4 ms·

This is a false equivalence. LGBT groups aren't known for committing crimes against humanity.

dogma1138 9y ago
No this isn't false equivalence, either all speech is free or no speech is free. Where speech threatens one of your other freedoms then it should be judged on a case by case basis. This also brings net neutrality into play, DNS is a core internet service, without it the internet cannot function. We have now 2 internet service providers effectively refusing to provide services to some one based on political and subjective perception of the content rather than an objective one based in law. This isn't even Google or GoDaddy giving a fuck about human rights, there are plenty of hate groups on Google Groups and plenty of subhuman content hosted directly on GoDaddy. Do you think GoDaddy didn't knew what they were providing DNS services too? they do KYC both individually and collectively any internet service provider these days gets a threat report based on it's customers because of the threat of hacktivism. Nazi's didn't rise in germany because they were allowed a platform to speak from, they've risen because they've silenced anyone who opposed them. Silencing the opposition should never be acceptable to anyone that holds even a shred of liberal values.
- matt4077 9y ago
  > either all speech is free or no speech is free. That simply not true, it's the slippery-slope fallacy. Observe: "When you let them take away any weapons, they'll take away all the weapons. Therefore, it should be my right to own nuclear weapons". > We have now 2 internet service providers .... Domain registrars are not ISPs in any sense of the word, least of all the net neutrality sense of the word. > Nazi's didn't rise in germany because they were allowed a platform to speak from, they've risen because they've silenced anyone who opposed them. The two parts of that sentence directly contradict each other. The second part is (Not allowed free speech -> Inability to gain power).
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Actually they are ISPs, Net Neutrality goes way beyond if your ISP can throttle traffic based on content, that is the least important argument. It's about the not having any discrimination based on the nature of content across the internet period. And no it's not a slippery slope, freedom of speech is paramount, all speech should be free period, regardless of what stupidity comes out of someone's mouth. You can be a holocaust denier racist spewing racist slur at orphans and as european jew whose parents were born in 1942 and then had to live behind the iron curtain will fight your right to say anything you want even if you would say that to me i might punch you in the face afterwards.
  - yahna 9y ago
    > That simply not true, it's the slippery-slope fallacy. Observe: "When you let them take away any weapons, they'll take away all the weapons. Therefore, it should be my right to own nuclear weapons". It's not a slippery slope fallacy. It's the typical American view on free speech. VS say Canada where Nazi's aren't protected in spreading their hate.
- oliwarner 9y ago
  Oh yeah! Let's hyper-simplify the socio-economic reasons Nazism got a footing into post-WW1 Germany. That'll help. You're trying to apply free speech to dealings with a private company. They're not a government though. You get your service from Google, et al, at their pleasure. If you break their terms, they're well within their rights to show you the door. Don't like their terms, use another company or DIY. We can chase the discrimination and protected-class-advantage rabbit down its hole, but really, this comes down to what Google (et al) considers criminal incitement to violence, which is a proven [1] exception to first amendment rights. Google doesn't have to prove things that far, but denying these violent racists their business is a good way to avoid becoming complicit. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
  - amirmc 9y ago
    > ... but really, this comes down to what Google (et al) considers criminal incitement to violence, We have courts and a legal process to decide such things. I find it strange and worrying that so many in this thread are happy to let a huge yet private and unaccountable entity have such power.
    - oliwarner 9y ago
      Why do things need to be legally decided for Google's private owners to exercise their first amendment rights to tell violent fascists to expletive off? People in this thread are happy with the situation because a) fuck fascists and b) DS can still hook their domains up via almost any registrar on the planet. I'm sure they'll find a fascist-friendly one somewhere and if they don't, they're free —funds allowing— to set their own up via ICANN. Google's unique (and monopolous) power is in its influence; through search listing and ranking, and to a much lesser extent, through Google play presence. While we might need to have a conversation about what they are allowed to do in that respect, as far as I can tell neither of those apply here.
      - dogma1138 9y ago
        If Google dropped a BLM, or LGBT group would you still being saying 1st amendment?
- actsasbuffoon 9y ago
  > No this isn't false equivalence, either all speech is free or no speech is free. To quote another thread: 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.
  - jazzyk 9y ago
    You are conflating action with speech. Showing pornography to minors is an act, not a statement of opinion.
    - actsasbuffoon 9y ago
      I’m stretching the definition a little in that case, but I don’t think it’s an untenable stretch. Speech is the act of expressing a thought. Art expresses thoughts as well. A movie, or a painting, or a book also expresses thoughts, which indicates a kind of kinship with speech. And yet there are movies and books and paintings we probably shouldn’t share with certain people, certain thoughts which should not be expressed to the young. Americans are mostly in agreement with this curtailment of freedom of expression/speech. As I said, I admit that I’m stretching the definition of speech a little with that example, but I think you’ll agree that the boundary between speech and action can be somewhat blurry at times.

No this isn't false equivalence, either all speech is free or no speech is free. Where speech threatens one of your other freedoms then it should be judged on a case by case basis. This also brings net neutrality into play, DNS is a core internet service, without it the internet cannot function. We have now 2 internet service providers effectively refusing to provide services to some one based on political and subjective perception of the content rather than an objective one based in law. This isn't even Google or GoDaddy giving a fuck about human rights, there are plenty of hate groups on Google Groups and plenty of subhuman content hosted directly on GoDaddy. Do you think GoDaddy didn't knew what they were providing DNS services too? they do KYC both individually and collectively any internet service provider these days gets a threat report based on it's customers because of the threat of hacktivism. Nazi's didn't rise in germany because they were allowed a platform to speak from, they've risen because they've silenced anyone who opposed them. Silencing the opposition should never be acceptable to anyone that holds even a shred of liberal values.

matt4077 9y ago
> either all speech is free or no speech is free. That simply not true, it's the slippery-slope fallacy. Observe: "When you let them take away any weapons, they'll take away all the weapons. Therefore, it should be my right to own nuclear weapons". > We have now 2 internet service providers .... Domain registrars are not ISPs in any sense of the word, least of all the net neutrality sense of the word. > Nazi's didn't rise in germany because they were allowed a platform to speak from, they've risen because they've silenced anyone who opposed them. The two parts of that sentence directly contradict each other. The second part is (Not allowed free speech -> Inability to gain power).
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Actually they are ISPs, Net Neutrality goes way beyond if your ISP can throttle traffic based on content, that is the least important argument. It's about the not having any discrimination based on the nature of content across the internet period. And no it's not a slippery slope, freedom of speech is paramount, all speech should be free period, regardless of what stupidity comes out of someone's mouth. You can be a holocaust denier racist spewing racist slur at orphans and as european jew whose parents were born in 1942 and then had to live behind the iron curtain will fight your right to say anything you want even if you would say that to me i might punch you in the face afterwards.
- yahna 9y ago
  > That simply not true, it's the slippery-slope fallacy. Observe: "When you let them take away any weapons, they'll take away all the weapons. Therefore, it should be my right to own nuclear weapons". It's not a slippery slope fallacy. It's the typical American view on free speech. VS say Canada where Nazi's aren't protected in spreading their hate.
oliwarner 9y ago
Oh yeah! Let's hyper-simplify the socio-economic reasons Nazism got a footing into post-WW1 Germany. That'll help. You're trying to apply free speech to dealings with a private company. They're not a government though. You get your service from Google, et al, at their pleasure. If you break their terms, they're well within their rights to show you the door. Don't like their terms, use another company or DIY. We can chase the discrimination and protected-class-advantage rabbit down its hole, but really, this comes down to what Google (et al) considers criminal incitement to violence, which is a proven [1] exception to first amendment rights. Google doesn't have to prove things that far, but denying these violent racists their business is a good way to avoid becoming complicit. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
- amirmc 9y ago
  > ... but really, this comes down to what Google (et al) considers criminal incitement to violence, We have courts and a legal process to decide such things. I find it strange and worrying that so many in this thread are happy to let a huge yet private and unaccountable entity have such power.
  - oliwarner 9y ago
    Why do things need to be legally decided for Google's private owners to exercise their first amendment rights to tell violent fascists to expletive off? People in this thread are happy with the situation because a) fuck fascists and b) DS can still hook their domains up via almost any registrar on the planet. I'm sure they'll find a fascist-friendly one somewhere and if they don't, they're free —funds allowing— to set their own up via ICANN. Google's unique (and monopolous) power is in its influence; through search listing and ranking, and to a much lesser extent, through Google play presence. While we might need to have a conversation about what they are allowed to do in that respect, as far as I can tell neither of those apply here.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      If Google dropped a BLM, or LGBT group would you still being saying 1st amendment?
actsasbuffoon 9y ago
> No this isn't false equivalence, either all speech is free or no speech is free. To quote another thread: 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.
- jazzyk 9y ago
  You are conflating action with speech. Showing pornography to minors is an act, not a statement of opinion.
  - actsasbuffoon 9y ago
    I’m stretching the definition a little in that case, but I don’t think it’s an untenable stretch. Speech is the act of expressing a thought. Art expresses thoughts as well. A movie, or a painting, or a book also expresses thoughts, which indicates a kind of kinship with speech. And yet there are movies and books and paintings we probably shouldn’t share with certain people, certain thoughts which should not be expressed to the young. Americans are mostly in agreement with this curtailment of freedom of expression/speech. As I said, I admit that I’m stretching the definition of speech a little with that example, but I think you’ll agree that the boundary between speech and action can be somewhat blurry at times.