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

All those are speech in the context of support for a declared conflict perpetuated by the government. We don't have to all agree, obviously, but yes: stated support for policies of our elected representatives has to be OK. I don't think anyone reasonable would disagree.

If someone were to talk about personal killing of gooks or japs or krauts or secesh for ethnic and not military reasons, even in a war, that would be different. But that's not what you seem to be talking about.

The distinction is precisely why we have the Geneva conventions, and this is well established law.




Your posting really gets to my core frustration with our Western political establishment: We have "rational", "moderate" politicians like Hillary, Biden, Merkel, or the late John McCain, who were in favor of the illegal attack on Iraq, well knowing that civilians would die, and that the area would be destabilized (hello IS).

But because the US didn't attack Iraq based on a protected class like race, and because the Geneva conventions exist, everything is magically okay. No reason to deplatform these heroes of bipartisan politics.

I worry about the end of radical free speech on the internet precisely because I feel deeply disconnected from "mainstream morality". As internet censorship progresses, I'm sure I'll be kicked out before any of the high-status war criminals.

(I'm referring to the 2003 Iraq war because I still remember who supported it, but I assume the handling of Vietnam was similar in its time.)


"I worry about the end of radical free speech on the internet precisely because I feel deeply disconnected from "mainstream morality". As internet censorship progresses, I'm sure I'll be kicked out before any of the high-status war criminals."

Same :(




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

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

Search: