5 ms·
> Hate-speech can be tricky. It seems pretty clear to me. Hate speech is free speech.
by LyndsySimon 10y ago
> Hate-speech can be tricky.
It seems pretty clear to me. Hate speech is free speech.
- mratzloff 10y agoSure, and a private company isn't obligated to present it.
- talmand 10y agoI have no problem with this as long as the company is being honest with what they're doing and why.
- dmerfield 10y agoNor is a government. But the founders thought the principle of free-speech was a good one and so we have the 1st amendment.
- splawn 10y agoWith the 1st amendment, the government can never censor (with a few exceptions)... however companies can censor whatever they want for whatever reason they want, perhaps ironically, as an expression of freedom of speech.
- dmerfield 10y agoI'm aware. My point was that the founders of the US Government chose to uphold the principle of free speech. The founders of companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter chose not to.
- splawn 10y agoI see. Your point is that the principle of free speech is something different than the 1st amendment and the authors of the amendment messed up and allowed a loophole.
- apostacy 10y agoI think that if a company has enough of a monopoly on information that they become a de-facto governing agency, that they should be forced to uphold the principles of the 1st amendment. Facebook should be classified as something like a common carrier.
- splawn 10y agoI understand now, and it's hard not to agree with that perspective. On the other hand, because of the fundamental relationship of the free press and health of democracy, shouldn't there be some kind of criteria for validity the same way that health claims in advertising do, for example? I understand that some things are subjective and impossible to apply criteria to, but what about cases where people are knowingly publishing demonstrable falsehoods to mislead masses of people. Seems like a major problem. Btw, im not sure what my opinion is on this.... Im just "devil advocating", I guess. EDIT:/foundational/fundamental Im having a hard time with words today. :/
- apostacy 10y agoI honestly don't know. I think in general though, we should try to make information be as available as possible. Most of the justification for regulations about communications content comes from a time when most people had only three television channels, and a few newspapers. Also, China has used exactly the same justification for censoring their information. And they're not wrong. People do knowingly spread misinformation and harm others. I think that it's a really tempting problem to want to solve. If we could just find some heuristic to know for certain that something was "fake", we'd have it all figured out.
- deciplex 10y agoSo is yelling fire in a movie theater, then.
- ChairmanPao 10y agoIdiot much? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.8613b3e8c4cd https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- deciplex 10y agoall the time fucko
- Frondo 10y agoNot in a lot of places, e.g., Canada and Germany, to name two off the top of my head... (And for the record, I'd happily vote to place additional restrictions on hate speech in the U.S., following the models presented by those two countries. I'm simply not afraid of the slippery slope arguments that people bring up; I think they're fallacious.)
- coldtea 10y agoYeah, what issue could there be from additional restrictions on "hate speech" in a country with litigation happy fundamentalist christians on one side and "freedom fighters" on the other each considering their own BS ideas of hate speech. With a history of red scare and McCarthyism and other such niceties to top.