Hate speech isn't even a valid legal distinction in the US, first of all.*
Even philosophically, it's extremely hairy to define. Would you consider harshly criticizing Scientology and its adherents to be hate speech? How about harshly criticizing Islam?
It's pathetic to me how nowadays any criticism of a group, no matter how valid, has been rebranded into "hate speech" by so many. Just because you criticize something don't mean you "hate" it.
But lets say you do. Even if you genuinely hate something, what exactly is so wrong with that? There are aspects of certain organizations and philosophies that I hate -- should I not be allowed to express that without being condemned for it?
*There are hate crimes, depending on mens rea (motivation) but anything that would be considered "hate speech" in many EU countries is generally fully protected in the US.
> In October of 1989, a group of young black men were hanging out in front of their apartment complex, discussing the movie Mississippi Burning, in which a number of black people are beaten. As a young white boy walked past the complex, and Todd Mitchell, one of the group, called out “Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?” then said, “There goes a white boy; go get him!” and led his friends in an attack on the boy. The black men stole the boy’s tennis shoes, and beat him so badly that he was in a coma for four days.
> Mitchell was convicted on charges of aggravated battery in the Circuit Court, but because the jury ruled he had chosen the victim based solely on race, the crime was elevated to the level of a hate crime. In this case, Mitchell’s words were intended to incite violence against a person, based on a trait or attribute – his race. Although Mitchell appealed his conviction, claiming the conviction violated his right to free speech.
> The question of constitutionality in this case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993, which held that the First Amendment does not bar the use of a person’s speech as evidence to establish elements of a crime. In fact, such evidence is commonly used to prove a defendant’s intent or motive, as well as to determine relevancy of certain evidence, or reliability of a witness’ testimony. The crime in Mitchell’s case was aggravated battery, not the words that he spoke, which provoked his companions to engage in the crime. Therefore, Mitchell’s free speech rights were never impeded.
This is a personal attack. Further, you've put words in the other person's mouth and that's a battle thing not a discussion thing. It breaks this guideline:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
No, let's please not douse ourselves with gasoline and try to relitigate this one.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
Ah okay, so the clear best move is to do nothing and let everyone say whatever they want on every web application that allows user comments. That policy surely won't be abused.
We've banned this account. We can unban you if you email hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you won't post like this again—it simply doesn't matter what you're replying to.
I'm not sure how you got from someone criticizing what’s posted on gab to suppression of free speech, but it makes me think you have absolutely no idea what free speech really is.
> They were criticising developers who worked on Gab
Sure. But remember, criticizing the developers is also free speech.
> presumably with the aim of removing Gab as a platform.
You're making up their aims, but again, free speech.
You don't have to agree with them, but it's absolutely their free speech right to call the Gab developers all kinds of nasty things. You cannot create a definition of free speech that includes the right of people on Gab to say whatever they want, but doesn't include the right for other's to tell the Gab developers that they've done a bad thing and should feel bad.
Edit: To further bolster my point, I will quote from Ken White about another famous free speech spat a few years ago when a twitter troll lost his job at Business Insider.
> But speech has private social consequences, and it's ridiculous to expect otherwise. Whether sincere or motivated by poseur edginess, controversial words have social consequences. Those social consequences are inseparable from the free speech and free association rights of the people imposing them. It is flatly irrational to suggest that I should be able to act like a dick without being treated like a dick by my fellow citizens.
> Some criticize social consequences as being chilling to free speech. That misappropriates the language of First Amendment scrutiny of government restrictions on speech and seeks to impose it upon private speech. It is true, superficially, that I am chilled from saying bigoted things because people will call me a bigot, or chilled from saying stupid things because people will call me stupid. But how is that definition of chill coherent or principled? How do you apply it? If Pax Dickinson suggests that "feminism in tech" is something to be scorned, to we treat that as something that as first-speaker speech that we ought not chill with criticism, or do we treat it as a second-speaker attempt to chill the speech of the "feminists in tech" with criticism? What rational scheme do you use to determine what speech is "legitimate disagreement," and what speech is abusive and "chilling"?
