Do you have an example of someone's comment being deleted for this reason? Someone being banned from hn or experiencing any adverse effects other than being downvoted?
If I came here and posted a comment to the effect of "Paul Graham is a huge idiot", I would expect to get downvoted, but I will have succeeded in saying it.
Is your idea of freedom of speech "nobody gets mad at anything I say, even if my remark is formulated specifically to get them mad"?
I'm not referring to censorship from the administration at all. I'm referring to voting patterns in relation to the expression of honest opinions about 'sacred cows' of HN.
So,
a> no, no adverse effects other than being downvoted (which is a form of suppression of speech through discouragement).
b> that's a bit of a leading idea, assuming I am referring to statements which serve no purpose other than to intentionally inflame. I'm talking about honest opinions, offered as such, which happen to go against the group orthodoxy on HN.
I wouldn't say 'getting mad' would be an issue. Actually, what I'm thinking is more in line with what you are assuming - people make the assumption that a certain line of thinking is being offered solely to be provocative, and they do not take the ideas as having been offered seriously, and rather than engage the idea, downvote as if the intent of the poster was not to seriously engage in discussion.
I'd actually point out that HN is self-correcting. When you offer a comment that goes against the group orthodoxy, and you get downvoted to hell, all it takes is one additional comment pointing out that the downvotes were uncalled for, and that you do have a point regardless, and HN will self-correct. (Personal example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1661588)
Most times, however, people stop after they get unfairly downvoted, and think to themselves: 'well, that's group-think for you!'
Downvoting is often used to express extreme disagreement. Ideally it might not be, but there are no real guidelines on how to use downvoting, and no good mechanism to enforce them if they existed.
It seems to me like the problem isn't that there are certain things you aren't allowed to say, but that there certain things that a large group of people aren't going to even bother taking seriously. It could be because they've seen the argument before and consider it both obviously wrong and inflammatory, or it could be because they've been brainwashed / self-deluded. Regardless, that is a problem with humanity, not the hacker news community.
a> no, no adverse effects other than being downvoted (which is a form of suppression of speech through discouragement).
This bears repeating. People here keep saying you shouldn't care about downvotes, but you nailed it. In effect, it amounts to "silencing dissent" (when applicable).
If I came here and posted a comment to the effect of "Paul Graham is a huge idiot", I would expect to get downvoted, but I will have succeeded in saying it.
Is your idea of freedom of speech "nobody gets mad at anything I say, even if my remark is formulated specifically to get them mad"?