3 ms·

Another anti-free speech nonsense article. Did you guys not read 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 in high school? Free speech is very important, especially the one you d

Another anti-free speech nonsense article. Did you guys not read 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 in high school? Free speech is very important, especially the one you disagree with.

Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
Free speech means you have the right to call the President of your country a moron without legal consequences. It means you get to have political debates. But it doesn't mean you get to harass people, send death threats, post people's private information (doxxing), and spread nude photos that were never supposed to be released.
- luso_brazilian 8y ago
  > But it doesn't mean you get to harass people, send death threats, post people's private information (doxxing), and spread nude photos that were never supposed to be released. That is accurate and there are legal remedies for that. For instance, Kurt Eichenwald, a person on the receiving end of most of the activities you mentioned, collected the evidence and used the justice system to secure a Grand Jury indictment against his harasser [1], [2] Here is the abridged transcript of the indictment: > CRIMINAL COMPLAINT I, > On or about December 15, 2016, in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas and elsewhere, defendant John Rayne Rivello, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, and intimidate, did knowingly and intentionally use an interactive computer service and an electronic communication service to engage in a course of conduct that placed a person in reasonable fear of the death of and serious bodily injury to that person and caused, attempted to cause, and would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to that person; > in that Rivello posed as Twitter user Ari Goldstein and used his Twitter account @jew _goldstein to post an animated Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) on the victim's Twitter feed, knowing that the victim was an epileptic and knowing that the animated GIF was a strobe bearing the message "YOU DESERVE A SEIZURE FOR YOUR POSTS." And here is the central point > In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A) and (B), and 18 U .S.C. § 226l(b)(3). This criminal complaint is based on the facts set out in the attached affidavit. Most of the activities you describe, online or whatnot, are already in the US Code as actual crimes. I do not believe private companies should take over the role of the government in policing speech through prior restraint simply out of the possibility of potential criminal activities. It creates a chilling effect on legitimate speech and a dangerous precedent of private companies (potentially in collusion with the government) being in position to stifle speech. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kurt-eichenwald-case-texas-grand-jury-says-gif-deadly-weapon-n736316 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kurt-eichenwald-case-te... [2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/949676/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/949676/downlo... (pdf)
- factsaresacred 8y ago
  From the article: > Taking down shitty content works...a place for meaningful conversation Right now you'll find (or won't, rather) people on Twitter banned for sharing factual but 'problematic' news articles or for referencing crime statistics. A good number of users might find such views 'shitty' and not 'meaningful' and that's where the problem lies - people are being deplatformed, not for the red herrings of doxxing and celeb nudes, but simply for having opposing and uncomfortable opinions. Again, from the article: > I still need to use Twitter for work, but my personal view is that any content I contribute is promoting white supremacy Madness. Anyone with such a bizarre personal view ought not to be taken seriously.
  - Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
    > Right now you'll find (or won't, rather) people on Twitter banned for sharing factual but 'problematic' news articles or for referencing crime statistics. These crime statistics are often being used to push a racist agenda, and private entities are under no obligation to be a platform for that. > > I still need to use Twitter for work, but my personal view is that any content I contribute is promoting white supremacy > Madness. Anyone with such a bizarre personal view ought not to be taken seriously. I will agree that that bit she said is bizarre. Not really sure what she meant by that. I wouldn't dismiss everything else she said just because of one line, though. Each individual statement should be evaluated by its own merits. Picking one statement, using it to decide she's crazy, and then using the opinion that she's crazy to dismiss everything else starts to get close to being an ad hominem.
    - factsaresacred 8y ago
      > These crime statistics are often being used to push a racist agenda I agree in part. I don't think the agenda matters though. You shouldn't be banned for sharing facts. > private entities are under no obligation to be a platform for that. Of course, but is 'agenda pushing' on a public forum really a surprise? And why can some types of agendas be pushed and not others? Whether you agree with what's being shared is irrelevant - the point is there should be fairness and consistency when implementing policy. That has not always been the case. > Picking one statement, using it to decide she's crazy, and then using the opinion that she's crazy to dismiss everything else starts to get close to being an ad hominem. Sure but if somebody believes that merely posting on Twitter promotes white supremacy, it signals that they're slightly hyperbolic and so should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Another anti-free speech nonsense article. Did you guys not read 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 in high school? Free speech is very important, especially the one you disagree with.

Sohcahtoa82 8y ago

Free speech means you have the right to call the President of your country a moron without legal consequences. It means you get to have political debates. But it doesn't mean you get to harass people, send death threats, post people's private information (doxxing), and spread nude photos that were never supposed to be released.

luso_brazilian 8y ago
> But it doesn't mean you get to harass people, send death threats, post people's private information (doxxing), and spread nude photos that were never supposed to be released. That is accurate and there are legal remedies for that. For instance, Kurt Eichenwald, a person on the receiving end of most of the activities you mentioned, collected the evidence and used the justice system to secure a Grand Jury indictment against his harasser [1], [2] Here is the abridged transcript of the indictment: > CRIMINAL COMPLAINT I, > On or about December 15, 2016, in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas and elsewhere, defendant John Rayne Rivello, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, and intimidate, did knowingly and intentionally use an interactive computer service and an electronic communication service to engage in a course of conduct that placed a person in reasonable fear of the death of and serious bodily injury to that person and caused, attempted to cause, and would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to that person; > in that Rivello posed as Twitter user Ari Goldstein and used his Twitter account @jew _goldstein to post an animated Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) on the victim's Twitter feed, knowing that the victim was an epileptic and knowing that the animated GIF was a strobe bearing the message "YOU DESERVE A SEIZURE FOR YOUR POSTS." And here is the central point > In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A) and (B), and 18 U .S.C. § 226l(b)(3). This criminal complaint is based on the facts set out in the attached affidavit. Most of the activities you describe, online or whatnot, are already in the US Code as actual crimes. I do not believe private companies should take over the role of the government in policing speech through prior restraint simply out of the possibility of potential criminal activities. It creates a chilling effect on legitimate speech and a dangerous precedent of private companies (potentially in collusion with the government) being in position to stifle speech. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kurt-eichenwald-case-texas-grand-jury-says-gif-deadly-weapon-n736316 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kurt-eichenwald-case-te... [2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/949676/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/949676/downlo... (pdf)
factsaresacred 8y ago
From the article: > Taking down shitty content works...a place for meaningful conversation Right now you'll find (or won't, rather) people on Twitter banned for sharing factual but 'problematic' news articles or for referencing crime statistics. A good number of users might find such views 'shitty' and not 'meaningful' and that's where the problem lies - people are being deplatformed, not for the red herrings of doxxing and celeb nudes, but simply for having opposing and uncomfortable opinions. Again, from the article: > I still need to use Twitter for work, but my personal view is that any content I contribute is promoting white supremacy Madness. Anyone with such a bizarre personal view ought not to be taken seriously.
- Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
  > Right now you'll find (or won't, rather) people on Twitter banned for sharing factual but 'problematic' news articles or for referencing crime statistics. These crime statistics are often being used to push a racist agenda, and private entities are under no obligation to be a platform for that. > > I still need to use Twitter for work, but my personal view is that any content I contribute is promoting white supremacy > Madness. Anyone with such a bizarre personal view ought not to be taken seriously. I will agree that that bit she said is bizarre. Not really sure what she meant by that. I wouldn't dismiss everything else she said just because of one line, though. Each individual statement should be evaluated by its own merits. Picking one statement, using it to decide she's crazy, and then using the opinion that she's crazy to dismiss everything else starts to get close to being an ad hominem.
  - factsaresacred 8y ago
    > These crime statistics are often being used to push a racist agenda I agree in part. I don't think the agenda matters though. You shouldn't be banned for sharing facts. > private entities are under no obligation to be a platform for that. Of course, but is 'agenda pushing' on a public forum really a surprise? And why can some types of agendas be pushed and not others? Whether you agree with what's being shared is irrelevant - the point is there should be fairness and consistency when implementing policy. That has not always been the case. > Picking one statement, using it to decide she's crazy, and then using the opinion that she's crazy to dismiss everything else starts to get close to being an ad hominem. Sure but if somebody believes that merely posting on Twitter promotes white supremacy, it signals that they're slightly hyperbolic and so should be taken with a pinch of salt.