This is what makes Hacker News such an astounding resource for thought provoking insight. I take the American perspective on free speech as nearly a theological imperative despite the problematic side effects. The alternatives strike me as far worse. Free speech drives faster resolution and remediation to the socially unacceptable. The ideas and behaviors highlighted by the reviewer are not new to society and collectively we do not stand in a place in a place, "never before seen." Our tools for communicating, identifying, and correcting the evils in this world are better than ever. Evil is just so damned ingenious. That isn't speech's fault.

> I take the American perspective on free speech as nearly a theological imperative

Is this the one where books get pulled from school libraries if they mention the existence of gay people?

(as I argue lower down, the US has a whole bunch of restrictions on speech that it avoids dealing with by saying "not speech" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44029515 )

> Our tools for communicating, identifying, and correcting the evils in this world are better than ever.

Are they really? It feels like fascist propaganda never spread so fast and so far than with social media. X is infested with neo-nazis casually discussing the jewish question or fantasizing about a coming race war on the front page. Fox News is a well-oiled oligarch-funded lie machine that never stops spinning narratives in service of power.

To me, that such a large portion of the country is gleefully cheering on ICE parting sick children from their parents [1] is proof enough of the absolute failure of our systems of information and free speech laws in addessing the rising issue of right-wing populism.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g8yj2n33yo

To me, the only reasonable exception that might exist to totally unrestricted speech is paid speech. If the courts really wishes to foster a state of free speech, then it should recognize that doing so requires the regulation of contractually obligated speech. Advertising, paid endorsements, Public relations firms, these are all things that obviously must be regulated, perhaps out of existence.

And as an aside, deporting people (back to their home countries) over their ideology is appropriate. The administration was recently elected to do just that. Deportations are legal, and the US public voted for them. The mandate is clear.

So speech should be totally unrestricted, unless that speech is made by someone whose ideology you don't like, who doesn't happen to be born here.

In which case that speech should be restricted by removing them, without due process and without recourse?

Am I understanding you correctly?

Not without due process, but I'm not sure what you think that means. No one is putting you in prison, you're being sent home. Do you think that by saying heinous shit, you are de facto granted citizenship?

Incredible that someone might combine the American "free speech is absolutely everything" with "it's good to deport people for their speech" in two short paragraphs, but I guess that's where conservativism is at nowadays.

I don't think there's much "reconciliation" going on in the heads of a lot of folks who support modern day republicans.

As in - they don't bother to try to reconcile different thoughts and ideas into a coherent chain. There's no consideration for how the words said in this sentence might impact the words said just a sentence or two before.

It's just smushed together into canvas of "vaguely decent sounding gibberish". Each sentence by itself is somewhat coherent, but when you take the entire paragraph... it lacks internal consistency.

I'm not a conservative. I'm absolutely in favor of free speech, modulo paid speech, as I listed above.

Deportation does require some process, but you're not being charged with a crime, you're being returned to freedom in your own country. If a democratically elected government demonstrates that you are not a citizen, and judges that the country would be better off without you in it, and further gained its mandate from the position that it would deport you, I'd be hard pressed to find a legal reason why this policy should be prevented. The first amendment protects you from prosecution, not deportation. We'll see if the supreme court agrees.

So .. where are the speech rules for visa holders written down?

The important thing in rule of law is that it should be possible to comply. If visa holders were told that not engaging in political speech or holding certain views in public was a condition of their visa, then it's somewhat defensible.

What are the speech laws that apply here?

Or are you arguing that visas are pure whimsy? That they're awarded based on whether elected officials like you or not?

You're not being imprisoned, executed, or fined. You're being sent home.

Winning with a 49.8% popular vote is hardly a "mandate".

Winning an election in a democratic country is a mandate. I also wish Trump wasn't elected president, but he definitely was.

Deportations without due process aren't though. And what does it even mean to deport citizens?

Republicans have to stop with this "mandate" argument. Being elected doesn't make the president all-powerful, they still have to abide by the law.

You cannot deport citizens, and I believe that I am not arguing that you can, however, the process due to non-citizens is very minimal. You and your belongings are being returned to your country, where you will be free to do with them whatever you please. It's not incarceration, or a fine, we're just kicking you out, and we can basically do that at our discretion.

There are two sorts of free speech absolutists. Those without power whom merely want to be heard and those with power who would not be limited in its exercise.

Trump believes in free speech for the far-right and fascists, and deportation for students speaking against his actions.

> First, the zealots today are no longer the progressives on the left – liberals, socialists, trade unionists. Instead they are predominantly on the right: campaigners against immigration, Brexiters, the enemies of Woke, aka Anti Social Justice Warriors, or ‘Anti-SJW’, as they proclaim themselves on their black T-shirts, available online for £15. This switch-around isn’t entirely new.

It has already switched back, now that the right wing is in power. It used to be that you would get your talk cancelled for having views that challenged family values. Now you get deported for having views that challenge the war machine.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

Or as the most recent absurd social media controversy: what does "86 49" refer to and to what extent is it a threat?

I find this particular controversy to be exceptionally hypocritical, given that it was only a few months ago that the people chanting "Hang Mike Pence" at some point between standing in front of a gallows and unlawfully trespassing government premises… were pardoned by Trump.

But the point is still valid.

My stance on free speech is now that we need hate speech laws. The main argument against them, as I understand it, is always "that's a slippery slope toward authoritarianism". Truth is, when fascists get into power, whatever the law says will not save you from their potential desire to censor you. Allowing them to propagate their hateful ideas before then only serves their cause. It's the paradox of tolerance [1].

> If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.

And indeed, many of those that claimed to be "free speech absolutists" before nov. 5 2025 are now cheering on books burnings and deporting citizens without due process. They simply brandished "free speech" as a defense everytime someone rightfully pointed out how bigoted and hateful the lies they spouted were, and never believed in it as a philosophical or legal ideal. To them, this "free speech" aestethic was always a mean to an end, taking advantage of a weak opposition that believed too much in the power of institutions and law.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I believe in due process of law and absolute free speech. Guess I don't exist. Honestly, that's such a relief.

> absolute free speech

So.. where's the real boundary? Fraud? CSAM? Other media deemed obscene? FOSTA/SESTA related matters? Death threats? Actions adjacent to death threats, like posting a picture of someone's face and address with a target photoshopped on them? Overt advocacy of violence against the state?

(people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here)

Fraud is illegal because it's fraud, not because it's the wrong kind of speech. I mean, yes, fraud usually involves an element of saying something. But the issue is the act of defrauding someone, not the words they used in the process.

Free speech has never been conceived as giving you a right to commit fraud, extortion, bribery, criminal conspiracy, blackmail, treason, leaking classified information... the list is long. If you're going to commit a crime, and part of the crime is implemented as communication, "free speech" is not a defense. Never has been. If you think otherwise, your understanding of what "free speech" means in the US is faulty.

Well then, aren't death threats a form of speech? Because they're clearly illegal. What about a nazi saying "death to all "? It's just words at the end of the day, and most of them won't act on it, right?

> people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here

Grand parent neatly predicted your response, you are trying to categorize every kind of illegal speech forms as something else than speech. Either you can say whatever you want or you can't. There's no absolutism with restrictions.

First: I'm not saying "that's not actually speech". I'm saying that the crime isn't that it's speech; the crime is that it's fraud. You can't take fraud, speak it, and now it's OK because speech. No, it's still fraud, and it's still illegal because of the fraud, not because of the speech.

Second: There's no "free speech absolutism". Not only does speech not erase other crimes, there are also certain restrictions on free speech as speech. Imminent incitement to violence is one of them.

Got it, no need for such abrasiveness. I tweaked my previous comment, you're right: not every free speech absolutist is a hypocrite.

Hear hear!