3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech Most western countries have law censoring hatespeech, although the web is v

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech Most western countries have law censoring hatespeech, although the web is very much open in those countries.

chaostheory 9y ago
I'm not talking about the present. The current web as we know it is open for now, but the current trend is moving closer to a sanitized and closed one (see the UK as the primary trend setter). Censorship only starts with hate speech and other objectionable content. The end goal is an online version of Singapore. Every gov wants to become a Singapore, in terms of the gov's relationship with society, whether or not they admit it. The only one openly admitting it is China.
- yongjik 9y ago
  Slippery slope cuts both ways. Neo-Nazis only start with brandishing flags and tiki torches. The end goal is ethnic cleansing. Literally.
  - chaostheory 9y ago
    What happens when you have a closed web with an admistration that is sympathetic with them? While it is far from perfect with tons of flaws, a system with an open society with free speech has more checks and balances than one without.
    - yongjik 9y ago
      > What happens when you have a closed web with an admistration that is sympathetic with them? They will fantasize with each other about gassing Jews, cucks, and libtards, I guess? As long as they understand that the society does not approve of their deranged ideology, I'm OK. Better than making them feel they're legitimized: that's how you end up with a car slamming into crowd.
      - chaostheory 9y ago
        I don't feel that allowing them to dox themselves legitimizes their movement. Besides in terms of being pragmatic, it's nice for the authorities to easily know what they are thinking every day and where they happen to be. That's valuable intel. That's harder to have in a closed web.
zo1 9y ago
Yeah, we're watching that play out in real time already with UK and Germany in particular. Nothing could every go wrong with allowing the definition of hate-speech to be extended. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10123/europe-censorship https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10123/europe-censorship Not to mention similar and completely vague "hate-speech" laws currently in process in South Africa: https://rationalstandard.com/south-africans-must-stop-hate-speech-bill/ https://rationalstandard.com/south-africans-must-stop-hate-s... Have a look at this: >The document defines hate speech as “an intentional communication (including speech) that advocates hatred or is threatening, abusive or insulting towards any other person or group of persons; and demonstrates a clear intention to incite others to harm or stir up violence against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any person or group of persons defined by 17 different characteristics, ranging from race and gender to social origin, trade and occupation.” This broad definition of hate speech could empower government officials to punish people who express opinions that are critical of its actions or those divergent from its political position.
- albertTJames 9y ago
  Of course if you do not trust in the judiciary system to do the right thing with it any law can be seen as potentially dangerous to your freedom. As of now, the US can't do anything about it whether it be just or unjust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech Most western countries have law censoring hatespeech, although the web is very much open in those countries.

chaostheory 9y ago

I'm not talking about the present. The current web as we know it is open for now, but the current trend is moving closer to a sanitized and closed one (see the UK as the primary trend setter). Censorship only starts with hate speech and other objectionable content. The end goal is an online version of Singapore. Every gov wants to become a Singapore, in terms of the gov's relationship with society, whether or not they admit it. The only one openly admitting it is China.

yongjik 9y ago
Slippery slope cuts both ways. Neo-Nazis only start with brandishing flags and tiki torches. The end goal is ethnic cleansing. Literally.
- chaostheory 9y ago
  What happens when you have a closed web with an admistration that is sympathetic with them? While it is far from perfect with tons of flaws, a system with an open society with free speech has more checks and balances than one without.
  - yongjik 9y ago
    > What happens when you have a closed web with an admistration that is sympathetic with them? They will fantasize with each other about gassing Jews, cucks, and libtards, I guess? As long as they understand that the society does not approve of their deranged ideology, I'm OK. Better than making them feel they're legitimized: that's how you end up with a car slamming into crowd.
    - chaostheory 9y ago
      I don't feel that allowing them to dox themselves legitimizes their movement. Besides in terms of being pragmatic, it's nice for the authorities to easily know what they are thinking every day and where they happen to be. That's valuable intel. That's harder to have in a closed web.

zo1 9y ago

Yeah, we're watching that play out in real time already with UK and Germany in particular. Nothing could every go wrong with allowing the definition of hate-speech to be extended. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10123/europe-censorship https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10123/europe-censorship Not to mention similar and completely vague "hate-speech" laws currently in process in South Africa: https://rationalstandard.com/south-africans-must-stop-hate-speech-bill/ https://rationalstandard.com/south-africans-must-stop-hate-s... Have a look at this: >The document defines hate speech as “an intentional communication (including speech) that advocates hatred or is threatening, abusive or insulting towards any other person or group of persons; and demonstrates a clear intention to incite others to harm or stir up violence against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any person or group of persons defined by 17 different characteristics, ranging from race and gender to social origin, trade and occupation.” This broad definition of hate speech could empower government officials to punish people who express opinions that are critical of its actions or those divergent from its political position.

albertTJames 9y ago
Of course if you do not trust in the judiciary system to do the right thing with it any law can be seen as potentially dangerous to your freedom. As of now, the US can't do anything about it whether it be just or unjust.