Why do people think that computer science gives them the authority to pontificate on any topic of their choosing? Clearly the author has no idea what they are talking about, as by their own admission, "I’ve only taken 1 metaphysics class" and has a "suspicion" about the entire field. And even considering the question of "is all philosophy simply word confusion" would get you laughed out of the room by any philosophy grad student. You wouldn't like it if some philosophy student wrote blog posts about how P=NP without having the slightest knowledge of the field, so afford other areas of study the same respect.
Just because CS people have a tendency to vastly overestimate their qualifications in other fields doesn't mean uniformed speculation about an incredibly well-discussed topic in philosophy is appropriate for HackerNews.
Did you read those articles? The first one is bringing the suit alleging that the college didn't investigate a rape allegation, and the second one alleges the medical system failed by prescribing a dangerous combination of medicines. The third was settled for a very small amount, only slightly more than a year of tuition at private schools. And the last one was fairly absurd and unreasonable and was almost certainly dismissed. So I don't think your argument or analogy really works to support your argument that colleges have to fear losing millions in lawsuits to parents of unstable kids.
Honestly I think reddit has made me a slightly better person. But only because it serves as an aggregation of awful people who I strive to be as dissimilar to as possible.
So? It's pretty clear that the owner knowingly allowed it and perhaps even promoted it. It's obvious that this person broke a serious law. Should the FBI just turn a blind eye because shutting down a hosting service won't be 100% effective at eliminating that content forever? No. We don't prosecute any crime conditionally on the basis of how effective that specific prosecution is at eliminating current/future instances of the same crime. Just because prosecutions of some Internet-related crimes are unjust doesn't mean you should employ mental gymnastics to side with every alleged Internet criminal.
Why do HN people feel the need to portray everything the US federal government goes after as a martyr for free speech? Of all the Internet-related crimes, I think stopping pornography depicting minors is one of the least controversial laws to possibly enforce. I know it's more convenient to group everything the FBI, CIA, and NSA do into an "obviously evil" bin, but sometimes you need to appreciate enough nuance to not defend all their online targets on principle. If this isn't one of those times, I don't know what is.
Just like they can always make the argument that they are protecting people with xyz questionable tactics, you can always make the claim that something on the Internet is for the purposes of free speech. That doesn't make you right, or even mean that free speech is the primary legal or moral distinguishing factor even if you are.