This is what makes Hacker News such an astounding resource for thought provoking insight. I take the American perspective on free speech as nearly a theological imperative despite the problematic side effects. The alternatives strike me as far worse. Free speech drives faster resolution and remediation to the socially unacceptable. The ideas and behaviors highlighted by the reviewer are not new to society and collectively we do not stand in a place in a place, "never before seen." Our tools for communicating, identifying, and correcting the evils in this world are better than ever. Evil is just so damned ingenious. That isn't speech's fault.
> Our tools for communicating, identifying, and correcting the evils in this world are better than ever.
Are they really? It feels like fascist propaganda never spread so fast and so far than with social media. X is infested with neo-nazis casually discussing the jewish question or fantasizing about a coming race war on the front page. Fox News is a well-oiled oligarch-funded lie machine that never stops spinning narratives in service of power.
To me, that such a large portion of the country is gleefully cheering on ICE parting sick children from their parents [1] is proof enough of the absolute failure of our systems of information and free speech laws in addessing the rising issue of right-wing populism.
To me, the only reasonable exception that might exist to totally unrestricted speech is paid speech. If the courts really wishes to foster a state of free speech, then it should recognize that doing so requires the regulation of contractually obligated speech. Advertising, paid endorsements, Public relations firms, these are all things that obviously must be regulated, perhaps out of existence.
And as an aside, deporting people (back to their home countries) over their ideology is appropriate. The administration was recently elected to do just that. Deportations are legal, and the US public voted for them. The mandate is clear.
Not without due process, but I'm not sure what you think that means. No one is putting you in prison, you're being sent home. Do you think that by saying heinous shit, you are de facto granted citizenship?
You cannot deport citizens, and I believe that I am not arguing that you can, however, the process due to non-citizens is very minimal. You and your belongings are being returned to your country, where you will be free to do with them whatever you please. It's not incarceration, or a fine, we're just kicking you out, and we can basically do that at our discretion.
Incredible that someone might combine the American "free speech is absolutely everything" with "it's good to deport people for their speech" in two short paragraphs, but I guess that's where conservativism is at nowadays.
I don't think there's much "reconciliation" going on in the heads of a lot of folks who support modern day republicans.
As in - they don't bother to try to reconcile different thoughts and ideas into a coherent chain. There's no consideration for how the words said in this sentence might impact the words said just a sentence or two before.
It's just smushed together into canvas of "vaguely decent sounding gibberish". Each sentence by itself is somewhat coherent, but when you take the entire paragraph... it lacks internal consistency.
I'm not a conservative. I'm absolutely in favor of free speech, modulo paid speech, as I listed above.
Deportation does require some process, but you're not being charged with a crime, you're being returned to freedom in your own country. If a democratically elected government demonstrates that you are not a citizen, and judges that the country would be better off without you in it, and further gained its mandate from the position that it would deport you, I'd be hard pressed to find a legal reason why this policy should be prevented. The first amendment protects you from prosecution, not deportation. We'll see if the supreme court agrees.
There are two sorts of free speech absolutists. Those without power whom merely want to be heard and those with power who would not be limited in its exercise.
> without freedom of speech: which is the right of every man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the right of another. And this is the only check which it ought to suffer, the only bounds it ought to know.
The latter part is often ignored from free speech absolutists but only as long it’s about their free speech.
My stance on free speech is now that we need hate speech laws. The main argument against them, as I understand it, is always "that's a slippery slope toward authoritarianism". Truth is, when fascists get into power, whatever the law says will not save you from their potential desire to censor you. Allowing them to propagate their hateful ideas before then only serves their cause. It's the paradox of tolerance [1].
> If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
And indeed, many of those that claimed to be "free speech absolutists" before nov. 5 2025 are now cheering on books burnings and deporting citizens without due process. They simply brandished "free speech" as a defense everytime someone rightfully pointed out how bigoted and hateful the lies they spouted were, and never believed in it as a philosophical or legal ideal. To them, this "free speech" aestethic was always a mean to an end, taking advantage of a weak opposition that believed too much in the power of institutions and law.
So.. where's the real boundary? Fraud? CSAM? Other media deemed obscene? FOSTA/SESTA related matters? Death threats? Actions adjacent to death threats, like posting a picture of someone's face and address with a target photoshopped on them? Overt advocacy of violence against the state?
(people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here)
> First, the zealots today are no longer the progressives on the left – liberals, socialists, trade unionists. Instead they are predominantly on the right: campaigners against immigration, Brexiters, the enemies of Woke, aka Anti Social Justice Warriors, or ‘Anti-SJW’, as they proclaim themselves on their black T-shirts, available online for £15. This switch-around isn’t entirely new.
It has already switched back, now that the right wing is in power. It used to be that you would get your talk cancelled for having views that challenged family values. Now you get deported for having views that challenge the war machine.
Readit News
Is this the one where books get pulled from school libraries if they mention the existence of gay people?
(as I argue lower down, the US has a whole bunch of restrictions on speech that it avoids dealing with by saying "not speech" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44029515 )
Are they really? It feels like fascist propaganda never spread so fast and so far than with social media. X is infested with neo-nazis casually discussing the jewish question or fantasizing about a coming race war on the front page. Fox News is a well-oiled oligarch-funded lie machine that never stops spinning narratives in service of power.
To me, that such a large portion of the country is gleefully cheering on ICE parting sick children from their parents [1] is proof enough of the absolute failure of our systems of information and free speech laws in addessing the rising issue of right-wing populism.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g8yj2n33yo
And as an aside, deporting people (back to their home countries) over their ideology is appropriate. The administration was recently elected to do just that. Deportations are legal, and the US public voted for them. The mandate is clear.
In which case that speech should be restricted by removing them, without due process and without recourse?
Am I understanding you correctly?
Republicans have to stop with this "mandate" argument. Being elected doesn't make the president all-powerful, they still have to abide by the law.
As in - they don't bother to try to reconcile different thoughts and ideas into a coherent chain. There's no consideration for how the words said in this sentence might impact the words said just a sentence or two before.
It's just smushed together into canvas of "vaguely decent sounding gibberish". Each sentence by itself is somewhat coherent, but when you take the entire paragraph... it lacks internal consistency.
Deportation does require some process, but you're not being charged with a crime, you're being returned to freedom in your own country. If a democratically elected government demonstrates that you are not a citizen, and judges that the country would be better off without you in it, and further gained its mandate from the position that it would deport you, I'd be hard pressed to find a legal reason why this policy should be prevented. The first amendment protects you from prosecution, not deportation. We'll see if the supreme court agrees.
Does not lie on the spectrum.
How would one redefine either of the extremal points (or, more concisely, the notion of speech itself) so that it does?
The latter part is often ignored from free speech absolutists but only as long it’s about their free speech.
> If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
And indeed, many of those that claimed to be "free speech absolutists" before nov. 5 2025 are now cheering on books burnings and deporting citizens without due process. They simply brandished "free speech" as a defense everytime someone rightfully pointed out how bigoted and hateful the lies they spouted were, and never believed in it as a philosophical or legal ideal. To them, this "free speech" aestethic was always a mean to an end, taking advantage of a weak opposition that believed too much in the power of institutions and law.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
So.. where's the real boundary? Fraud? CSAM? Other media deemed obscene? FOSTA/SESTA related matters? Death threats? Actions adjacent to death threats, like posting a picture of someone's face and address with a target photoshopped on them? Overt advocacy of violence against the state?
(people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here)
It has already switched back, now that the right wing is in power. It used to be that you would get your talk cancelled for having views that challenged family values. Now you get deported for having views that challenge the war machine.