3 ms·

Sorry: NO. If someone is murdered the murderer is responsible, not the person who wrote abusive lyrics or twitter comments. On the other hand, if you shout "fi

by Udik 8y ago

Sorry: NO. If someone is murdered the murderer is responsible, not the person who wrote abusive lyrics or twitter comments. On the other hand, if you shout "fire" in a crowded place, you make yourself responsible of causing a dangerous situation. Same as flying a drone over an airport or throwing stones from a building.

peterwwillis 8y ago
Actually, In Chicago, with drill music, the murderer and the person who wrote the lyrics are sometimes one in the same. But even when they aren't personally murdering someone, often their 'hitter' is. And the music's gang-specific nature actually encourages 'beefs' over territory which quickly become violent. The music is literally crafting violence, by being the dog-whistle of gang politics. You can see parallels with white extremists that write racist screeds, and later go on to commit violence themselves, or when their writing inspires violence. One former white supremacist who was the leader of a popular white supremacist punk band admitted he knew there were people who committed violence and quoted his music as an inspiration, which in part helped him leave his old views behind. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, music can't keep a revolution going. But it can and does encourage people to act.
- _Tev 8y ago
  I think you missed the point of importance of clear link between violence-inciting-speech and actual violence. Because a lot of stuff today gets labeled as "hate speech" without direct violent consenquences - and that is the problem. Because once you relax the standards for the link between violence and speech, you can ban as "hate speech" _anything_. And I am not meaning just "controversial" social/political views - for example FPS games were often tarred as "violence inciting" with little to no evidence just 15years ago. In current framework, that would be enough to actually ban them. Do you really think it's a good idea to go down this rabbit hole of banning anything that "might" lead to violence one day? Does it mean we should ignore dogwhistling? Honestly, I don't know. It's a really hard problem I think. And current "solutions" of deplatforming "extremists" don't seem to be working towards reducing actual violence / social tension, so I don't think it's the right approach.

by Udik 8y ago

peterwwillis 8y ago

Actually, In Chicago, with drill music, the murderer and the person who wrote the lyrics are sometimes one in the same. But even when they aren't personally murdering someone, often their 'hitter' is. And the music's gang-specific nature actually encourages 'beefs' over territory which quickly become violent. The music is literally crafting violence, by being the dog-whistle of gang politics. You can see parallels with white extremists that write racist screeds, and later go on to commit violence themselves, or when their writing inspires violence. One former white supremacist who was the leader of a popular white supremacist punk band admitted he knew there were people who committed violence and quoted his music as an inspiration, which in part helped him leave his old views behind. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, music can't keep a revolution going. But it can and does encourage people to act.

_Tev 8y ago
I think you missed the point of importance of clear link between violence-inciting-speech and actual violence. Because a lot of stuff today gets labeled as "hate speech" without direct violent consenquences - and that is the problem. Because once you relax the standards for the link between violence and speech, you can ban as "hate speech" _anything_. And I am not meaning just "controversial" social/political views - for example FPS games were often tarred as "violence inciting" with little to no evidence just 15years ago. In current framework, that would be enough to actually ban them. Do you really think it's a good idea to go down this rabbit hole of banning anything that "might" lead to violence one day? Does it mean we should ignore dogwhistling? Honestly, I don't know. It's a really hard problem I think. And current "solutions" of deplatforming "extremists" don't seem to be working towards reducing actual violence / social tension, so I don't think it's the right approach.