Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The characterization of Reddit as "trying to speak out of both sides of its mouth" is misplaced. There is nothing inconsistent about affirming someone's right to say something while acknowledging that the content of said speech is deplorable. In the US (and Reddit is US company), we have a long and extolled history of this exact behavior. Was the ACLU being inconsistent when they defended the rights of Nazis to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois [1]?

Others here have rightly pointed out that Reddit is not government, and that they aren't obliged to allow all legal speech. However, in an age of increasing acceptance of voluntary censorship (walled gardens, etc) Reddit has chosen to take the principled position of allowing its users to self moderate its content, only intervening in cases of illegality.

If one thinks that creepshots-style content shouldn't be allowed (and there are certainly compelling arguments for this case), one should petition the government to classify it as illegal, not wrongly criticize Reddit for taking the consistent position that they have.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#...



>There is nothing inconsistent about affirming someone's right to say something while acknowledging that the content of said speech is deplorable.

Sorry, the SJ guardians live in a black and white world where you are with them or against them and being against creepshots AND against doxxing is completely impossible.


Pretty much: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/18/online-b...

(That article if anything understates how bad the problem is.)




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

Search: