6 ms·

You can say that, but from the beginning, governments have put limits to speech based on "harm" from speech. Slander, libel, threats are all illegal due to the

You can say that, but from the beginning, governments have put limits to speech based on "harm" from speech. Slander, libel, threats are all illegal due to the contention they cause harm. Taking no side is also similar to this, taking no side in a conflict as long as they are civil requires one to decide what is "civil" in the first place. Are comments about race considered "threats" if one person is of the race targeted? How about coarse comments like telling someone to "kill themselves." It isn't so simple and even being neutral is a stance of a kind. BTW, I don't think being neutral in a conflict like censoring or not is the wrong stance, but it IS a stance with its own value judgements.

mc32 8y ago
>How about coarse comments like telling someone to "kill themselves. I think a few conservatives were directly told to do just that due to the SCOTUS appointment furore --have there been significant calls to censor those opinions? It's like everyone is for Censorship unless they are the targets of Censorship. And in this case they are not calling out their own lot very vehemently.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  I believe I saw a headline today or yesterday regarding someone being fired due to remarks along those lines. Perhaps not "kill yourself" per se. I think the remark was characterized as a call for assassination.
  - mc32 8y ago
    The google head of design told Repubs to all go F* themselves to Hell (not even qualified it like, "oh, the bad ones, I don't like, nope ALL). I guess that's not so bad (for an EXEC at the very company considering Censorship). But anyway, calling for assassination is different from asking someone to off themselves. [See if here]: https://yournewswire.com/senior-google-employee-wants-republicans-to-burn-in-hell-fck-you-all/ https://yournewswire.com/senior-google-employee-wants-republ...
  - tylersmith 8y ago
    I think what you're referencing is probably that somebody was recently put on administrative leave pending investigation for tweeting "whose gonna take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6255241/Special-education-teacher-placed-administrative-leave-kill-Kavanaugh-tweet.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6255241/Special-edu...
- fapjacks 8y ago
  Stuff like this is a huge indicator that whatever everyone's intent going into censorship, it will invariably end with powerful, entrenched stakeholders using the censorship tools to dig in and start purging outsiders and members of opposing factions. In politics, business, culture, you name it, this will be the end result.
  - gnarbarian 8y ago
    Yep. That was exactly my argument a month ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17926316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17926316
    - fapjacks 8y ago
      People universally believe they are better than their historical counterparts, that they will succeed where history has failed, that this time it will be different. When really all they're doing is carving another notch on fascism's belt.
      - gnarbarian 8y ago
        And the supremely ironic thing in this case is they are calling us the fascists while silencing us with a straight face.
        fapjacks 8y ago
        It's too bad we're not in a bar. I could talk about this all night, and I've been thinking about it a lot.
        gnarbarian 8y ago
        Cheers. Come up to Alaska and I'll buy you a drink and take ya fishing while we're at it. The recent heavy push for greater ideological censorship will end up driving centrists to places that cator to extreme content. This is one aspect of the problem which has led to further increased polarization in modern American politics. Facebook, YouTube, and Reddit are too censorious and do not fill the role of a modern free speech platform which must exist. The biggest problem is gaining traction while a large portion of early adopters are extremists banned from other platforms. My only hope is that the censors will piss so many people off that real free speech platforms like https://d.tube/ https://d.tube/ can reach critical mass.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  I don't know, you might want to talk with the woman who was arrested for laughing at Jeff Sessions a short while ago.
  - mc32 8y ago
    That person has a long list of prior arrests for disturbances [that shows a pattern] The case was also dropped. That said, though I don’t like Dick Cheney, when thd Katrina protester told him to eff off, he took it on the chin like a proper guy.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      Ah, so you're saying as long as we deem someone socially unfit that therefore it's OK for the government to censor them.
      - mc32 8y ago
        No, I don’t agree with her arrest, but i can see why they might.
sneak 8y ago
Slander and libel are not illegal, as far as I am aware.
- noobermin 8y ago
  Perhaps the right word was "unlawful." Alas, IANAL.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sjroot 8y ago
  They are torts and, if provable, warrant civil lawsuits.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
The difference between censorship and all of those things is that they aren't prior restraints. Nobody filters what you say to make sure you aren't saying something defamatory. You say it first, then someone has to take you to court, where you have the opportunity to defend yourself. And somebody has to care enough to shut you up to go through the effort of taking you to court, and then they have to win. Some kind of private sector prior restraint apparatus making automated censorship decisions with no due process... is not that.
- noobermin 8y ago
  I feel like you potentially have a point but the moderation the slides talk about are also posterior to the speech. For example, tell someone to kill themselves, get reported, get shadowbanned. Deciding what is "wrong" or "uncivil" or "out of bounds" is the value judgement, like deciding defamation is or threats are.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > I feel like you potentially have a point but the moderation the slides talk about are also posterior to the speech. For example, tell someone to kill themselves, get reported, get shadowbanned. When the penalty is censorship of future speech, it's still a prior restraint. And shadowbanning is obviously not compatible with any kind of due process or even an opportunity to know that you've been accused. > Deciding what is "wrong" or "uncivil" or "out of bounds" is the value judgement, like deciding defamation is or threats are. Which is why the traditional categories have been narrowly drawn and limited to things that are as apolitical and non-partisan as possible.
    - noobermin 8y ago
      I mean, how is making libel unlawful not censorship of future speech under your definition, or making threats unlawful censorship of future threats? How is this different?
      - 8y ago

mc32 8y ago

>How about coarse comments like telling someone to "kill themselves. I think a few conservatives were directly told to do just that due to the SCOTUS appointment furore --have there been significant calls to censor those opinions? It's like everyone is for Censorship unless they are the targets of Censorship. And in this case they are not calling out their own lot very vehemently.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
I believe I saw a headline today or yesterday regarding someone being fired due to remarks along those lines. Perhaps not "kill yourself" per se. I think the remark was characterized as a call for assassination.
- mc32 8y ago
  The google head of design told Repubs to all go F* themselves to Hell (not even qualified it like, "oh, the bad ones, I don't like, nope ALL). I guess that's not so bad (for an EXEC at the very company considering Censorship). But anyway, calling for assassination is different from asking someone to off themselves. [See if here]: https://yournewswire.com/senior-google-employee-wants-republicans-to-burn-in-hell-fck-you-all/ https://yournewswire.com/senior-google-employee-wants-republ...
- tylersmith 8y ago
  I think what you're referencing is probably that somebody was recently put on administrative leave pending investigation for tweeting "whose gonna take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6255241/Special-education-teacher-placed-administrative-leave-kill-Kavanaugh-tweet.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6255241/Special-edu...
fapjacks 8y ago
Stuff like this is a huge indicator that whatever everyone's intent going into censorship, it will invariably end with powerful, entrenched stakeholders using the censorship tools to dig in and start purging outsiders and members of opposing factions. In politics, business, culture, you name it, this will be the end result.
- gnarbarian 8y ago
  Yep. That was exactly my argument a month ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17926316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17926316
  - fapjacks 8y ago
    People universally believe they are better than their historical counterparts, that they will succeed where history has failed, that this time it will be different. When really all they're doing is carving another notch on fascism's belt.
    - gnarbarian 8y ago
      And the supremely ironic thing in this case is they are calling us the fascists while silencing us with a straight face.
      - fapjacks 8y ago
        It's too bad we're not in a bar. I could talk about this all night, and I've been thinking about it a lot.
        gnarbarian 8y ago
        Cheers. Come up to Alaska and I'll buy you a drink and take ya fishing while we're at it. The recent heavy push for greater ideological censorship will end up driving centrists to places that cator to extreme content. This is one aspect of the problem which has led to further increased polarization in modern American politics. Facebook, YouTube, and Reddit are too censorious and do not fill the role of a modern free speech platform which must exist. The biggest problem is gaining traction while a large portion of early adopters are extremists banned from other platforms. My only hope is that the censors will piss so many people off that real free speech platforms like https://d.tube/ https://d.tube/ can reach critical mass.
fzeroracer 8y ago
I don't know, you might want to talk with the woman who was arrested for laughing at Jeff Sessions a short while ago.
- mc32 8y ago
  That person has a long list of prior arrests for disturbances [that shows a pattern] The case was also dropped. That said, though I don’t like Dick Cheney, when thd Katrina protester told him to eff off, he took it on the chin like a proper guy.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    Ah, so you're saying as long as we deem someone socially unfit that therefore it's OK for the government to censor them.
    - mc32 8y ago
      No, I don’t agree with her arrest, but i can see why they might.

sneak 8y ago

Slander and libel are not illegal, as far as I am aware.

noobermin 8y ago
Perhaps the right word was "unlawful." Alas, IANAL.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sjroot 8y ago
They are torts and, if provable, warrant civil lawsuits.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

The difference between censorship and all of those things is that they aren't prior restraints. Nobody filters what you say to make sure you aren't saying something defamatory. You say it first, then someone has to take you to court, where you have the opportunity to defend yourself. And somebody has to care enough to shut you up to go through the effort of taking you to court, and then they have to win. Some kind of private sector prior restraint apparatus making automated censorship decisions with no due process... is not that.

noobermin 8y ago
I feel like you potentially have a point but the moderation the slides talk about are also posterior to the speech. For example, tell someone to kill themselves, get reported, get shadowbanned. Deciding what is "wrong" or "uncivil" or "out of bounds" is the value judgement, like deciding defamation is or threats are.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > I feel like you potentially have a point but the moderation the slides talk about are also posterior to the speech. For example, tell someone to kill themselves, get reported, get shadowbanned. When the penalty is censorship of future speech, it's still a prior restraint. And shadowbanning is obviously not compatible with any kind of due process or even an opportunity to know that you've been accused. > Deciding what is "wrong" or "uncivil" or "out of bounds" is the value judgement, like deciding defamation is or threats are. Which is why the traditional categories have been narrowly drawn and limited to things that are as apolitical and non-partisan as possible.
  - noobermin 8y ago
    I mean, how is making libel unlawful not censorship of future speech under your definition, or making threats unlawful censorship of future threats? How is this different?
    - 8y ago