4 ms·

To be clear, if this were written as a law, it wouldn't survive the first challenge in court. Edit: By way of further clarification, I realize that private ent

To be clear, if this were written as a law, it wouldn't survive the first challenge in court. Edit: By way of further clarification, I realize that private entities have no such burdens when writing policies, but I was responding to a comparison with jurisprudence. That's not just a matter of a board making a call, or a CEO, it's the process by which an entire judiciary, over time, interprets law. This is really nothing like it, just a set of loosely worded edicts from people who don't actually have to issue them in the first place, except to pretend that they're doing something constructive.

jordigh 9y ago
And it doesn't need to be a law either, just like HN doesn't need to set up a court and a trial every time it bans a user. Rough, ambiguous guidelines are ok for most internet communities.
pjc50 9y ago
> if this were written as a law, it wouldn't survive the first challenge in court I think you should see some examples of hate speech law, or things like the UK's maddeningly vague anti-terrorism laws.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  It took decades of deprecating and degrading the entire judicial system in the US to get to this point, finally catalyzed by 9/11.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    The US literally had "I know it when I see it" as an obscenity definition long before then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
    - GauntletWizard 9y ago
      And that standard was upheld by judges who were very clear that they were wearing blindfolds when it came to obscenity law. It is a huge step backwards - Rather, many many small ones by two irredeemable groups, both with good intentions and results that are comparable to serial killers - that we're even talking about "Hate Speech" as if it were a thing.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      ...and it didn’t survive the lengthy process of legal challenges and revision. See: Miller Test
    - gnicholas 9y ago
      To be fair, that was not in the Court's opinion — it was in a concurrence by Justice Stewart. People like to quote it, but it wasn't actually the law. (A concurring opinion is written by one or more justices who joined in the Court's (majority) opinion but wish to write separately to make some separate points or explain where they diverge from the majority opinion.)

jordigh 9y ago

And it doesn't need to be a law either, just like HN doesn't need to set up a court and a trial every time it bans a user. Rough, ambiguous guidelines are ok for most internet communities.

pjc50 9y ago

> if this were written as a law, it wouldn't survive the first challenge in court I think you should see some examples of hate speech law, or things like the UK's maddeningly vague anti-terrorism laws.

QAPereo 9y ago
It took decades of deprecating and degrading the entire judicial system in the US to get to this point, finally catalyzed by 9/11.
- pjc50 9y ago
  The US literally had "I know it when I see it" as an obscenity definition long before then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
  - GauntletWizard 9y ago
    And that standard was upheld by judges who were very clear that they were wearing blindfolds when it came to obscenity law. It is a huge step backwards - Rather, many many small ones by two irredeemable groups, both with good intentions and results that are comparable to serial killers - that we're even talking about "Hate Speech" as if it were a thing.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    ...and it didn’t survive the lengthy process of legal challenges and revision. See: Miller Test
  - gnicholas 9y ago
    To be fair, that was not in the Court's opinion — it was in a concurrence by Justice Stewart. People like to quote it, but it wasn't actually the law. (A concurring opinion is written by one or more justices who joined in the Court's (majority) opinion but wish to write separately to make some separate points or explain where they diverge from the majority opinion.)