Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Maybe we need to talk about consent here. Should speech where one party doesn't consent to having a conversation at all really be protected? How about disrupting speech between other people who mutually consent to it?



No, we don't need to talk about consent. If both parties had to consent to a conversation, the civil rights movement would have never happened.


I don't know about that. Protests often do involve illegal activity. You have heard of civil disobedience?


No, I've never heard of civil disobedience. Fantastic question.

Sure seems to me like people would have been able to say, "I don't consent to listening to these people ask for equal representation, an aggressive violation of my rights." And then the whole movement gets stopped in its tracks when it ceases to be protected speech.




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

Search: