[pajamanaut]

This is going to be a controversial opinion, but I agree with the mods who wrote the petition. The 'fire in a crowded theater' analogy is overused, but it seems applicable here. Additionally, those who moderate these subs (nnn especially) have repeatedly, and seemingly intentionally, failed to enforce site wide content policies. One needs look no further than r/covidvaccinated for proof of vote brigading. I have no problem with reasonable discussion, but Reddit is not where it happens anymore. Not with the gish-gallop it has become inundated with.

[grapist420]

Fire in a crowded theater is a poor first amendment analogy.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/264449/

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2013/03/04/please-s...

It’s a bit late to delete these subs anyway it’s been two years of Covid almost.

[pajamanaut]

1: Regardless of its original context, the analogy does seem reasonable to me. "Shouting fire," assuming there is no fire, is disinformation. "A crowded theater" represents a scenario in which disinformation presents a clear and present threat to others.

2: Better late than never. ICUs are reaching capacity again, especially in areas with low vaccination rates. There is a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel, but we are still in the tunnel.

Edit: de-amped versions of the above links

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2013/03/04/please-s...

[grapist420]

In short, from PopeHat -

Nearly 100 years ago Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., voting to uphold the Espionage Act conviction of a man who wrote and circulated anti-draft pamphlets during World War I, said “[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

That flourish — now usually shortened to “shout fire in a crowded theater” — is the media’s go-to trope to support the proposition that some speech is illegal. But it’s empty rhetoric. I previously explained at length how Holmes said it in the context of the Supreme Court’s strong wartime pro-censorship push and subsequently retreated from it. That history illustrates its insidious nature. Holmes cynically used the phrase as a rhetorical device to justify jailing people for anti-war advocacy, an activity that is now (and was soon thereafter) unquestionably protected by the First Amendment.

https://www.thefire.org/popehat-on-the-medias-most-common-pr...

In practice I don’t think banning NoNewNormal now matters much. I prefer unbanned because I don’t like censorship, but this isn’t a slippery slope problem, Reddit has long been free falling into the latrine pit. I’ve had to go offsite with my old Reddit community. Efforts can be made, but I think the entire process here is useless.

[pajamanaut]

As to your first point, I don't disagree. The analogy has been used frequently in bad faith. That is not what I am doing here, and I think Homles' statement, regardless of his intent, is still fundamentally correct. We can discuss what responses to take freely, but uncomfortable facts are facts. I don't think allowing communities explicitly dedicated to denial of those facts brings us anything of value.

The Supreme Court case in which this saying originated was one where someone advocated protesting the draft. He spoke truths, and gave advice and opinions. He did not spread disinformation.

Regarding your second statement, deplatforming works to an extent. People do not change their minds, but they do lose influence over the larger conversation.

[rat87]

That's not at all controversial. It's correct

That said fire in a crowded analogy is terrible, it refers to a legal standard that was overturned and was about jailing people for pacifist literature during WW1

[pajamanaut]

It seems pretty controversial sometimes. It probably is not nearly as divisive as it feels, but the HN crowd is pretty libertarian-leaning based on my years of lurking

[yanderekko]

>Additionally, those who moderate these subs (nnn especially) have repeatedly, and seemingly intentionally, failed to enforce site wide content policies.

Let's not pretend that "we just want NNN to enforce these policies and we're fine" is going to satisfy the critics here. This seems to be a boilerplate complaint that is lodged against any sub that is attacked for obvious political reasons.

[pajamanaut]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that it was the main issue here. It's just a small piece of a much larger issue with reddit-style moderation in general, and with nnn especially