3 ms·

It's absolutely a threat to free speech, but I don't think the article goes far enough. Consider the following from Randall Munroe: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https

It's absolutely a threat to free speech, but I don't think the article goes far enough. Consider the following from Randall Munroe: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ On the surface, he's right. You don't have to listen to what you don't want to. On the other hand, I have seen his comic frequently cited as justification for not ignoring, but actively hunting down and quashing dissent. In many oppressive regimes, it's not the government enforcing speech restrictions, but rather the party and its independent zealots.

wallace_f 9y ago
Ok, private entities can refuse you business--or can they? The court system told us that we actually do have to bake that cake. In other words, we can't selectively serve customers based on our disagreements with their personal lives or politics. But if you're a libertarian congressman, and Google doesn't like your videos, apparently that is not the case anymore. If you dont think these infringements on free speech will be used to serve the 1%, empower authoritarianism, and be selectively applied: you are already wrong.
- NegativeLatency 9y ago
  That's a bit of a false equivalence. Hate speech and harassment are not equal to being openly gay. I agree with your last point, care to explain more?
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    Uh huh. And what exactly is "hate speech"? Black lives matter? White lives matter? The NRA? Abortionists?
    - pdkl95 9y ago
      > And what exactly is "hate speech"? Generally, it's public speech intended offend, harass, or threaten a group of people that is defined by an inherent trait (e.g. skin color, sex/gender, sexual orientation), in addition to legally defined protected classes (e.g. religion, disability). The SCOTUS has generally ruled that hate speech is protected by the first amendment, with only very narrow exceptions (e.g. credible, imminent threats). > Black lives matter? Obviously not hate speech. Asking for the rights of black people to be respected isn't a threat or harassment. > White lives matter? Assuming you are referring to groups such as those protesting recently in Charlottesville, then this might be hate speech. A lot of speech wouldn't qualify, but the chants that specifically targeted protected groups probably do count as hate speech. Details matter a lot, but it's probably reasonably safe to assume the protest became hate speech when the chant "You will not replace us!" became "Jews will not replace us!" > Black lives matter? Obviously not hate speech. Political opinions are never a protected class.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    >hate speech != speech professing homosexuality I have never come across anything Congressman Paul has said that is remotely close to qualifying ads hate speech. He is actually all about granting individuals rights and freedoms. Can you explain? But anyways, is it really a false equivalence, or is the false equivalence based on newly-invented terms? In other words, even if we both agree we dont like what currently qualifies as hate speech; if we start the process of compartmentalizing speech into acceptable and unacceptable baskets, what is going to stop it? After they finish with Ron Paul and libertarians, who is next up to be silenced? Now you may think, 'they're just crushing a the alt right and moving on towards libertarians.' "I won't protest because I find the alt right repulsive, and I am not a libertarian." So tell me, when is the time to protest? When "there's no one left to speak for me?" To me, we need to protect free speech, not to protect hate speech, but to protect the right to say things unacceptable to say, even if your government, or Google, or anyone, doesn't want you to say it. If you care about the 90%, this fundamental right will always be one of the strongest safe-guards possible against authoritarianism.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

wallace_f 9y ago

Ok, private entities can refuse you business--or can they? The court system told us that we actually do have to bake that cake. In other words, we can't selectively serve customers based on our disagreements with their personal lives or politics. But if you're a libertarian congressman, and Google doesn't like your videos, apparently that is not the case anymore. If you dont think these infringements on free speech will be used to serve the 1%, empower authoritarianism, and be selectively applied: you are already wrong.

NegativeLatency 9y ago
That's a bit of a false equivalence. Hate speech and harassment are not equal to being openly gay. I agree with your last point, care to explain more?
- paulddraper 9y ago
  Uh huh. And what exactly is "hate speech"? Black lives matter? White lives matter? The NRA? Abortionists?
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    > And what exactly is "hate speech"? Generally, it's public speech intended offend, harass, or threaten a group of people that is defined by an inherent trait (e.g. skin color, sex/gender, sexual orientation), in addition to legally defined protected classes (e.g. religion, disability). The SCOTUS has generally ruled that hate speech is protected by the first amendment, with only very narrow exceptions (e.g. credible, imminent threats). > Black lives matter? Obviously not hate speech. Asking for the rights of black people to be respected isn't a threat or harassment. > White lives matter? Assuming you are referring to groups such as those protesting recently in Charlottesville, then this might be hate speech. A lot of speech wouldn't qualify, but the chants that specifically targeted protected groups probably do count as hate speech. Details matter a lot, but it's probably reasonably safe to assume the protest became hate speech when the chant "You will not replace us!" became "Jews will not replace us!" > Black lives matter? Obviously not hate speech. Political opinions are never a protected class.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  >hate speech != speech professing homosexuality I have never come across anything Congressman Paul has said that is remotely close to qualifying ads hate speech. He is actually all about granting individuals rights and freedoms. Can you explain? But anyways, is it really a false equivalence, or is the false equivalence based on newly-invented terms? In other words, even if we both agree we dont like what currently qualifies as hate speech; if we start the process of compartmentalizing speech into acceptable and unacceptable baskets, what is going to stop it? After they finish with Ron Paul and libertarians, who is next up to be silenced? Now you may think, 'they're just crushing a the alt right and moving on towards libertarians.' "I won't protest because I find the alt right repulsive, and I am not a libertarian." So tell me, when is the time to protest? When "there's no one left to speak for me?" To me, we need to protect free speech, not to protect hate speech, but to protect the right to say things unacceptable to say, even if your government, or Google, or anyone, doesn't want you to say it. If you care about the 90%, this fundamental right will always be one of the strongest safe-guards possible against authoritarianism.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]