3 ms·

If the government can censor free speech for the "public order" or for "morals", it isn't free speech. Those are the exact justifications tyrants have used for

If the government can censor free speech for the "public order" or for "morals", it isn't free speech. Those are the exact justifications tyrants have used for thousands of years to justify repression. Often they were even true: expressing yourself against a repressive or discriminatory regime can certainly be disruptive to the public order. It sounds like the ICCPR is meaningless fluff.

spiderfarmer 8y ago
Okay so if I start a Youtube channel with the specific intent of convincing people they should kill your wife, it's all good? Where do you draw the line?
- Amezarak 8y ago
  I think the US's Brandenburg test is a good line. It is much narrower than some nebulous concept of the public order. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
- Zuider 8y ago
  As an upper bound, I would certainly draw the line at shutting down all of Youtube on because of the presence of particular offensive videos.
- jazzyk 8y ago
  There is a difference between someone convincing people about killing ALL wives vs a particular one. The first one obviously needs medication, and will be ignored. The second one - depending on the specificity of the threat - a request to take the video down or a police visit.
  - Faark 8y ago
    You say it will be ignored, but here we are after the shooting. And gab was not willing to take it down. Nor did laws help. I love the idea of free speech to explore the space of possible ideas even against the current flow. But now we have easy filter bubbles and are missing effective mechanism pushing towards consensus. I have a hard seeing how it will not end with violence when hate speech and other surreal propaganda doesn't have consequences. But yes, we haven't found a good solution for that, yet. The situation here in germany is even more... "funny". Gov decided to ban hate-speech, but the decision per individual case isn't up to some judge, but has to be done by the platform or face fines. Yeah, so far I prefer the current US way of not doing business with assholes.
    - Amezarak 8y ago
      > You say it will be ignored, but here we are after the shooting. And gab was not willing to take it down. Nor did laws help. What was the direct/specific threat that Gab refused to take down?

spiderfarmer 8y ago

Okay so if I start a Youtube channel with the specific intent of convincing people they should kill your wife, it's all good? Where do you draw the line?

Amezarak 8y ago
I think the US's Brandenburg test is a good line. It is much narrower than some nebulous concept of the public order. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
Zuider 8y ago
As an upper bound, I would certainly draw the line at shutting down all of Youtube on because of the presence of particular offensive videos.
jazzyk 8y ago
There is a difference between someone convincing people about killing ALL wives vs a particular one. The first one obviously needs medication, and will be ignored. The second one - depending on the specificity of the threat - a request to take the video down or a police visit.
- Faark 8y ago
  You say it will be ignored, but here we are after the shooting. And gab was not willing to take it down. Nor did laws help. I love the idea of free speech to explore the space of possible ideas even against the current flow. But now we have easy filter bubbles and are missing effective mechanism pushing towards consensus. I have a hard seeing how it will not end with violence when hate speech and other surreal propaganda doesn't have consequences. But yes, we haven't found a good solution for that, yet. The situation here in germany is even more... "funny". Gov decided to ban hate-speech, but the decision per individual case isn't up to some judge, but has to be done by the platform or face fines. Yeah, so far I prefer the current US way of not doing business with assholes.
  - Amezarak 8y ago
    > You say it will be ignored, but here we are after the shooting. And gab was not willing to take it down. Nor did laws help. What was the direct/specific threat that Gab refused to take down?