Sorry, I should have been clearer, I thought it'd be evident that I meant the legal understanding that emerged from the constitution, rather than the text itself.

Of course I despise the vitriol spewed on twitter as much as anyone else, but I'd sooner that idiocy be exposed and ridiculed than cede control over acceptable speech to ideologically motivated moderators in the inevitable instances where the ethical lines are blurrier. I realize that's a bit of an antiquated view, and the prevalent opinion is that these people can't be reasoned with and thus shouldn't be platformed, but I truly believe that that cynicism is a greater threat to our liberal institutions than the odd troll or bigot making racist remarks with 25 followers.

I think it is rather important. Because once you recognize that this is the legal understanding rather than the text itself a really critical thing emerges. Interpretation has not been the same throughout history. When was the time when our interpretation of the constitution produced optimal social media moderation policy? If it is now, what happens when in the future interpretation of speech rights changes? Or even right now? "Bong hits for Jesus"-kid was punished and that was upheld as consistent with the 1st amendment.

> but I'd sooner that idiocy be exposed and ridiculed than cede control over acceptable speech to ideologically motivated moderators in the inevitable instances where the ethical lines are blurrier.

Great. Will you also be willing to be the person who experiences a torrent of hate speech directed at them? This is not an abstract thing where somebody else can "expose and ridicule" proponents of hate. You need to be willing to have the Nazis literally protest at your home and your job every single day and not leave.

> the odd troll or bigot making racist remarks with 25 followers.

If you think this is an honest portrayal of the state of hate on social media when moderation is reduced to "everything that isn't illegal" then you are grossly mistaken.

The fact that legal interpretation has changed over time is a feature; the essential point is that it is within the democratic institution of the judicial system that the debate over and enforcement of acceptable speech should occur.

Yes, I am committed to backing up my philosophical attachment to free speech at the expense of personal inconvenience. I realize that's an empty statement without actually being subjected to that reality, but that's the best I can do.

If I'm wrong about the extent to which hate speech proliferates in unmoderated spaces (absent the adverse selection effect for sites like 4chan), then that's all the more reason to address that undercurrent of our societies. If anything, I'd argue pushing people off platforms where they might encounter dissenting views exacerbates radicalization.

I don't believe that it is the best you can do. What you can do is become an active ally, through your time or money, for the people who will suffer by having hate invade their spaces.

> Legal interpretation of the constitution has also very clearly found that a huge collection of actual literal Nazis marching around shouting "death to jews" at the top of their lungs is a-okay.

Not okay, but not illegal, and better than the alternative i.e. a society without freedom of speech (as the Reich was, or Weimar Germany).

Better than the alternative for limits on the government perhaps. Better for moderation on social media? I don't really agree.

I do find the continued attempts to paint social media kicking transphobes off their platforms as equivalent to the actual Nazis hilarious, though.

I wouldn't say it's equivalent but it's certainly comparable.

And as I mentioned, I find that completely hilarious.

I hope that getting that off your chest was a help to you but for the rest of us Twitter would surely be a better place to share that.

I hope that you take the threats to our elections as seriously as you take transphobes getting banned from twitter.

1. I'm not American.

2. I probably take the threats to your elections more seriously than you (I read whole of the the Antrim County computer forensics report, I'll never get that time back but I put in the effort).

3. To label ideological opponents with the label of a mental illness simply for disagreement is a poor show.

4. I take anyone being banned from anything for speech that should be free (which is almost all speech) very seriously.

5. "haha Nazis are shit" is below par for HN. Try not to waste my time and others with stuff you can safely spew out on Twitter and get likes for even though it's vapid.

> I probably take the threats to your elections more seriously than you (I read whole of the the Antrim County computer forensics report, I'll never get that time back but I put in the effort).

I don't think that's true, since you think that people being banned on social media is a greater threat to a fall to authoritarianism.

> To label ideological opponents with the label of a mental illness simply for disagreement is a poor show.

I did not do this. Nor is this just "simply for disagreement." Argument over the best way of funding retirement savings programs is distinct from arguments over whether or not to throw gay people in prison, for example.

> I take anyone being banned from anything for speech that should be free (which is almost all speech) very seriously.

I'm sure you do. I hope that you also donate your time and money to those who suffer at the hands of people spreading hate.

> haha Nazis are shit" is below par for HN. Try not to waste my time and others with stuff you can safely spew out on Twitter and get likes for even though it's vapid.

Nazis are shit. You are treating me like a child. You use this "you talk like you are on Twitter" move pretty often as a way of talking down to people.

> you think that people being banned on social media is a greater threat to a fall to authoritarianism.

That's a strange reading that seems to assume that free speech goes hand in hand with authoritarianism, a laughable notion. Free speech is the antithesis of authoritarianism. No authoritarian has ever allowed anything approaching freedom of speech within their jurisdiction and sometimes even enforce it far beyond. As such, what you think is wrong.

> > To label ideological opponents with the label of a mental illness simply for disagreement is a poor show.

> I did not do this.

A phobia is a mental illness, you call your ideological opponents transphobes, so you did do this. It's pathetic name calling.

> I hope that you also donate your time and money to those who suffer at the hands of people spreading hate.

I'm here right now spending my time doing just that because you quite clearly do hate your opponents.

> Nazis are shit. You are treating me like a child.

No one here has claimed that Nazis aren't shit but you're acting like a teenager high on self righteousness that thinks proclaiming that is some kind of insight for the rest of us. It is childish.

As I wrote, HN isn't the place, and one reason I bring it up far too often is because far too often of late I see people, like yourself, treating it as such. I make no apologies for wanting the standards to remain high.

Wow. You complain about the quality of discourse and then resort to arguing that transphobia means something completely different than its ordinary use (and obviously my intention) based entirely on definition-by-etymology. Of everything in this thread between you and me, this is the most clearly in bad faith.

Tell you what. I'll change all my words if it'll make you take me seriously. Substitute "bigots against trans people." It'll change none of my meaning.

It's ordinary use is the one I'm complaining about. It's a slur that implies irrational hatred, disgust and fear - that is a mental illness, hence why phobia is appended to the objects of fear.

There's a reason such a misnomer is used, and there's a reason why those using it such as yourself, seem to overlook its utterly mistaken connotations.

> Substitute "bigots against trans people." It'll change none of my meaning.

I know, but you're begging the question, while being an ironic hypocrite. How about you substitute a specific and accurate term for those you disagree with, or would it be too difficult for you to actually drop the ad hominem for even a moment out of fear of being shown up?

Congress tried passing limits on Free Speech almost immediately with the Sedition Act of 1798. It was very unpopular and eventually allowed to expire.