4 ms·

Let us know what kind of riveting discussions you have with racists, sexists, and conspiracy theorists.

krapp 9y ago
Unfortunately, racists, sexists and conspiracy theorists appear to be the only people who still believe in freedom of speech, and are willing to fight to keep it. Even many of the "hackers" around here seem to support regulation and censorship.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  No I'm pretty sure the majority of people support true and blue free speech.
- jetpks 9y ago
  This isn’t a free speech issue. The government isn’t stopping anyone from speaking or thinking anything they want. Freedom of speech != freedom to publish whatever wherever you want
  - krapp 9y ago
    I've seen a number of comments and articles suggesting that, somehow, social media and the freedom of communication permitted by the internet are incompatible with democracy and social order. There seems to be a fear of freedom of speech as a dangerous principle which could lead to a demand for government control, or at the very least, a general mistrust of non centralized and proprietary communications platforms. >Freedom of speech != freedom to publish whatever wherever you want. Wherever you want, no... but whatever you want, yes, more or less. The only rights protecting you and I are the rights that protect the scum that many people currently (and understandably) want to see driven off of social media and out of public discourse. They act as the canaries in the coal mine of personal liberty, and democracy depends on the capacity for the free exchange of ideas, communication and debate.
  - function_seven 9y ago
    Sure it is. It's not a 1st Amendment issue, true. But—generically—it is a free speech issue. Reddit is adding more rules about what you can and can't post, which affects how free the speech is on their platform. They are entirely within their rights to do this. No doubt. Voat does not have as many (any?) restrictions on the content users can post. The speech is freer on their platform. I may sound pedantic on this, but I think it's important to fight for freedoms even when they're not enshrined in law. So to grandparent's point, the bigots are often the ones who do so, as a matter of necessity. Now the gun, beer, and cigar aficionados are finding themselves in the same category as Nazis and Klansmen.
    - brianmurphy 9y ago
      I wonder if any of the proponents of booting large groups of users understand tribalism. It is easy to see one of the unintended consequences of grouping cigar aficionados, home brewers, and gun enthusiasts in with the racists is that they will form common cause to fight back against the "enemy" who are trying to criminalize their hobbies.
  - kerkeslager 9y ago
    This is absolutely a free speech issue. Not in the sense that it's protected by law, but the law isn't relevant. The bill of rights comes from a belief that certain rights are self-evident and inherent to all people. In the modern mindset, we have a broader definition of "people" than the founding fathers (that is, we include people of all genders and races). Included in those rights is freedom of speech. Human rights don't simply disappear because you're communicating on a corporate-owned platform.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    The government chartered the corporation that is engaging in the censorship, and granted its owners limited liability. Strip away the privileges, and I wouldn't feel it necessary to impose additional obligations. In my personal opinion, corporations chartered by a government cannot engage in acts forbidden to that government. If you want to exercise your rights as a natural person, you must be prepared to accept full responsibility for the consequences of your actions. If you want to shield yourself from those consequences through a fictional entity, then follow the rassafrassin' rules. The US government is forbidden from restricting free speech, and so its corporations should not be engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination on that portion of their private property that they have explicitly opened as a public forum. If you allow the public into your space, you have to respect their rights.
  - vsl 9y ago
    You are confusing the moral concept of free speech with USA’s 1st amendment. The latter is only a narrow implementation of the former. Nobody hear argued this is unconstitutional in the US.
superkuh 9y ago
You have to be the change you want to see. I have no problem with other people holding views which I think are disgusting. The only thing I have a problem with is censorship. H. L. Mencken quote is applicable here, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." edit, The one thing I'm finding I really don't like about Voat is that it requires whitelisting Javascript from google domains in order to be able to post.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  I think we need more censorship quite frankly.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    I can think of no reasonable justification for that comment.
    - kadenshep 9y ago
      It's a satirical comment pointing out how ridiculous OP's platitude filled comment is.
  - HyperTalk2 9y ago
    Maybe you do. If you dislike the first amendment, there are plenty of countries you can move to that don't have it.
    - kadenshep 9y ago
      Definitely love censorship. The only people who don't love censorship are those fighting for the free speech rights of racists and conspiracy theorists. And no, I live in this country so I think I'll be the change I want to see in the world.
  - jboggan 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Unfortunately, racists, sexists and conspiracy theorists appear to be the only people who still believe in freedom of speech, and are willing to fight to keep it. Even many of the "hackers" around here seem to support regulation and censorship.

kadenshep 9y ago
No I'm pretty sure the majority of people support true and blue free speech.
jetpks 9y ago
This isn’t a free speech issue. The government isn’t stopping anyone from speaking or thinking anything they want. Freedom of speech != freedom to publish whatever wherever you want
- krapp 9y ago
  I've seen a number of comments and articles suggesting that, somehow, social media and the freedom of communication permitted by the internet are incompatible with democracy and social order. There seems to be a fear of freedom of speech as a dangerous principle which could lead to a demand for government control, or at the very least, a general mistrust of non centralized and proprietary communications platforms. >Freedom of speech != freedom to publish whatever wherever you want. Wherever you want, no... but whatever you want, yes, more or less. The only rights protecting you and I are the rights that protect the scum that many people currently (and understandably) want to see driven off of social media and out of public discourse. They act as the canaries in the coal mine of personal liberty, and democracy depends on the capacity for the free exchange of ideas, communication and debate.
- function_seven 9y ago
  Sure it is. It's not a 1st Amendment issue, true. But—generically—it is a free speech issue. Reddit is adding more rules about what you can and can't post, which affects how free the speech is on their platform. They are entirely within their rights to do this. No doubt. Voat does not have as many (any?) restrictions on the content users can post. The speech is freer on their platform. I may sound pedantic on this, but I think it's important to fight for freedoms even when they're not enshrined in law. So to grandparent's point, the bigots are often the ones who do so, as a matter of necessity. Now the gun, beer, and cigar aficionados are finding themselves in the same category as Nazis and Klansmen.
  - brianmurphy 9y ago
    I wonder if any of the proponents of booting large groups of users understand tribalism. It is easy to see one of the unintended consequences of grouping cigar aficionados, home brewers, and gun enthusiasts in with the racists is that they will form common cause to fight back against the "enemy" who are trying to criminalize their hobbies.
- kerkeslager 9y ago
  This is absolutely a free speech issue. Not in the sense that it's protected by law, but the law isn't relevant. The bill of rights comes from a belief that certain rights are self-evident and inherent to all people. In the modern mindset, we have a broader definition of "people" than the founding fathers (that is, we include people of all genders and races). Included in those rights is freedom of speech. Human rights don't simply disappear because you're communicating on a corporate-owned platform.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  The government chartered the corporation that is engaging in the censorship, and granted its owners limited liability. Strip away the privileges, and I wouldn't feel it necessary to impose additional obligations. In my personal opinion, corporations chartered by a government cannot engage in acts forbidden to that government. If you want to exercise your rights as a natural person, you must be prepared to accept full responsibility for the consequences of your actions. If you want to shield yourself from those consequences through a fictional entity, then follow the rassafrassin' rules. The US government is forbidden from restricting free speech, and so its corporations should not be engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination on that portion of their private property that they have explicitly opened as a public forum. If you allow the public into your space, you have to respect their rights.
- vsl 9y ago
  You are confusing the moral concept of free speech with USA’s 1st amendment. The latter is only a narrow implementation of the former. Nobody hear argued this is unconstitutional in the US.

superkuh 9y ago

You have to be the change you want to see. I have no problem with other people holding views which I think are disgusting. The only thing I have a problem with is censorship. H. L. Mencken quote is applicable here, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." edit, The one thing I'm finding I really don't like about Voat is that it requires whitelisting Javascript from google domains in order to be able to post.

kadenshep 9y ago
I think we need more censorship quite frankly.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  I can think of no reasonable justification for that comment.
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    It's a satirical comment pointing out how ridiculous OP's platitude filled comment is.
- HyperTalk2 9y ago
  Maybe you do. If you dislike the first amendment, there are plenty of countries you can move to that don't have it.
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    Definitely love censorship. The only people who don't love censorship are those fighting for the free speech rights of racists and conspiracy theorists. And no, I live in this country so I think I'll be the change I want to see in the world.
- jboggan 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]