4 ms·

In America there is discussion that "hate speech" news sites would also be blocked under local law. Two different sides of the same coin.

nkrisc 9y ago
Source? Haven't seen any credible discussions of such sites being blocked by law, but instead by private parties choosing not to host such content.
- MrZongle2 9y ago
  But isn't a private business refusing to host such content -- and thus serve customer(s) with a particular (legal-but-unsavory) political bent -- just a form of discrimination? Consider the recent cases where LGBT customers have been refused service by small companies: because this form of discrimination doesn't fall afoul of the Civil Rights Act (no demonstrable case of discrimination due to race, color, religion or national origin here), is it still ok? (To kill the strawman before it is erected: no, I'm not equating white nationalists with LGBT customers. But if a private hosting service can deny service to a customer because they differ with that customer on philosophical/political grounds, how is that much different than a bakery, for instance, denying service to a customer on religious grounds?)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - nkrisc 9y ago
    I see the point you're trying to make but I think it fails because political views are a choice while being gay is not. It's fine to refuse to do business with someone just because you think they're an asshole. They could not be an asshole if they wanted to, but they could not change the color of their skin or sexual orientation. One could argue religion is a choice too, and I'd agree with you on that, but that's not a battle we're going to win today.
yasp 9y ago
>Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment https://www.washingtonpost.com/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/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- thephyber 9y ago
  > There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment Yet the "you have no right to falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theater"[1] was an opinion of a SCOTUS justice about a man who was peacefully protesting the WW1 draft, distributing papers arguing for his political ideals. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater runs a real risk of injury and it's negligent to do so falsely. Telling other people that you oppose a draft does not, yet has not been protected by the 1A (unless the person can prove some religious exemption, as did Muhammed Ali). As "cut and dry" as we pretend the 1A's protections are, they are far less than what laymen imagine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
  - int_19h 9y ago
    The case that cited "fire in a crowded theater" was pretty much entirely demolished in Brandenburg v. Ohio. While there hasn't been a specific case on opposition to the draft, telling that you do so is certainly within the "imminent lawless action" line set by that ruling.
- vkou 9y ago
  No, but there are fighting words exceptions. Is "I think black people should be enslaved" fighting words? What about "All jews should be gassed"? Where do torch-wielding mobs marching down the street fit into all this?
  - phdp 9y ago
    Neither of those are fighting words. See trope 7 from Ken White, a noted lawyer and first amendment expert - 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-...
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
You seem to be advocating that all speech should be permitted, and that anything less is unacceptable. I disagree. I believe there's a gray, ambiguous spectrum of acceptability, and that somewhere down the line there are opinions which incite (or consist in) violence, which inspire malice, and which are overtly harmful. A line between "disgusting, but acceptable" and "reprehensible" can carefully be drawn to not permit these terrible ideas to be promulgated. I agree that we should be cautious that this line does not creep into acceptable speech, and that the mechanisms used to enact these decisions are not re-purposed inappropriately. I understand that technology makes speech cheap, and suppression of speech difficult, and that encryption algorithms and other mathematical constructs make no distinction between acceptable and unacceptable speech. But these opinions do not need to be tolerated within society.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  I think the line is a lot clearer than that. Incitement to violence, slander, false statements that result in public harm ("fire in crowded theater"), that sort of thing is where the law should be involved. But there shouldn't be laws against bad manners.
- eighthnate 9y ago
  > I believe there's a gray, ambiguous spectrum of acceptability, and that somewhere down the line there are opinions which incite (or consist in) violence, which inspire malice, and which are overtly harmful. That's the reason why we have free speech rights ( in america at least ). So that people can't use and exploit the "gray" as an excuse to censor everyone. > A line between "disgusting, but acceptable" and "reprehensible" can carefully be drawn to not permit these terrible ideas to be promulgated. If the ideas are terrible, they should be promulgated and shown for all to see. > I understand that technology makes speech cheap, and suppression of speech difficult Actually, technology makes suppression of speech easy. > But these opinions do not need to be tolerated within society. Which opinions? You make generalizations and don't speak of any specifics? And who gets to decide which speech shouldn't be tolerated?
  - Larrikin 9y ago

nkrisc 9y ago

Source? Haven't seen any credible discussions of such sites being blocked by law, but instead by private parties choosing not to host such content.

MrZongle2 9y ago
But isn't a private business refusing to host such content -- and thus serve customer(s) with a particular (legal-but-unsavory) political bent -- just a form of discrimination? Consider the recent cases where LGBT customers have been refused service by small companies: because this form of discrimination doesn't fall afoul of the Civil Rights Act (no demonstrable case of discrimination due to race, color, religion or national origin here), is it still ok? (To kill the strawman before it is erected: no, I'm not equating white nationalists with LGBT customers. But if a private hosting service can deny service to a customer because they differ with that customer on philosophical/political grounds, how is that much different than a bakery, for instance, denying service to a customer on religious grounds?)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nkrisc 9y ago
  I see the point you're trying to make but I think it fails because political views are a choice while being gay is not. It's fine to refuse to do business with someone just because you think they're an asshole. They could not be an asshole if they wanted to, but they could not change the color of their skin or sexual orientation. One could argue religion is a choice too, and I'd agree with you on that, but that's not a battle we're going to win today.

yasp 9y ago

>Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment https://www.washingtonpost.com/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/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

thephyber 9y ago
> There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment Yet the "you have no right to falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theater"[1] was an opinion of a SCOTUS justice about a man who was peacefully protesting the WW1 draft, distributing papers arguing for his political ideals. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater runs a real risk of injury and it's negligent to do so falsely. Telling other people that you oppose a draft does not, yet has not been protected by the 1A (unless the person can prove some religious exemption, as did Muhammed Ali). As "cut and dry" as we pretend the 1A's protections are, they are far less than what laymen imagine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- int_19h 9y ago
  The case that cited "fire in a crowded theater" was pretty much entirely demolished in Brandenburg v. Ohio. While there hasn't been a specific case on opposition to the draft, telling that you do so is certainly within the "imminent lawless action" line set by that ruling.
vkou 9y ago
No, but there are fighting words exceptions. Is "I think black people should be enslaved" fighting words? What about "All jews should be gassed"? Where do torch-wielding mobs marching down the street fit into all this?
- phdp 9y ago
  Neither of those are fighting words. See trope 7 from Ken White, a noted lawyer and first amendment expert - 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-...

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

You seem to be advocating that all speech should be permitted, and that anything less is unacceptable. I disagree. I believe there's a gray, ambiguous spectrum of acceptability, and that somewhere down the line there are opinions which incite (or consist in) violence, which inspire malice, and which are overtly harmful. A line between "disgusting, but acceptable" and "reprehensible" can carefully be drawn to not permit these terrible ideas to be promulgated. I agree that we should be cautious that this line does not creep into acceptable speech, and that the mechanisms used to enact these decisions are not re-purposed inappropriately. I understand that technology makes speech cheap, and suppression of speech difficult, and that encryption algorithms and other mathematical constructs make no distinction between acceptable and unacceptable speech. But these opinions do not need to be tolerated within society.

mythrwy 9y ago
I think the line is a lot clearer than that. Incitement to violence, slander, false statements that result in public harm ("fire in crowded theater"), that sort of thing is where the law should be involved. But there shouldn't be laws against bad manners.
eighthnate 9y ago
> I believe there's a gray, ambiguous spectrum of acceptability, and that somewhere down the line there are opinions which incite (or consist in) violence, which inspire malice, and which are overtly harmful. That's the reason why we have free speech rights ( in america at least ). So that people can't use and exploit the "gray" as an excuse to censor everyone. > A line between "disgusting, but acceptable" and "reprehensible" can carefully be drawn to not permit these terrible ideas to be promulgated. If the ideas are terrible, they should be promulgated and shown for all to see. > I understand that technology makes speech cheap, and suppression of speech difficult Actually, technology makes suppression of speech easy. > But these opinions do not need to be tolerated within society. Which opinions? You make generalizations and don't speak of any specifics? And who gets to decide which speech shouldn't be tolerated?
- Larrikin 9y ago