4 ms·

Part of the reason we served was to allow people we disagree with have the right to freedom of speech no matter how stupid their views are. Banning hate speech

Part of the reason we served was to allow people we disagree with have the right to freedom of speech no matter how stupid their views are. Banning hate speech (no matter how abhorrent) is a slippery slope.

to_bpr 9y ago
Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. have a pretty beefy track record in very selective censorship. Why would you expect anything else from them?
ggggtez 9y ago
Freedom of speech only applies to government entities.
- problems 9y ago
  Legally speaking in the US, yes. But freedom of speech arguably holds value as a concept outside of its strict legal definition.
CydeWeys 9y ago
Private companies are allowed to choose who they want to do business with. To give you an example, pornography is legal, and the government can't jail you for making or distributing it, but it's also within Facebook's rights to decide that they don't want it on their platform. Freedom of speech has to do with freedom from government censorship and prosecution; you can't force random private entities to help spread your speech.
- steveeq1 9y ago
  Yet the government can force private entities to sell a cake to a homosexual couple? The laws seem arbitrary to me.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class edit: The cake case was due to state laws, though. > No federal law requires businesses to serve all customers without regard to their sexual orientation, but 21 states have “public accommodations” laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians. - http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religion-20170626-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religio...
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    Nazis aren't a protected class in the US.
    - steveeq1 9y ago
      So if homosexuals weren't a protected group, you would support that?
      - CydeWeys 9y ago
        This is a discussion of what is legal and what isn't, no? I don't make the laws so I don't see how my views are relevant here. It's legal to refuse to do business with Nazis. That's what's at issue here.
  - 0x4f3759df 9y ago
    Some animals are more equal than others
    - r00fus 9y ago
      Nice try, but how often do Nazis get beat up and killed because of their views?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Yet the government can force private entities to sell a cake to a homosexual couple? The government equally could adopt a law prohibiting discrimination based on advocacy of race-based violence in public accommodation as several state governments have for gender preference. > Yet the government can force private entities to sell a cake to a homosexual couple? Laws reflect human preferences, which are at some level arbitrary. Apparently, many states think that discrimination against gays is a problem that needs to be addressed, whereas discrimination against violent racists is not.
- willstrafach 9y ago
  The pornography example is also a good one because they experience significantly more issues with web hosting and merchant accounts due to ToS. They seem to understand and accept that.
- myrandomcomment 9y ago
  Can a domain register refuse to host a registration record for a site they disagree with? The domain system is a public system, not a corporate one. If I register "godaddysucks.com" with Go Daddy can they say sorry you cannot register that?
  - jahewson 9y ago
    Yes, absolutely. All the domain name registrars have terms of service. The domain name system is not a public system, it is not run by any government. For example terms of services will often disallow uses related to pornography, gambling, violence, crime, fraud, etc.
    - myrandomcomment 9y ago
      They have the right to be a registrar because the government allowed it (here in the US). It seems that if I registered godaddysucks.com and they refused I would have a case as they are blocking political speech on a service they where granted the right to service by the US government and thus the people. In China the government which controls the registars for their country would of course ban"wedrovetanksovertheprotestors.co.cn". Does not seem we in the USA should allow that sort of restriction here, no? All free speech has to be allowed. The internet in the US is a public monopoly like power, etc (despite the current FCC chairs view). As a public monopoly the right of free speech for something like a registrar has to be enforced. This does not mean Facebook cannot enforce a terms of service as you do not need to use Facebook. But banning the public resource of domain registration which allows these dumbasses to put up and host their own site violates the idea of free speech as they require a registrar to exist in order to speak. It does not matter if we do not like what they have to say. After all you need not visit the site. Banning Nazi speech in Germay has not resulted Germany being free of neo-nazis. Hitler started slow, prohibiting the trade unionist. Seemed like a great idea at the time.... it's a slippery slope. Education is the only cure here. Restricting speech only leads to more extreme behavior and opens the path for others to restrict what they do not like.
steveeq1 9y ago
Yes, I agree. We can easily apply the same logic and apply the ban to, say, gangsta rap, as many of lyrics are hate speech. But I'm willing to bet most people would be against this.
PeanutCurry 9y ago
Pure anecdote, but I feel like there's been a shift in terms of speech/expression philosophy. At home and in school, so-cal for context, I was taught to practice tolerance. Not because every person or peoples were good in their own way, but because attacking them or their rights would weaken the integrity of my own rights and protections since both of us derived our privileges from the same body of law. I don't know if it's just the times or post-internet connectivity but I see a lot more popular support for censorship and violence these days and it makes me a little uncomfortable.
vorotato 9y ago
A single event does not a slippery slope make. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
matt4077 9y ago
What did you serve? Coffee?
actsasbuffoon 9y ago
> Banning hate speech (no matter how abhorrent) is a slippery slope. We already ban some kinds of speech, and I've never heard anyone complain about it. For instance, you can't stand on a street corner and try to recruit people to join ISIS. You can't threaten to hurt or kill someone. You can't show pornography to minors, or show anyone pornography that contains minors. These are all very popular restrictions on free speech.
- O1111OOO 9y ago
  > For instance, you can't stand on a street corner and try to recruit people to join ISIS. You can't threaten to hurt or kill someone. You can't show pornography to minors, or show anyone pornography that contains minors. > These are all very popular restrictions on free speech. A person can engage in any of the activities you describe. They will just be dealt with by those elected by the people under law established by the people. Google, Facebook and many others are deciding what they feel you should see based on their own prejudices, identity politics, agenda-driven deals, control and manipulation of information and/or other factors. It's a slippery slope indeed with no oversight, no means to defend yourself. A person, a domain... simply gets wiped from existence. It's like AT&T monitoring phone calls (oh, wait...) and killing your phone service because of something you said in a group chat. Or an ISP monitoring your online activities (oh, wait...) and cutting service because you visited a controversial (but legal) site. Or a building owner tossing you out on the street because your politics don't align with his/hers. We have laws. We also have agencies whose functions are to deal with those breaking those laws. If a domain is doing something illegal - let the law handle it and not your "well-meaning" Uncle Scrooge and his shotgun. We also have laws against vigilantes. Are the Googles, Facebooks and others turning into information vigilantes?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > We also have laws against vigilantes. Are the Googles, Facebooks and others turning into information vigilantes? No, they are the owners of major digital presses that other people would like to use. But they have the freedom to choose what to use them for. You can say whatever you want; that is protected by free speech. Google can choose not to provide a venue and assistance to you in publicizing those views; that, too, is free speech. Your freedom of speech does not entitle you to commandeer the resources of unwilling third parties to deliver your speech. If you want collaborators, you need to convince them.

to_bpr 9y ago

Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. have a pretty beefy track record in very selective censorship. Why would you expect anything else from them?

ggggtez 9y ago

Freedom of speech only applies to government entities.

problems 9y ago
Legally speaking in the US, yes. But freedom of speech arguably holds value as a concept outside of its strict legal definition.

CydeWeys 9y ago

Private companies are allowed to choose who they want to do business with. To give you an example, pornography is legal, and the government can't jail you for making or distributing it, but it's also within Facebook's rights to decide that they don't want it on their platform. Freedom of speech has to do with freedom from government censorship and prosecution; you can't force random private entities to help spread your speech.

steveeq1 9y ago
Yet the government can force private entities to sell a cake to a homosexual couple? The laws seem arbitrary to me.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class edit: The cake case was due to state laws, though. > No federal law requires businesses to serve all customers without regard to their sexual orientation, but 21 states have “public accommodations” laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians. - http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religion-20170626-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religio...
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Nazis aren't a protected class in the US.
  - steveeq1 9y ago
    So if homosexuals weren't a protected group, you would support that?
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      This is a discussion of what is legal and what isn't, no? I don't make the laws so I don't see how my views are relevant here. It's legal to refuse to do business with Nazis. That's what's at issue here.
- 0x4f3759df 9y ago
  Some animals are more equal than others
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Nice try, but how often do Nazis get beat up and killed because of their views?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Yet the government can force private entities to sell a cake to a homosexual couple? The government equally could adopt a law prohibiting discrimination based on advocacy of race-based violence in public accommodation as several state governments have for gender preference. > Yet the government can force private entities to sell a cake to a homosexual couple? Laws reflect human preferences, which are at some level arbitrary. Apparently, many states think that discrimination against gays is a problem that needs to be addressed, whereas discrimination against violent racists is not.
willstrafach 9y ago
The pornography example is also a good one because they experience significantly more issues with web hosting and merchant accounts due to ToS. They seem to understand and accept that.
myrandomcomment 9y ago
Can a domain register refuse to host a registration record for a site they disagree with? The domain system is a public system, not a corporate one. If I register "godaddysucks.com" with Go Daddy can they say sorry you cannot register that?
- jahewson 9y ago
  Yes, absolutely. All the domain name registrars have terms of service. The domain name system is not a public system, it is not run by any government. For example terms of services will often disallow uses related to pornography, gambling, violence, crime, fraud, etc.
  - myrandomcomment 9y ago
    They have the right to be a registrar because the government allowed it (here in the US). It seems that if I registered godaddysucks.com and they refused I would have a case as they are blocking political speech on a service they where granted the right to service by the US government and thus the people. In China the government which controls the registars for their country would of course ban"wedrovetanksovertheprotestors.co.cn". Does not seem we in the USA should allow that sort of restriction here, no? All free speech has to be allowed. The internet in the US is a public monopoly like power, etc (despite the current FCC chairs view). As a public monopoly the right of free speech for something like a registrar has to be enforced. This does not mean Facebook cannot enforce a terms of service as you do not need to use Facebook. But banning the public resource of domain registration which allows these dumbasses to put up and host their own site violates the idea of free speech as they require a registrar to exist in order to speak. It does not matter if we do not like what they have to say. After all you need not visit the site. Banning Nazi speech in Germay has not resulted Germany being free of neo-nazis. Hitler started slow, prohibiting the trade unionist. Seemed like a great idea at the time.... it's a slippery slope. Education is the only cure here. Restricting speech only leads to more extreme behavior and opens the path for others to restrict what they do not like.

steveeq1 9y ago

Yes, I agree. We can easily apply the same logic and apply the ban to, say, gangsta rap, as many of lyrics are hate speech. But I'm willing to bet most people would be against this.

PeanutCurry 9y ago

Pure anecdote, but I feel like there's been a shift in terms of speech/expression philosophy. At home and in school, so-cal for context, I was taught to practice tolerance. Not because every person or peoples were good in their own way, but because attacking them or their rights would weaken the integrity of my own rights and protections since both of us derived our privileges from the same body of law. I don't know if it's just the times or post-internet connectivity but I see a lot more popular support for censorship and violence these days and it makes me a little uncomfortable.

vorotato 9y ago

A single event does not a slippery slope make. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

matt4077 9y ago

What did you serve? Coffee?

actsasbuffoon 9y ago

> Banning hate speech (no matter how abhorrent) is a slippery slope. We already ban some kinds of speech, and I've never heard anyone complain about it. For instance, you can't stand on a street corner and try to recruit people to join ISIS. You can't threaten to hurt or kill someone. You can't show pornography to minors, or show anyone pornography that contains minors. These are all very popular restrictions on free speech.

O1111OOO 9y ago
> For instance, you can't stand on a street corner and try to recruit people to join ISIS. You can't threaten to hurt or kill someone. You can't show pornography to minors, or show anyone pornography that contains minors. > These are all very popular restrictions on free speech. A person can engage in any of the activities you describe. They will just be dealt with by those elected by the people under law established by the people. Google, Facebook and many others are deciding what they feel you should see based on their own prejudices, identity politics, agenda-driven deals, control and manipulation of information and/or other factors. It's a slippery slope indeed with no oversight, no means to defend yourself. A person, a domain... simply gets wiped from existence. It's like AT&T monitoring phone calls (oh, wait...) and killing your phone service because of something you said in a group chat. Or an ISP monitoring your online activities (oh, wait...) and cutting service because you visited a controversial (but legal) site. Or a building owner tossing you out on the street because your politics don't align with his/hers. We have laws. We also have agencies whose functions are to deal with those breaking those laws. If a domain is doing something illegal - let the law handle it and not your "well-meaning" Uncle Scrooge and his shotgun. We also have laws against vigilantes. Are the Googles, Facebooks and others turning into information vigilantes?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > We also have laws against vigilantes. Are the Googles, Facebooks and others turning into information vigilantes? No, they are the owners of major digital presses that other people would like to use. But they have the freedom to choose what to use them for. You can say whatever you want; that is protected by free speech. Google can choose not to provide a venue and assistance to you in publicizing those views; that, too, is free speech. Your freedom of speech does not entitle you to commandeer the resources of unwilling third parties to deliver your speech. If you want collaborators, you need to convince them.