6 ms·

I don't think Twitter is actually interested in defending free speech? Free speech is defending the toxic speech. Acceptable speech needs no defense.

by KGIII 9y ago

s73ver_ 9y ago
Then count me out. I have no interest whatsoever in defending racial slurs or rape threats.
- nate_meurer 9y ago
  That's understandable. However, while threats of violence are not protected speech in the U.S., insults (e.g., racial slurs) absolutely are, and that protection is the reason you can't be punished for insulting cops, for example, or whatever else might hurt someone's feelings.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Twitter is not just in the US, though.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Thats okay. You're just not a proponent of free speech. Free speech is the deplorable and socially unacceptable. It was once unacceptable to suggest black people had rights or that women should vote. To think we are at the apex of morality is hubris. Thus, I feel freedom of expression remains a vital component in modernity.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    No. To say that I'm not a proponent of free speech because I don't support those things is completely inane. And for you to equate civil rights struggles with sending women rape threats is quite mind boggling.
    - nate_meurer 9y ago
      By the same token, your insistence on lumping threats of violence in with racial slurs is similarly inane. I don't hear anyone defending rape threats here.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        I do. The person I was responding to is saying that you have to defend those if you wish to be a proponent of free speech. I reject that absolutism in it's entirety.
        bobwaycott 9y ago
        Nobody said you have to defend rape threats. Credible threats of violence are illegal. I believe you are ignoring or misunderstanding the argument (and the detailed reply was posted an hour ago). It seems you’re conflating racial slurs (and other deplorable speech) with threats of rape (or other horrific actions) as being equal. They are not. There is a huge difference between these two: > Get fucked, bitch. > I have your address. I’m going to find you and rape you till you’re dead, bitch. The second statement is absolutely illegal, as it is a credible threat. The first is a disgusting statement from an asshole that shouldn’t have ever been said. Since 1998, I’ve been aware of a group of so-called christians who like to go to funerals and public events holding signs that say “god hates fags”. No doubt these people might be inclined to tweet, “We should round up all the fags and kill them.” Absolutely, without a doubt, deplorable as fuck. Still protected speech, as uncomfortable and disgusting as it is. These people nauseate me. They make me want to punch their teeth in. If I then reply to one of these assholes with, “Found your address. Coming for you. Better call your dentist.” I’ve wandered into credible threat territory, and illegal speech. I’m wholly unprotected by the First Amendment now. Defending free speech means defending the constitutional right to say deplorable, yet wholly legal things. And it’s exceedingly difficult. Intellectually, I know it’s protected speech. I can type these words and say it’s legal and protected. I don’t dispute it at all. Emotionally, and as a human who believes in trying to do no harm because the world is chaos and it’s better to be kind, I can’t stand it. I don’t want to see it. I don’t want to hear it. I don’t want to read it. I want it gone. I want it to never have been said. I want people to have ways to escape being the targets of such speech. People shouldn’t feel unsafe. They shouldn’t feel attacked for who they are. And yet, we shouldn’t take away anyone’s right to speak their mind, no matter how disgusting. In all these cases, the principles remain the same: - there is no end to the vile things humans think and say, yet saying them is a right we’ve granted is, in sum, a net good - anyone who veers outside mere speech and begins to incite, threaten, or engage in illegal action should be swiftly punished - where lines get crossed or blurred and clarity is needed, we establish laws to do so (and they should pass constitutional muster)
  - userbinator 9y ago
    As the saying goes, "I don't agree with a word you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Indeed, I find that these sorts of rule changes, "codes of conduct", "safe spaces", etc. deeply troubling --- a sign of a society that has abandoned freedom, personal responsibility, and independent thought. People are letting governments and companies dictate (and increasingly, automate away the decisions in) their lives for them. Consider that the vast majority of communications between people now happens online, through channels controlled by companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter. The power to control what people can say, think or do falls in the hands of a tiny number of groups who can manipulate, censor, and divert the masses in the direction they want. That is really, really scary.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Damned right. It is very scary. Fortunately, more people are starting to fight back. I've got a ready army of supporters, but they are Nazis and I'm not sure how helpful they will be. The ACLU and EFF are busy right now. But they are on my side. They put up announcements but aren't able to do much. So, I keep doing what I have been doing. I get two or three converts each time. I watch the karma change. I see the replies. If you're not supporting free speech, stand over there and let us do it. When it finally clicks in, come join us - but you will be defending horrible speech. Horrible... I go and immerse myself in this speech. I make it know on that I am not one of them. I go to voat and tell them my race and political views. I tell them that I'm there to fight for free speech. They actually accept me. Mostly... I've got a few to move out of their white nationalist gangs and one is getting a tattoo removed. So, it's a start.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      "As the saying goes, "I don't agree with a word you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."" The topic was racial slurs and rape threats. Are those things you want to defend, and is it honestly troubling to you that there are rules put up saying they are not allowed?
albedoa 9y ago
Two recent tweets from Biz Stone on 9/25 and 9/29 respectively: https://twitter.com/biz/status/912478891377172480 https://twitter.com/biz/status/912478891377172480 > You're wrong. Twitter is for all opinions, even those we disagree with—that is the point of free speech. Counterspeech is encouraged too. https://twitter.com/biz/status/913910519274151936 https://twitter.com/biz/status/913910519274151936 > Yes, we comply with the law. We also defend free speech. You may be happy to know we are reviewing our principles—good to do so regularly. Now, maybe Twitter are more interested in proclaiming an interest in defending free speech than they are actually defending it, but you sure are making a lot of claims in these comments that don't pass basic scrutiny.
- KGIII 9y ago
  All that research and you couldn't Google, 'twitter free speech complaints.' There, just highlight and search. Tada!

I don't think Twitter is actually interested in defending free speech? Free speech is defending the toxic speech. Acceptable speech needs no defense.

by KGIII 9y ago

I don't think Twitter is actually interested in defending free speech? Free speech is defending the toxic speech. Acceptable speech needs no defense.

s73ver_ 9y ago

Then count me out. I have no interest whatsoever in defending racial slurs or rape threats.

nate_meurer 9y ago
That's understandable. However, while threats of violence are not protected speech in the U.S., insults (e.g., racial slurs) absolutely are, and that protection is the reason you can't be punished for insulting cops, for example, or whatever else might hurt someone's feelings.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Twitter is not just in the US, though.
KGIII 9y ago
Thats okay. You're just not a proponent of free speech. Free speech is the deplorable and socially unacceptable. It was once unacceptable to suggest black people had rights or that women should vote. To think we are at the apex of morality is hubris. Thus, I feel freedom of expression remains a vital component in modernity.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  No. To say that I'm not a proponent of free speech because I don't support those things is completely inane. And for you to equate civil rights struggles with sending women rape threats is quite mind boggling.
  - nate_meurer 9y ago
    By the same token, your insistence on lumping threats of violence in with racial slurs is similarly inane. I don't hear anyone defending rape threats here.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      I do. The person I was responding to is saying that you have to defend those if you wish to be a proponent of free speech. I reject that absolutism in it's entirety.
      - bobwaycott 9y ago
        Nobody said you have to defend rape threats. Credible threats of violence are illegal. I believe you are ignoring or misunderstanding the argument (and the detailed reply was posted an hour ago). It seems you’re conflating racial slurs (and other deplorable speech) with threats of rape (or other horrific actions) as being equal. They are not. There is a huge difference between these two: > Get fucked, bitch. > I have your address. I’m going to find you and rape you till you’re dead, bitch. The second statement is absolutely illegal, as it is a credible threat. The first is a disgusting statement from an asshole that shouldn’t have ever been said. Since 1998, I’ve been aware of a group of so-called christians who like to go to funerals and public events holding signs that say “god hates fags”. No doubt these people might be inclined to tweet, “We should round up all the fags and kill them.” Absolutely, without a doubt, deplorable as fuck. Still protected speech, as uncomfortable and disgusting as it is. These people nauseate me. They make me want to punch their teeth in. If I then reply to one of these assholes with, “Found your address. Coming for you. Better call your dentist.” I’ve wandered into credible threat territory, and illegal speech. I’m wholly unprotected by the First Amendment now. Defending free speech means defending the constitutional right to say deplorable, yet wholly legal things. And it’s exceedingly difficult. Intellectually, I know it’s protected speech. I can type these words and say it’s legal and protected. I don’t dispute it at all. Emotionally, and as a human who believes in trying to do no harm because the world is chaos and it’s better to be kind, I can’t stand it. I don’t want to see it. I don’t want to hear it. I don’t want to read it. I want it gone. I want it to never have been said. I want people to have ways to escape being the targets of such speech. People shouldn’t feel unsafe. They shouldn’t feel attacked for who they are. And yet, we shouldn’t take away anyone’s right to speak their mind, no matter how disgusting. In all these cases, the principles remain the same: - there is no end to the vile things humans think and say, yet saying them is a right we’ve granted is, in sum, a net good - anyone who veers outside mere speech and begins to incite, threaten, or engage in illegal action should be swiftly punished - where lines get crossed or blurred and clarity is needed, we establish laws to do so (and they should pass constitutional muster)
- userbinator 9y ago
  As the saying goes, "I don't agree with a word you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Indeed, I find that these sorts of rule changes, "codes of conduct", "safe spaces", etc. deeply troubling --- a sign of a society that has abandoned freedom, personal responsibility, and independent thought. People are letting governments and companies dictate (and increasingly, automate away the decisions in) their lives for them. Consider that the vast majority of communications between people now happens online, through channels controlled by companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter. The power to control what people can say, think or do falls in the hands of a tiny number of groups who can manipulate, censor, and divert the masses in the direction they want. That is really, really scary.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Damned right. It is very scary. Fortunately, more people are starting to fight back. I've got a ready army of supporters, but they are Nazis and I'm not sure how helpful they will be. The ACLU and EFF are busy right now. But they are on my side. They put up announcements but aren't able to do much. So, I keep doing what I have been doing. I get two or three converts each time. I watch the karma change. I see the replies. If you're not supporting free speech, stand over there and let us do it. When it finally clicks in, come join us - but you will be defending horrible speech. Horrible... I go and immerse myself in this speech. I make it know on that I am not one of them. I go to voat and tell them my race and political views. I tell them that I'm there to fight for free speech. They actually accept me. Mostly... I've got a few to move out of their white nationalist gangs and one is getting a tattoo removed. So, it's a start.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    "As the saying goes, "I don't agree with a word you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."" The topic was racial slurs and rape threats. Are those things you want to defend, and is it honestly troubling to you that there are rules put up saying they are not allowed?

albedoa 9y ago

Two recent tweets from Biz Stone on 9/25 and 9/29 respectively: https://twitter.com/biz/status/912478891377172480 https://twitter.com/biz/status/912478891377172480 > You're wrong. Twitter is for all opinions, even those we disagree with—that is the point of free speech. Counterspeech is encouraged too. https://twitter.com/biz/status/913910519274151936 https://twitter.com/biz/status/913910519274151936 > Yes, we comply with the law. We also defend free speech. You may be happy to know we are reviewing our principles—good to do so regularly. Now, maybe Twitter are more interested in proclaiming an interest in defending free speech than they are actually defending it, but you sure are making a lot of claims in these comments that don't pass basic scrutiny.

KGIII 9y ago
All that research and you couldn't Google, 'twitter free speech complaints.' There, just highlight and search. Tada!