6 ms·
Easy answer to your question -- do a quick google search for NAMBLA We don't censor the opinion that people should be able to have sex with children. There is
by muppetpastor 9y ago
Easy answer to your question -- do a quick google search for NAMBLA
We don't censor the opinion that people should be able to have sex with children.
There is a very clear line and it's called the First Amendment.
We censor child porn because it is a crime that involves a victim.
The Daily Stormer was all talk.
Once you start talking about censoring people who might cause people to commit crimes, you've crossed a philosophical boundary into policing thought crimes.
- davesque 9y agoThanks, very good point.
- joshuamorton 9y agoOn the other hand, erotic literature about children (which has no victim) is at best in a legal grey area, and has been successfully prosecuted before. Such a thing is also "all talk".
- khawkins 9y agoCan you give an example?
- joshuamorton 9y agohttp://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-write... There are a few other examples of people getting in varying amounts of trouble, but that one stands out.
- mcguire 9y agoWell, there's Lolita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Publication_and_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Publication_and_recepti...).
- imgabe 9y agoWe censor spam without a second thought and that's only advertisement. Some may be outright illegal scams, but some is surely offering a legitimate service, just in an annoying way. Free speech doesn't grant you a right to use privately owned infrastructure for anything you want.
- dtech 9y agoYou have to actively opt-in to spamfilters/advertisement blockers though, or at the very least can opt-out (e.g. look into your spambox).
- detaro 9y agoInternet companies remove users posting spam all the time.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoThe act of spamming people is, in fact, illegal. Having an opinion isn't.
- detaro 9y agoIs it? e-mail spam yes, I don't think posting advertising on websites or social media is per se - still companies act against it if it doesn't meet their own thresholds.
- intopieces 9y agoLet’s be careful not to conflate legal with ethical. It could very easily be legal to censor all hate speech (Canada and UK have these laws). And I mean government censorship, not we-don’t-want-to-do-business-with-you-censorship.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoI was very explicitly speaking of "legal". With acts like the CAN-SPAM Act, a lot of spam is, in fact, illegal, and it isn't by any stretch a restriction of free speech for an infrastructure provider to shut down someone sending illegal spam.
- ztbrown 9y agoFor what has to be the billionth time: when a company stops you from posting hate speech on their platform, your first amendment rights have not been violated.
- zzzcpan 9y agoFor a random small company - sure. But not for a large infrastructural company that can pretty much silence you if a handful of other large infrastructural companies follow.
- falcolas 9y agoNo, but your fundamental human rights, as recognized by the UN, have been. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ Article 19
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoHonest question: is the UN declaration incorporated into American law?
- anigbrowl 9y agoNo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
- mcguire 9y ago"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I assume you'll be filing suit against Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and The Economist for failing to publish your articles? Seriously, I would bet that "impart information and ideas through any media" doesn't mean that you have the right to use others' equipment, venue, and name.
- 9y ago
- intended 9y agothe CEO dropped stormer because they claimed that cloudflair was secretly nazi. if i said someone was secretly a nazi, i would definitely be causing them harm.
- middleclick 9y agoAre you sure it was all talk? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/lawsuit-against-daily-stormer-is-stuck-founder-cant-be-served-papers/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/lawsuit-against-...
- forapurpose 9y ago> The Daily Stormer was all talk Talk is not all safe nor is it all protected, even under the First Amendment in the U.S. You can't slander people; you can't say fraudulent things (this elixir cures cancer!); you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater; you can't assist or encourage people, though talk, in the commission of a crime. Talk moves armies and nations, to good and evil, and in fact is far more effective at it than anything else. Talk encouraging ethnic hate has a very well-established track record of causing great harm to people's lives and liberties in large numbers. Arguably, nothing has done more harm in human history than ethnic hatred. To try to minimize it as "all talk" is dangerously misleading. (OTOH, I do believe we should be very careful with limiting speech, and that monopolies and oligopolies are the wrong people to do it.)