5 ms·
Inciting violence vs freedom of speech
- dominotw 9y ago>: Daily Stormer: “Summer of Hate Edition.” The site spends considerable effort demonizing Asians, Blacks, Mexicans, etc. I am an Indian and every single "crossover" indian youtube video is filled with "Designated Shitting streets [1]" comments. I really don't give a shit( pardon the pun) about those comments. Do majority of "Asians, Blacks, Mexicans" in America want this kind of censorship on their behalf ? Really curious. 1. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/designated-shitting-streets-poo-in-the-loo http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/designated-shitting-streets-po...
- peteretep 9y agoIs there a history of large-scale and state-enforced discrimination against Asian Indians in the US?
- dominotw 9y agoThat sentence has "Asian" in it. I am not so sure, assumed Asia includes India. Is "Asian Indian" a separate category ? Also are "Asians, Blacks, Mexicans" only three groups that those rules apply to? Noone else has a 'history of discrimination'?
- peteretep 9y agoAmerica also uses the term Indian to mean Native American, so I was attempting to distinguish between the two. East Asians (as against separate from Indian Asians) -- or at least Japanese -- have indeed been the victims of state-sanctioned discrimination in the past.
- dominotw 9y agowell we were 'historically discriminated' via colonialism too. But, I think you saying that these rules should specifically apply to groups that were discriminated in America. Vast majority of mexicans and asians in America are immigrants in last 3 decades so that definition doesn't really apply to vast majority of them either. But I guess you can see that how vague and meaningless defintion you have come up with to decide which cites deserve to be censored. I have a feeling all these people are just following a trend, there is no solid principle, any rhyme or reason to what they are doing. Its literally this- 'oh google banned site X, we don't want to get called out, lets ban it too'
- peteretep 9y agoThe Americans didn't colonise India. Is history education there really that poor?
- dominotw 9y agoDid you only read the first sentence before rage typing in your response. Second sentence from my response " But, I think you saying that these rules should specifically apply to groups that were discriminated in America. " You idea of conversation seems to be one line ad-hominem. Bye!
- rrauenza 9y agoIn the US, Indian is an ambiguous term due to Native Americans. Asian Indian disambiguates. In the UK, Asian (or South Asian) often means Indian.
- abhi3 9y agoAll these companies tripping over each other to ban DailyStormer while at the same time they won't take a position against similar sites that are just as unquestionably immoral/illegal as DailyStormer (Torrent sites, ISIS sites). One might be forgiven for thinking that this sudden moral awakening of 'Big Internet' is nothing more than a selfish PR stunt.
- peteretep 9y agoIf you think torrent sites are "just as" immoral as White Supremacy sites, your moral compass is unambiguously broken.
- madengr 9y agoWell you didn't mention the ISIS sites. Much of the torrents are actually illegal, the hate speech is protected speech.
- peteretep 9y ago"Protected" from the government, not from private entities. I would gladly support Namecheap taking down Isis sites, but is there any evidence that they aren't?
- madengr 9y agoWell what about net neutrality (my thread on that is already -2)? Neo-nazi shows are on cable access channels. I'd think the same reasoning applies.
- peteretep 9y ago> cable access channels. I'd > think the same reasoning > applies That's because you haven't done even the most basic of research.
- 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- madengr 9y agoSeems like the proponents of net neutrality have a dilemma on their hands. There are neo-nazi shows on cable access channels, so I'd think the same legal reasoning applies to the internet.
- jayess 9y agoThis is turning into a virtue signalling circle jerk. The one quote provided is nothing near incitement violence, in the legal sense. I'm now in the icky position of defending Daily Sturmer because I believe in the First Amendment and this latest campaign against one web site feels so contrived and politically correct. Yes yes, I know that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Namecheap or godaddy or cloudflare. But this has gotten downright silly. As another commenter noted, these large companies have no compunction hosting/registering domains for sites that actually do incite violence and actively ruin people's lives... like jihadist groups or ripoff report, a site that makes it an active business model to defame people online, destroy lives and careers, and then extort people to remove that content. This whole daily sturmer campaign has gotten to the point of being nothing more than a way for companies to pretend like they care or want to prevent a type of speech they don't like, but in reality is picking on one site that is mild in comparison to the other things these companies tacitly approve of. Edit to add a link that apropos: The Seductive Appeal of the "Nazi Exception" https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t...
- zaroth 9y agoI'm pretty sure that statement they quoted is vile and disgusting, but certainly not incitement to violence as the courts understand it. Of course, Namecheap can probably choose their customers however they like according to their own TOS. But don't delete someone off the Internet who is saying things you don't like and spend the whole post patting yourself on the back for following principles of free speech. I think it's pretty simple -- if you don't believe that Nazis should be able to voice their vile and disgusting opinions openly, you don't believe in free speech. If you don't believe that Nazis should get to organize a nonviolent protest, then you don't believe in freedom of assembly. The Washington Post featured an article 'Who are the antifa' [1] by Mark Bray who is the author of "The Anti-Fascist Handbook" which explained, "Antifascists argue that after the horrors of chattel slavery and the Holocaust, physical violence against white supremacists is both ethically justifiable and strategically effective." Of course we see how effective it is, because defending the bedrock principles of freedom of speech and assembly when the speakers are Nazis now apparently puts you at risk of being labeled a Nazi sympathizer / white supremacist / racist yourself. I'm not sure exactly when it became impossible to have an adult conversation on the matter. When did it become impossible to understand that a protester can represent abhorrent viewpoints without it being OK to throw bags of urine and paint at them? That a protest can turn violent and even deadly without being able to then condemn every single protester that was present? And that we should not be celebrating, but in fact be very worried if not outraged, that private parties who have gained superuser access to parts of the internet through their course of business are now leveraging that power to police content they find personally offensive, or which they takedown for PR reasons to appeal to a populist mob. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/16/who-are-the-antifa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/...
- jayess 9y agoLord, the downvoting of anyone who supports free speech is telling.
- tweedledee 9y agoAs someone who is facinated by what is happening I spend a decent amount of time spelunking in the dark web. The Neo-Nazis are not that upset by this. They want to use the same tools to boycott the Zionist and Jews. It's actually one of the many things the Alt-Left and the Alt-Right agree on. In addition we're making them into martyrs. Banning and suppression was counter productive on the original Nazis and it is counter productive here. This should be we'll know by those who read civics. It is even codified in the book Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky. It makes me wonder what books Antifa are reading as they are doing all of the wrong things. I get that it feels like we're (non nazis) are winning but we're not and this is isn't helping.
- jayess 9y agoYou're right, this is giving an inordinate amount of free publicity to daily stormer and is making people (like me) who support free speech uncomfortable. I'm now instinctively supporting their right to free speech against the horde of disingenuous virtue signallers.
- dTal 9y ago>Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky I'm halfway through the prologue and I have to say, this is very insightful and relevant to today for having been written in 1971. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
- belorn 9y agoWhy are registrars doing the policy decisions when its the registries has the mandate to control and policy the domain name system? If IANA decide that .com address should not be used for sites like this, then at least it would be their decision to make. They also already thought about how to handle this type of questions, and drawn the lines where the consensus says they should be. If people want to change them, the process to do so is likely well documented.
- dTal 9y ago>"It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in mathematics to understand that White men + pride + organization = Jews being stuffed into ovens." To me, out of context, that reads as anti- White men, not anti-Semitic. Or at least ambiguous. Certainly not an outright endorsement as such. I haven't read the material, and I'm sure it's as hateful as they say. But as their entire argument is predicated on how beyond the pale that statement is, and if "the site spends considerable effort demonizing Asians, Blacks, Mexicans, etc" - they could probably have found a better example to make their point.
- vim_wannabe 9y agoWow, what an amazing quote to pick since that is exactly the kind of thing a far-leftist would say. If the site is as bad as they say they should have picked a better quote than that obviously ironic one...
- paradite 9y agoI guess I won't be down-voted for posting this, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- dmitrygr 9y agoThis claim keeps coming up that "hate speech" isn't allowed and isn't legal. It is kind of funny to read since legally no such thing as "hate speech" exists. SCOTUS has carved out only a few exceptions to free speech. The one relevant here is "fighting words" and it doesn't apply since saying "all $X-attributed people should be killed" is LEGAL. It does not CAUSE immediate harm. But, saying that to an armed angry crowd MAY be illegal. Websites, at least how SCOTUS saw it, cannot by definition be fighting words and thus anything you say on a website would be protected under 1st amendment This doesn't matter much, of course, because the amendment only applies to government shutting you up, not a private entity. BUT, I hate how all of these bozos keep making the excuse that these websites wouldn't even be protected by 1st amendment so they can be banned from the internet. This article does this too. It is annoying since this basic premise itself is wrong.
- jayess 9y agoHow To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media's Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
- cylinder714 9y agoFurther amplification of the point, "Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment": https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspirac...
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y agoQuote from https://blog.namecheap.com/we-say-no-to-sopa/ https://blog.namecheap.com/we-say-no-to-sopa/ "Why are we against the proposed SOPA legislation? It’s very simple; at Namecheap, we believe in internet freedom. When you register a domain name, you can do anything you wish with it within the confines of the law." You find how much you believe in your principles, when they lead to outcomes you don't like. Given their actions now, namecheap's SOPA opposition now sounds like just a cheap publicity trick they did to distinguish themselves from GoDaddy.