3 ms·

In the West meanwhile, most internet firms have permitted the Southern Poverty Law Center, a private, partisan organization to define "hate" online, and to help

In the West meanwhile, most internet firms have permitted the Southern Poverty Law Center, a private, partisan organization to define "hate" online, and to help purge it. Be careful, you could end up raising the ire of a lawyer at the SPLC, like the British (Muslim) academic who was researching radicalization of youth in his own culture [0] Oddly enough in most of the US now, allowing private organizations to squelch legit free expression is considered a progressive victory. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-nawaz-v-splc/562646/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-...

tabtab 8y ago
You have to admit that open-ended free speech that allows one to say, "Your culture/people are inferior lazy violent criminals" is disturbing. Such is rarely constructive and just stokes sectarian divides. The worse wars often start that way, and Europe had the living daylights bombed out of them because of such. I can understand why they'd ban it. It's pretty close to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. A slow fire is still a fire. I will agree it may not be enforced evenly by the big social media companies. If one rants about "gun-crazy ignorant rednecks", that should be treated just as ethnically offensive as the usual culprits. The left can be hypocrites that way. However, equal enforcement would require banning the Orange Guy.
- lic-defender 8y ago
  Listen to yourself: "We have to censor all possible communication methods and imprison people for words because jokes about Montenegrins being lazy are going to cause World War 3". "Calling a gun-crazy redneck a gun-crazy redneck is hate speech and subject to a fine of no greater than $5000 or no greater than 30 days in jail".
  - tabtab 8y ago
    You don't have to jail people immediately. Give them a stern warning. If they do it again, THEN jail them. Re: "[Silly that] jokes about Montenegrins being lazy are going to cause World War 3" -- A line has to be drawn somewhere. If the context is jokes, maybe let it go. But if it's part of a political rant that certain people should be discriminated against or removed, then a line is crossed. Maybe if you had the daylights bombed out of your community like in WW2, you'd have a different perspective. Fully free speech is nice, but so is being alive. Dead people have no speech.
    - claydavisss 8y ago
      Please tell us how your experience of being bombed in WW2 shape your posts on HN! If people valued safety over freedom, the war would not have been fought at all...the Allies would have simply signed over Hitler's gains to him in exchange for a cessation of hostilities. Oops they tried that at first. Didn't work. I think we can safely conclude that you do not speak on behalf of WW2 survivors
      - tabtab 8y ago
        I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes. Your other statement appears to be "if they had strategically been better, the war wouldn't happen." That perhaps may be true, but moot as far as I can tell. Humans mess "strategery" up because they are humans. An argument based on humans being perfect is an imperfect argument.
- pas 8y ago
  Fire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t... Interestingly, I think the majority of citizens would disagree with the ruling. (And it was partly overturned a few decades later.) Furthermore, the ability to state facts and opinions is important. If someone finds a culture oppressive he/she ought to be able to say it so.
  - tabtab 8y ago
    Re: "If someone finds a culture oppressive he/she ought to be able to say it so." One can word it based on the behaviors alone: "I don't like it when people do X and Y" versus "I don't like it when Mormons do X and Y" versus "Mormons are bad because they do X and Y". Why single out Mormons when others may do the same? The first can communicate pretty much the same as #2 and #3 without potentially offending groups. I don't think the first two should be banned, but #3 is stretching it. If I ran a discussion forum, I'd consider banning #3, perhaps first with a warning and a how-to on rewording. If somebody believed "Hollywood is possessed by Satan", saying so wouldn't do any good. It's not objective and doesn't carry useable information. If you instead focus on specific behaviors, such as having too much violence & sex in movies, then a fruitful discussion can form without demonizing specific groups. If Mother Theresa produces movies with sex & violence, she should be held to the same criticism and standards, which should be based on observable actions/results.
    - pas 8y ago
      Agreed. Anyone criticizing should first establish the observable things (violence, oppression, whatever bias or other behavior) and then state the argument for how that is widespread in a culture, region, country, group. To address your examples, #1 is okay as it doesn't make any associations with a culture (at least if we assume X and Y are void of such), #2 is for me the most problematic, as #3 is directly claims that a culture/group/region has a problem, because X and/or Y, whereas #2 is just singling out a culture for no apparent reason.

tabtab 8y ago

You have to admit that open-ended free speech that allows one to say, "Your culture/people are inferior lazy violent criminals" is disturbing. Such is rarely constructive and just stokes sectarian divides. The worse wars often start that way, and Europe had the living daylights bombed out of them because of such. I can understand why they'd ban it. It's pretty close to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. A slow fire is still a fire. I will agree it may not be enforced evenly by the big social media companies. If one rants about "gun-crazy ignorant rednecks", that should be treated just as ethnically offensive as the usual culprits. The left can be hypocrites that way. However, equal enforcement would require banning the Orange Guy.

lic-defender 8y ago
Listen to yourself: "We have to censor all possible communication methods and imprison people for words because jokes about Montenegrins being lazy are going to cause World War 3". "Calling a gun-crazy redneck a gun-crazy redneck is hate speech and subject to a fine of no greater than $5000 or no greater than 30 days in jail".
- tabtab 8y ago
  You don't have to jail people immediately. Give them a stern warning. If they do it again, THEN jail them. Re: "[Silly that] jokes about Montenegrins being lazy are going to cause World War 3" -- A line has to be drawn somewhere. If the context is jokes, maybe let it go. But if it's part of a political rant that certain people should be discriminated against or removed, then a line is crossed. Maybe if you had the daylights bombed out of your community like in WW2, you'd have a different perspective. Fully free speech is nice, but so is being alive. Dead people have no speech.
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    Please tell us how your experience of being bombed in WW2 shape your posts on HN! If people valued safety over freedom, the war would not have been fought at all...the Allies would have simply signed over Hitler's gains to him in exchange for a cessation of hostilities. Oops they tried that at first. Didn't work. I think we can safely conclude that you do not speak on behalf of WW2 survivors
    - tabtab 8y ago
      I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes. Your other statement appears to be "if they had strategically been better, the war wouldn't happen." That perhaps may be true, but moot as far as I can tell. Humans mess "strategery" up because they are humans. An argument based on humans being perfect is an imperfect argument.
pas 8y ago
Fire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t... Interestingly, I think the majority of citizens would disagree with the ruling. (And it was partly overturned a few decades later.) Furthermore, the ability to state facts and opinions is important. If someone finds a culture oppressive he/she ought to be able to say it so.
- tabtab 8y ago
  Re: "If someone finds a culture oppressive he/she ought to be able to say it so." One can word it based on the behaviors alone: "I don't like it when people do X and Y" versus "I don't like it when Mormons do X and Y" versus "Mormons are bad because they do X and Y". Why single out Mormons when others may do the same? The first can communicate pretty much the same as #2 and #3 without potentially offending groups. I don't think the first two should be banned, but #3 is stretching it. If I ran a discussion forum, I'd consider banning #3, perhaps first with a warning and a how-to on rewording. If somebody believed "Hollywood is possessed by Satan", saying so wouldn't do any good. It's not objective and doesn't carry useable information. If you instead focus on specific behaviors, such as having too much violence & sex in movies, then a fruitful discussion can form without demonizing specific groups. If Mother Theresa produces movies with sex & violence, she should be held to the same criticism and standards, which should be based on observable actions/results.
  - pas 8y ago
    Agreed. Anyone criticizing should first establish the observable things (violence, oppression, whatever bias or other behavior) and then state the argument for how that is widespread in a culture, region, country, group. To address your examples, #1 is okay as it doesn't make any associations with a culture (at least if we assume X and Y are void of such), #2 is for me the most problematic, as #3 is directly claims that a culture/group/region has a problem, because X and/or Y, whereas #2 is just singling out a culture for no apparent reason.