfectly within it's rights
to deny a platform for anyone it chooses. However, I feel that's a race to the
bottom. You have to be comfortable with companies discriminating against
organizations you agree with as well.

------
yedava
As a comment on the post notes, Shopify already "censors" certain viewpoints.
From their TOS:

"We may, but have no obligation to, remove Store Content and Accounts
containing content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful,
offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or
otherwise objectionable or violates any party’s intellectual property or these
Terms of Service."

So they're actually saying "We don't find Breitbart violating the moral code
as set in our TOS". This is not about free speech.

------
curun1r
The decision to continue to work with Breitbart aside, this post shows the
failure of civics education in this country.

> Products are a form of speech, and free speech must be fiercely protected,
> even if we disagree with some of the voices.

The right to free speech that's protected in our constitution refers to speech
being protected _from the government_. Nowhere in our constitution does it
state that other individuals and businesses need to support the speech of
others. It's a common misunderstanding of the first amendment. You could argue
that by not censoring speech you find distasteful, you're adhering to the
principles of the first amendment that people should be able to say whatever
they choose without reprisal. But you could just as easily argue that in
refusing to support speech you find harmful to this country, you're exercising
your own constitutionally-protected right to freedom of expression. The
important point is that the first amendment protects both Breitbart and anyone
refusing to work with Breitbart from government punishment or silencing of
that speech. And, in what might be more relevant to Shopify, the first
amendment also protects anyone who wishes to advocate for a boycott of
Shopify.

They would have had a stronger argument if they talked about discrimination.
Their decision shares more in common with the decisions that other businesses
have made to discriminate against people by not serving them. The oft-
publicized example is religious bakers that won't make wedding cakes for gay
couples. The difference being that what Breitbart is doing does not make them
part of a protected class.

~~~
notcolin
The concept of freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and
ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal
sanction. You're of the misunderstanding that the First Amendment and the last
~300 years of judicial precedent somehow transcend this concept (QED: it
doesn't).

Not once does Lütke mention the First Amendment. You did that all on your own.
More to the point, he isn't wrong in what he's saying. You're having a
difficult time agreeing with him because your civics education prevents you
from thinking beyond what was written on a nearly 300 year old document and
you probably believe that Breitbart is the next Stormfront. Perhaps you should
read something more modern, like Captain America #275 pg. 20.

[http://i.imgur.com/WCF5GVE.png](http://i.imgur.com/WCF5GVE.png)

~~~
curun1r
> freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas
> without fear of government retaliation or censorship

Yes!

> or societal sanction

No! This is absolutely not the case. If you call someone the N-word, you
should expect to be treated as a racist by society. Call someone a fag and
expect to be treated as a homophobe. Freedom of speech does not guarantee the
right to speech without any consequence. The government can imprison, tax and
has many other abilities not granted to Shopify. For that reason, dissenting
speech must be protected from them in a way that's fundamentally different
than the way it must be protected from Shopify. But non-governmental actors
absolutely do have a role in guiding speech to be more civil and create the
society we want to live in. We do that through social pressure rather than
with force majeur. It's that crucial difference that requires protection from
the government but not from Shopify.

> Not once does Lütke mention the First Amendment

Except that he does. He quotes the ACLU talking about speech protected by the
first amendment:

    
    
      ... Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups
      if they’re going to be preserved for everyone.

------
mikeash
"Are there limits to what you would host?"

"Instead of imposing our own morality on the platform, we defer to the law.
All products must be legal in the jurisdiction of the business."

Compare that to the terms of service:

"We may, but have no obligation to, remove Store Content and Accounts
containing content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful,
offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or
otherwise objectionable or violates any party’s intellectual property or these
Terms of Service."

If their entire policy is to defer to the law, why do they reserve the right
to remove content for all these other reasons? Maybe they've changed their
mind and haven't gotten around to codifying the new policy?

I took a look around their store to see if the objection was purely based on
their views, or if there were offensive products. I came across a t-shirt
which puts "E Pluribus Unum" inside an eagle insignia that is clearly the Nazi
parteiadler minus the swastika part. I think it would be reasonable to say
that this is offensive and possibly threatening, although no doubt perfectly
legal in most places.

(This is not my first experience with surprise parteiadlers. I once got a free
pair of sunglasses with a contact lens exam which turned out to be from BOY
London, whose logo is the parteiadler minus the swastika. I exchanged them and
suggested to that store that they might want to stop carrying merchandise with
Nazi symbols on them. They were rather shocked to discover it. Until then, I
didn't know that I had to check for Nazi symbols on stuff!)

Beyond that, I dislike this idea that picking and choosing with whom you do
business is "censorship." This isn't speech, it's commerce. You're helping to
fund these guys. Breitbart absolutely has the right to free speech, but they
have no right to sell their wares through whatever platform they choose. If
Shopify chose not to send money to these crypto-Nazis, it would not be an act
of censorship. Their words would still be available to anyone who chooses to
obtain them, Shopify just wouldn't be helping anymore.

~~~
yellowapple
The extra legalese is usually a CYA. They can reserve the right to remove
"offensive" content without necessarily exercising that right.

~~~
mikeash
Well sure. But if your policy really is "anything that's legal" then there's
no need to CYA. The only reason you'd have that clause in the first place is
if you thought you might want to remove legal but offensive content.

Imagine if someone made a big deal about being inclusive of all races, but
their TOS said, "We reserve the right to kick out black people." Nothing says
they have to _exercise_ that right....

~~~
yellowapple
The CYA is there in case the policy changes for some reason.

It's kind of like those "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"
signs you see in mom and pop shops. Just because they reserve the right
doesn't mean they're going to exercise it.

~~~
mikeash
There's a difference between a blanket CYA like that which is totally general,
and a version that calls out specific reasons like this.

Would you consider a "We reserve the right to refuse service to black people"
clause to be a benign CYA, or would you consider that maybe this clause is in
conflict with a supposed policy of no racial discrimination?

~~~
yellowapple
In that particular case, I reckon such a clause would run afoul of various
regulations prohibiting discrimination against a protected class
(specifically, a racial/ethnic minority). Thus, there's no "right to refuse
service to black people" to reserve.

That aside, my point is that this is a very common clause for online
businesses, and the existence of such a clause - again - does not mean it has
to be enforced. Plenty of companies add all sorts of things to their terms of
service / privacy policies / EULAs / etc. to cover all sorts of contingencies,
and this seems very ordinary and mundane in that context.

------
yock
The title of the post is "In Support of Free Speech." I thought that kind of
editorializing was generally frowned upon here?

~~~
steveax
Indeed, cue xkcd 1357

~~~
DarkKomunalec
[https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/) makes it seem like it'll be
your peers that get your message silenced, but what if it's some board of
directors for a conglomerate, that dislikes any attention to the environmental
impact of their industrial pig farms/how much they profited from post-war
contracts after the most recent invasion/their push for privatization of water
sources?

Almost all public speaking these days is done on private platforms, with ever
fewer companies controlling them. Without them, almost no-one will hear you.
The 1st amendment is just a legal codification of the broader goal of the free
exchange of ideas. This goal is harmed by private censorship as well, even if
it doesn't break the 1st amendment.

------
cjslep
I don't like Breitbart, but I believe Shopify is making the right call, for a
long list of reasons.

Instead of focusing on Breitbart and giving it undue attention, we should all
be listening to each other. Not listening-to-reply, but listening-to-
understand.

------
d2ncal
Being liberal doesn't mean that you block everything that the other side is
doing. It's also about being open and accepting to others and their views.
Shopify did the right thing here.

~~~
mikeash
Being liberal does not require accepting Nazis. I will defend their right to
hold their views and say what they want, but they have no _right_ to do
business with a particular e-commerce site.

~~~
tomp
By comparing Breitbart with Nazi you're being incredibly disrespectful to the
actual Nazi victims.

~~~
mikeash
Their Shopify store includes a t-shirt with a fricken' parteiadler on it. I
think the label is entirely justified.

~~~
tomp
Link? I found this [1], but the label suggests it's the US eagle instead...

[1]
[https://store.breitbart.com/collections/mens/products/e-plur...](https://store.breitbart.com/collections/mens/products/e-pluribus-
unum-t-shirt)

~~~
mikeash
I found this one, but basically the same:

[https://store.breitbart.com/collections/all-
products/product...](https://store.breitbart.com/collections/all-
products/products/e-pluribus-unum-long-sleeve)

The US eagle has its wings going up, not straight sideways. And the head is
pointed to the eagle's right, not the left. (This is also the difference
between the reichsadler, which is a more generic symbol of Germany, and the
parteiadler, which is a Nazi symbol: the riechsadler's head points to the
eagle's right, while the parteiadler's head points left.)

Just compare:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Great_Seal_of_the_United_States_\(obverse\).svg)

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Pa...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Parteiadler_der_Nationalsozialistische_Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei_\(1933–1945\)_\(andere\).svg/1280px-
Parteiadler_der_Nationalsozialistische_Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei_\(1933–1945\)_\(andere\).svg.png)

The one on the shirt is quite close to the second (minus the swastika) and
quite distant from the first.

~~~
tomp
I think the shape is quite dissimilar to either (e.g. the Nazi one has legs
and no tail). I wanted to agree with you on the head thing, but it seems that
Nazis used both directions... I'm not sure I'd call the Reichsadler a "generic
symbol of Germany" if it was used during the Third Reich...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Germany#Nazi_G...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Germany#Nazi_Germany)

~~~
mikeash
The reichsadler goes back a long way and has been used in other times. That
particular style appears to be used in the third reich, but the distinction
remains: the right-pointing head signifies "Germany," and the left-pointing
head signifies "NSDAP."

In any case, that shirt design screamed "Nazi!" to me the moment I saw it. I
didn't set out looking for Nazi symbols, either, I was just browsing to see if
there was anything that might be considered offensive. I was rather surprised
that they would be so brazen. I can understand if you don't think it's
sufficient, but I do.

------
stillsut
Milton Firedman's most famous work is Capitalism and Freedom and yet within
that work, he completely rejects Hollywood blacklists (or "boycotts" if you
prefer). If you consider his main point is that under communism, people are
un-free, it seems odd that he would sympathize with avowed members of American
communist party, who would ultimately like to bring communism to the US, and
in Friedman's eyes, result in societal catastrophe. Doubly so given the power
of persuasion that Hollywood writers wield. So why does he reject the ability
of studio execs to simply exercise their freedom of association, and not
contract with blacklisted writers?

The problem in Friedman's eyes is that this boycott reduces to collusion. And
under collusion, the benfits of free market dry up: for example, in the free
market you can shop your script, no matter who you are, and if your product is
good, you could make a living out of it. When firms collude to establish
acceptable political beleifs as a pre-condition to an economic exchange, you
have reduced the economic freedom of everyone who is not wealthy enough to
establish a movie studio for themselves. In effect, you have by-passed
democracy ("one person, one vote") and moved to [benevolent] oligarchy ("one
chairman, one vote"). As the old saying goes - you're freedom to swing your
elbows ends where my nose begins, and so too with economic association. If you
would starve a man until he renounced his political preferences - even if you
deem them antithetical to the good of society - you're no better than Stalin.

------
thedevil
How freedom of speech has changed in ten years:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_speech...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_speech&type=revision&diff=764472577&oldid=113861969)

From: "'Freedom of speech' is the concept of being able to speak freely
without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern
liberal democracy."

To: "'Freedom of speech' is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas
without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction."

Note how retaliation and censorship might no longer be considered an attack on
free speech, if done by private individuals or non-government entities. Also,
free speech is apparently no longer "an integral concept in modern liberal
democracy".

~~~
cholantesh
>implying Wikipedia is the authority on freedom of speech

None of this is censorship, because Breitbart may still sell their merchandise
using other storefronts and have not been impeded from publishing their
authors' work.

------
chronid

       On November 8th, the day of the US election, the whole world got more black and white. 
       People in the center have been called upon to choose sides. In a way, my position 
       is an appeal to preserve some of the gray in the world. All solutions necessarily 
       have to come from the middle ground. No progress happens when ideas are censored 
       and everyone sorts into one of two camps. The world is a nuanced and complicated 
       place. Let’s accept that and use rational discourse to make the world — and commerce — 
       better for everyone.
    

<slow clap>

------
mrnzc
Shopify somehow arbitrarily intermingles an "objective" point of view
(deferring the moral judgment to the law) and a "normative" point of view ("We
need to protect the free speech"). I think the very statement and conduct of
Spotify in fact demonstrates the hypocrisy (i.e. performative contradiction):
"We are liberals who do not think it is okay what Breitbart does." vs. "It is
okay what they do since it is within the bounds of law"

------
mcphage
In general, I support Shopify not dropping Breitbart. But this line I don't
think works:

> When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the
> superior one. But who gets to define that moral code?

Well, who do you _want_ to define your moral code? Do you want to define your
own moral code, or do you want Breitbart to define your moral code?

~~~
wvenable
I think they simply want to be neutral. There isn't anything inherently wrong
with that. I think the average person appreciates that most of their vendors
are neutral.

Imagine if your ISP or your bank took a moral stance on everything?

------
wnevets
Just dont get upset when people refuse to use shopify in protest.

~~~
notcolin
On the contrary. I'm going to make it a point to use Shopify now.

~~~
wnevets
congrats

------
siegecraft
Are products really free speech, though? That seems to be the core of their
argument.

------
andrewmcwatters
I wish more businesses would simply be that. A business. I don't want to hear
about your moral superiority, because it's a race with no finish line. I don't
care what a burger joint's position on world economics is, you sell burgers. I
don't care what the tech industry has to say about immigration, you sell
software. Nor Nike when they just sell shoes, or Coca-Cola when they just sell
soda. Chick-fil-A shouldn't be selling traditional values and Oreo shouldn't
sell gay rights. Shut up and sell your product. And guess what, it's far less
controversial that way. Let people cast their vote, not corporations.

------
whatok
What do people think about banks refusing to service marijuana or adult
industry customers?

~~~
yellowapple
It depends on the laws and regulations of the relevant jurisdictions. If it's
not illegal, then it shouldn't be restricted, IMO, but that's ultimately up to
the bank in question.

Pragmatically speaking, if both are legal, then both provide a relatively safe
return on any investment made; both are very big (and growing) industries, for
better or worse.

------
xwowsersx
Alternative headline: "Shopify Stands Strong on Free Speech"

~~~
xelipe
or "Shopify Makes Free Speech Great Again."

------
lightedman
HN news mods are slowly becoming Slashdot mods with stories like this.

~~~
grzm
Submissions are by HN members. The guidelines clearly state that the title
should not be modified unless clearly link bait:

 _[P]lease use the original title, unless it is misleading or link bait._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

When the mods are aware that a title has been unnecessarily editorialized,
from what I've observed they always update the title, either back to the
original or to something conforming to the guidelines in the case of
egregiously bad original titles.

If you see a title that's been editorialized, make a comment (as others have
done here), and if it's something you feel particularly strongly about,
contact the mods via the Contact link in the footer.

