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

I respectfully and vehemently disagree. Hate speech has been proven to be able to convince people by virtue of appealing to their emotions rather than their intellect. It does not make sense to have a society based around human rights, with a point of view where stealing, murdering or otherwise deceiving people is wrong, while at the same time allowing speech which can subvert that same democracy. It's simply not smart. Just like your body has antibodies to prevent outside threats from outright destroying you from the inside (or outside), democracy too requires its defenses in order for it to work. The advent of fake news and social media manipulation should be enough to realize this: the US has a president that questions that validity of its own institutions right now, so does Brazil. Two democracies which have proven deceiving or hateful speech can mean trouble even for citizens who do not have anything to do with such rhetoric. Simply no, full-on free speech does not work and never will. The (anecdotal) fact Europe has some restraints on free speech while sporting arguably more freedoms, as in, freedom to live your life with a lot less chance of some random person killing you because they hide behind some crazy above-anything notion of freedom, should be enough to illustrate what I mean. Speech needs restraint or we need to stop pretending we care about human rights, simple as that.



>Hate speech has been proven to be able to convince people by virtue of appealing to their emotions rather than their intellect.

Replace hate speech with advertising and it reads the same.


Yes, but where's the connection between advertisement and a school shooting for example?


I would imagine some of the dissatisfaction with life that some of the school shooters feel is at least, in part, fueled by constantly being bombarded by advertisement that is trying to make a sale by convincing them that their life is terrible as it is without whatever they're selling.


I agree with you: the real issue we're talking about is putting a restraint on capitalism, because it is the notion that "development" means profit that's causing these issues. Those same advertisements make poor people in my country join the narcos, because while the government doesn't care about inequalities and unemployment, since it does not have social welfare as goal, those people are easily lured to work in drug trafficking, which pays.

Notice the ones defending crazy "free" speech are the same who defend crazy capitalism? Yeah, that's the issue: by defending what I call "responsible speech", which is free but not ultimate, we are defending social welfare and human rights AGAINST the former, because the former has no interest in defending the latter. We see it even here in Hacker News, when a corporation does something unethical or morally wrong, there will be someone to say "but hey, the corps are right they exist just give shareholder profit and that's what they're doing". It's a serious debate about sustainable development, which has the very survival of our species at stake.


So here in Europe we have stricter hate speech laws as well as stricter gun laws. Which one do you think is contributing more to the lack of school shootings?


What I think? I don't know, a lot of things goes against your intuition. I would think the combination of the two does a lot either way.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

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

Search: