The answer to your question is that HN is just a specific type of web forum a specific set of rules. It's not an anything-goes place and never has been, and it's hardly the "western world".
Who decides whether the guidelines are fair? well, that has to be someone's job and it happens to be my job, so for now it's I who decide.
Since you've broken them badly in all kinds of places recently:
If you're talking about American free speech your speech is protected from government censorship, not private censorship on a private platform. HN admins really do try to avoid putting their fingers on the scale when it comes to legitimate disagreements but that comment was dead'd for being flamebait and lacking substance - it added nothing of value to the discussion and veered far off topic (much like your comment and my reply do, but thankfully we're in a dead branch of a comment thread so this won't pollute most user's views).
HN exists (partially) to surface interesting news and foster discussions of that news - flamebait is never interesting and it doesn't lead to interesting discussions. We of the internet discovered, during the usenet days, that reducing a conversation to a shouting match is boring - so to promote a more healthy dialog HN specifically removes inflammatory comments unless they bring an interesting topic to light (and even then it's just nicer to communicate in a polite manner) - as this is the goal for this private forum it's completely within its right to restrict discussions that go against that goal and restrict users that repeatedly violate that goal. The internet is a large place and there are plenty of other forums that cater to other forms of expression - the first amendment exists primarily to make it illegal for the government to say such places can't exist - it doesn't obligate all places to act in such a manner nor mandate the existence of such places.
in contrast to the american idea of free speech which limits what the government can censor, germany has a concept of the freedom of opinion which among other things limits the right of companies to censor opinions they disagree with. the blocking of trump for example raised some eyebrows. the kind of moderation done on hackernews would be just fine in germany too though.
I have not violated any guidelines here. My language is civil, and my content relevant to the HN mod's recent ban of a certain account.
This is meta navel-gazing and is generally not considered on-topic or useful here. That's probably the main reason for the downvotes.
To try to answer the question though, since we're already here:
There are two (at least two) definitions of "free speech" in the US. The "strict" one related to the Constitutional principle enshrined in the 1st Amendment which basically means that the government can't make certain speech illegal and then put you in jail or otherwise punish you for what you say. For better or worse, the courts have generally ruled that there are limits to that though, hence the old saw about "yelling fire in a crowded theatre".
Beyond that, some people look at free speech in a colloquial sense as meaning something like "I can say anything I want, anywhere I want, anytime I want, and nobody can interfere in any way with my doing so". This would mean, for example, that a private web-forum like HN banning an account could be seen as a violation of "free speech". This is not even close to a universally accepted definition, but at this point I guess we could say it's close to being "widely adopted" at worst.
I think most Americans though, accept that as an individual no one of us has standing to compel another individual, or private organization, to assist in transmitting, propagating, relaying, or distributing our speech. So HN banning an account may be distasteful to some people, but it's not a violation of the principle of "Free Speech".
"Free Speech" in the west is the concept that the government cannot use its power to silence your opinions or expression.
It has been co-opted fairly recently -by some- to mean that no one can silence you anywhere. This is a new interpretation, and unrelated to the USA constitutional right to free speech.
This has never been the case. If you say something offensive to me in my house, I can rightfully remove you. You can continue to say the thing somewhere else, just not in a private house.
Hacker News -in this instance- is a private house. If they allowed unlimited free speech, they would have to allow personal attacks, spam, off-topic submissions, etc... Part of the value of HN is that the speech IS NOT free.
You and I can come here and trust that the conversations will meet a standard, banning people who flagrantly abuse that standard is also a form of free speech.
edit: after seeing your edit, it looks like this is a disingenuous question intended to start a flamewar. If that isn't your intention, you should be careful about how you phrase things.
"Free speech" only applies to what the government can do.
Private entities are allowed to do whatever they want with their platform regarding speech. Twitter, HN, etc. are not obligated to give everyone a megaphone.
There's no way you don't know this already. It comes up every week.
dang|3 years ago
The answer to your question is that HN is just a specific type of web forum a specific set of rules. It's not an anything-goes place and never has been, and it's hardly the "western world".
Who decides whether the guidelines are fair? well, that has to be someone's job and it happens to be my job, so for now it's I who decide.
Since you've broken them badly in all kinds of places recently:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32671575
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32660805
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32659189
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32648075
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32646308
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32628649
(and that's just a few examples), I've banned your account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
munk-a|3 years ago
HN exists (partially) to surface interesting news and foster discussions of that news - flamebait is never interesting and it doesn't lead to interesting discussions. We of the internet discovered, during the usenet days, that reducing a conversation to a shouting match is boring - so to promote a more healthy dialog HN specifically removes inflammatory comments unless they bring an interesting topic to light (and even then it's just nicer to communicate in a polite manner) - as this is the goal for this private forum it's completely within its right to restrict discussions that go against that goal and restrict users that repeatedly violate that goal. The internet is a large place and there are plenty of other forums that cater to other forms of expression - the first amendment exists primarily to make it illegal for the government to say such places can't exist - it doesn't obligate all places to act in such a manner nor mandate the existence of such places.
em-bee|3 years ago
wawjgreen|3 years ago
[deleted]
mindcrime|3 years ago
This is meta navel-gazing and is generally not considered on-topic or useful here. That's probably the main reason for the downvotes.
To try to answer the question though, since we're already here:
There are two (at least two) definitions of "free speech" in the US. The "strict" one related to the Constitutional principle enshrined in the 1st Amendment which basically means that the government can't make certain speech illegal and then put you in jail or otherwise punish you for what you say. For better or worse, the courts have generally ruled that there are limits to that though, hence the old saw about "yelling fire in a crowded theatre".
Beyond that, some people look at free speech in a colloquial sense as meaning something like "I can say anything I want, anywhere I want, anytime I want, and nobody can interfere in any way with my doing so". This would mean, for example, that a private web-forum like HN banning an account could be seen as a violation of "free speech". This is not even close to a universally accepted definition, but at this point I guess we could say it's close to being "widely adopted" at worst.
I think most Americans though, accept that as an individual no one of us has standing to compel another individual, or private organization, to assist in transmitting, propagating, relaying, or distributing our speech. So HN banning an account may be distasteful to some people, but it's not a violation of the principle of "Free Speech".
YMMV.
dghlsakjg|3 years ago
It has been co-opted fairly recently -by some- to mean that no one can silence you anywhere. This is a new interpretation, and unrelated to the USA constitutional right to free speech.
This has never been the case. If you say something offensive to me in my house, I can rightfully remove you. You can continue to say the thing somewhere else, just not in a private house.
Hacker News -in this instance- is a private house. If they allowed unlimited free speech, they would have to allow personal attacks, spam, off-topic submissions, etc... Part of the value of HN is that the speech IS NOT free.
You and I can come here and trust that the conversations will meet a standard, banning people who flagrantly abuse that standard is also a form of free speech.
edit: after seeing your edit, it looks like this is a disingenuous question intended to start a flamewar. If that isn't your intention, you should be careful about how you phrase things.
wawjgreen|3 years ago
[deleted]
Sohcahtoa82|3 years ago
Private entities are allowed to do whatever they want with their platform regarding speech. Twitter, HN, etc. are not obligated to give everyone a megaphone.
There's no way you don't know this already. It comes up every week.
wawjgreen|3 years ago
[deleted]