I'm amazed at how the HN's Libertarian streak gets subdued when discussing free speech (which only enjoins the government). Private individuals and corporations should be free to decide who they want to do business with (even if it's under duress of bad PR).
When Brendan Eich was ousted[1] from Mozilla, I warned that the boycott threat set a bad precedent. The counter argument at the time was that "his donation wasn't free speech" and rights weren't negotiable. In the aftermath of 3 people losing their lives in Charlottesville, supporting the Daily Stormer is clearly Bad for Business™ - even if none of the companies are explicitly stating how commercially toxic DS has become.
1. He was ousted, his resignation was a technicality
>I'm amazed at how the HN's Libertarian streak gets subdued
I'm not. The moral lukewarmness and willingness to stick to quite literally the HN (obviously comprised of white suburbanites) echo chamber should be quite obvious at this point on the site, to anyone willing to observe such patterns and how political rhetoric on this site is contained. Commenters seem to do damn near anything to not even so much as turn their heads to the left socially. Look at which comments are being downvoted in this thread and objectively ask yourself whether those downvotes have actual merit.
So what is being defended here in reference to the ideal of free speech? Actual Nazis with a known ideology, and known consequences of that ideology, are trying to spread their message. This isn't a matter of some moral ambiguity or merely silencing those we have "disagreements" with. I'd be nice if people in the U.S. would stop feigning ignorance or neutrality all to put up some faux enlightened defense of an abstract ideal. Be practical. It's not going to be a slippery slope. We're not going to turn into 1984. A private company chose to not do business with a group of people hellbent on spreading a totalitarian racist ideology. An ideology that speaks to some pretty primal fears and habits of humans. It's okay to correct for it.
I'll repeat it again, just to end: it's okay and necessary to silence these people. It's not going to open Pandora's box. Not addressing the problem will. I think the EFF's take on this, while noble, is naively idealistic.
When Brendan Eich was ousted[1] from Mozilla, I warned that the boycott threat set a bad precedent. The counter argument at the time was that "his donation wasn't free speech" and rights weren't negotiable. In the aftermath of 3 people losing their lives in Charlottesville, supporting the Daily Stormer is clearly Bad for Business™ - even if none of the companies are explicitly stating how commercially toxic DS has become.
1. He was ousted, his resignation was a technicality