[tptacek]

No. It takes more time to rebut ridiculous ideas than to generate them. At some point along the spectrum of consensus, the burden shifts to the person propagating the idea; otherwise, all we're doing is wasting time feeding the trolls.

[phonypc]

Trolls can be ignored. Bad ideas can be expressed in good faith.

[tptacek]

In neither case are we obligated to tolerate them.

[phonypc]

Depends what you mean by "we" "obligated" and "tolerate". Users certainly aren't legally or morally obligated to engage with content they find objectionable. HN, reddit, youtube etc. can legally remove whatever content they see fit, but I'd argue, being largely platforms for expression, they're morally obligated to tolerate objectionable speech.

[tptacek]

Do you have any arguments that would be persuasive to people who don't believe that HN is morally obligated to host spirited defenses of child pornography? ("No" is a fine answer!)

[phonypc]

I'm probably not capable of arguing for the idea of free speech any better than has been done before, no.