[thinkfurther]

> I may not be able to understand where White Supremists are coming from, but I fully appreciate their right to free speech.

These two facts are connected. Another example would be not being fully sure what bleach exactly is, but being all for drinking it.

[toomuchtodo]

Bluntly, people have a right to hate, as long as they're not committing assault and battery.

I'll take the world where that exists before I live in a world with thought police.

[KirinDave]

If people have a right to hate, then your ethos demands private companies can mute anyone they want.

It seems difficult to have it both ways.

Edit: it seems my debate partner deleted a telling comment. Too bad.

[toomuchtodo]

I didn't think we're debating? I'm just expressing my views within the HN bubble.

Anyway, I agree with you that the current legal framework allows private companies to discriminate. Ideally, government regulation will fix this; otherwise, as soon as the pendulum swings, I'm sure you'd be displeased with progressive websites being dumped off of internet infrastructure by corporations run or owned by those with conservative leanings.

[KirinDave]

Maybe, but there is a clear difference in magnitude between the celebration of murder to quash speech and the historical debate about the direction of this country.

Very few folks are confused when they see a group of white men fly Nazi flags, then murder and maim, then cheer it on as an act of heroism.

Which is probably why your "Free speech actually means freedom from any and all consequences" is going over here like a lead balloon.

> I'm just expressing my views within the HN bubble.

And for the most part being treated civily, even though you seem to be trying your best to defend the cause of literal fascists and their literal endorsement of spontaneous and fatal violence.

I'm surprised an advocate of "free" speech devoid of consequence can tolerate and support those who engage in violence against that very principle.