4 ms·

And some of us believe people calling for hate and violence shouldn't be given a pedestal to spread their hate. If Twitch starts allowing Nazis to broadcast the

And some of us believe people calling for hate and violence shouldn't be given a pedestal to spread their hate. If Twitch starts allowing Nazis to broadcast their hate of colored people I am going to stop using it.

mirimir 8y ago
Well, what can I say? You can do what you like. But your position is not consistent with the US Constitution, for whatever that's worth. I don't like lots of what I hear. But the right to free expression is more important than what I like, or don't. From the ACLU: > Can my free speech be restricted because of what I say — even if it is controversial? > No. The First Amendment prohibits restrictions based on the content of speech. However, this does not mean that the Constitution completely protects all types of speech in every circumstance. Police and government officials are allowed to place certain narrowly drawn "time, place and manner" restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights — for example, permit requirements for large groups using public parks or limits on the loudness of sound amplifiers. Any such restrictions must apply to all speech regardless of its point of view. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/demonstrations-and-protests https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/demonstrations-and-pro...
- mirimir 8y ago
  Damn. So I know what it's like to have ~no freedom of expression. We used to distribute stuff that was printed at night on fucking mimeograph machines! You had to burn the stencils at the end of a run. Which is one reason why I ended up in the US. That, and the drugs. But whatever. Also, it's funny that much of what's now "politically correct" was totally unmentionable and censored in the 50s. If those who were "politically correct" then had done a better job at censorship, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
- XorNot 8y ago
  The US Constitution protects you from censure by the US government. There is no protection, whatsoever, from any private individual or corporation being required to aid you in broadcasting, distributing or otherwise conveying your speech.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    There is no protection, whatsoever, from any private individual or corporation being required to aid you in broadcasting, distributing or otherwise conveying your speech. False. This is another of the false narratives promulgated by authoritarians on the left, hoping people will just give up and go away. Free Speech is a fundamental human right, and it doesn't stop at the borders of government vs. private property. A Jehova's witness was trying to distribute pamphlets in a mining town, where basically all of the houses, all of the roads, and all of the sidewalks were constructed and owned by the company. The company said, "my town, my property, I don't want you to distribute your media." However, in the earlier history of the United States, it was jurisprudence that Free Speech holds priority over private property rights. The company was forced to allow it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc (Re: Silencing and hoping people will just give up and go away. Again, the obnoxious religious conservatives used to do this sort of thing to homosexuals. All sorts of bigots who held position and power used these sorts of cheesy tactics against racial minorities, alternative lifestyles, basically all kinds of non-mainstream people, because they had no logical, principled, meritocratic arguments. In the end, it was all about feels and people shunning others based on tribalism. That's not what a free society looks like. You need real discourse, not treating ideas like they're armbands.)
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Yes, this is what I was alluding to. Freedom of expression was essential for the fight against racial segregation in the US. And for the fight for homosexual rights. And yes, it's true that the Constitution only applies to government action. So private individuals have more freedom to discriminate and censor. Those rights are generally limited, however, for those who provide public services. For example, if you're seeking a housemate, or inviting people over for dinner, you're free to discriminate. Even over protected categories, such as race, religion and gender status. But if you're renting or selling an apartment or house, or running a restaurant, you are far less free to discriminate. In particular, over those protected categories. Indeed, you will be required to accommodate needs of those with differing abilities. The relationship of discrimination and censorship is admittedly complex. In most of the US, for example, shopping malls cannot legally discriminate against protected classes. However, they can freely censor speech. And exclude people who say or do stuff that's against their rules. Given all that, Patreon is indeed free to censor and exclude. Just as shopping malls are (except, as I recall in California). But even so, there is the expectation that operations that are effectively public spaces (even though they are not governmental) ought to respect rights to free expression. That was typically so for newspapers. And there's been considerable litigation over protests in shopping malls. So can Patreon legally discriminate and censor, based on politics? Yes, clearly. But can they legitimately be criticized for doing so? Also yes.
Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
Aside from what you say being inconstitutional, how can you not see that no suppression of freedom of speech gives you any real benefits, nothing besides just creating more problems on top of existing ones, no matter what your political cause is? If you hide people and prevent the people you disagree with from talking - they will just go underground and grow there. The public will just see that you have no real arguments against them (because you would have presented them) - and instead are trying to silence them. If you want real change, you need to argue with your opponenets, not try to push them into underground.
- Faark 8y ago
  Euro guy here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand your freedom of speech it only protects you from your government. I to doesn't give me the right to spout nonsense in a private space like your living room or on twitch and not get kicked out. You also have protected classes, but that's a different story. Social repercussion, up to casting people out of communities, can actually be a highly valuable since very effective tool in such situations. Humans are social beings, after all. But you are right, it must be used sparingly, otherwise those outcast will form communities of their own and reinforce each other.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >If you hide people and prevent the people you disagree with from talking - they will just go underground and grow there. To what extent is this historically true? In fact, the big instances (like the actual Nazis) were very much silenced by force; the Nazi State was not defeated through the Jews debating them. From Sartre, > “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” Maybe J.S. Mill's ideal would be better of revised rather than assumed.

mirimir 8y ago

Well, what can I say? You can do what you like. But your position is not consistent with the US Constitution, for whatever that's worth. I don't like lots of what I hear. But the right to free expression is more important than what I like, or don't. From the ACLU: > Can my free speech be restricted because of what I say — even if it is controversial? > No. The First Amendment prohibits restrictions based on the content of speech. However, this does not mean that the Constitution completely protects all types of speech in every circumstance. Police and government officials are allowed to place certain narrowly drawn "time, place and manner" restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights — for example, permit requirements for large groups using public parks or limits on the loudness of sound amplifiers. Any such restrictions must apply to all speech regardless of its point of view. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/demonstrations-and-protests https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/demonstrations-and-pro...

mirimir 8y ago
Damn. So I know what it's like to have ~no freedom of expression. We used to distribute stuff that was printed at night on fucking mimeograph machines! You had to burn the stencils at the end of a run. Which is one reason why I ended up in the US. That, and the drugs. But whatever. Also, it's funny that much of what's now "politically correct" was totally unmentionable and censored in the 50s. If those who were "politically correct" then had done a better job at censorship, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
XorNot 8y ago
The US Constitution protects you from censure by the US government. There is no protection, whatsoever, from any private individual or corporation being required to aid you in broadcasting, distributing or otherwise conveying your speech.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  There is no protection, whatsoever, from any private individual or corporation being required to aid you in broadcasting, distributing or otherwise conveying your speech. False. This is another of the false narratives promulgated by authoritarians on the left, hoping people will just give up and go away. Free Speech is a fundamental human right, and it doesn't stop at the borders of government vs. private property. A Jehova's witness was trying to distribute pamphlets in a mining town, where basically all of the houses, all of the roads, and all of the sidewalks were constructed and owned by the company. The company said, "my town, my property, I don't want you to distribute your media." However, in the earlier history of the United States, it was jurisprudence that Free Speech holds priority over private property rights. The company was forced to allow it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc (Re: Silencing and hoping people will just give up and go away. Again, the obnoxious religious conservatives used to do this sort of thing to homosexuals. All sorts of bigots who held position and power used these sorts of cheesy tactics against racial minorities, alternative lifestyles, basically all kinds of non-mainstream people, because they had no logical, principled, meritocratic arguments. In the end, it was all about feels and people shunning others based on tribalism. That's not what a free society looks like. You need real discourse, not treating ideas like they're armbands.)
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Yes, this is what I was alluding to. Freedom of expression was essential for the fight against racial segregation in the US. And for the fight for homosexual rights. And yes, it's true that the Constitution only applies to government action. So private individuals have more freedom to discriminate and censor. Those rights are generally limited, however, for those who provide public services. For example, if you're seeking a housemate, or inviting people over for dinner, you're free to discriminate. Even over protected categories, such as race, religion and gender status. But if you're renting or selling an apartment or house, or running a restaurant, you are far less free to discriminate. In particular, over those protected categories. Indeed, you will be required to accommodate needs of those with differing abilities. The relationship of discrimination and censorship is admittedly complex. In most of the US, for example, shopping malls cannot legally discriminate against protected classes. However, they can freely censor speech. And exclude people who say or do stuff that's against their rules. Given all that, Patreon is indeed free to censor and exclude. Just as shopping malls are (except, as I recall in California). But even so, there is the expectation that operations that are effectively public spaces (even though they are not governmental) ought to respect rights to free expression. That was typically so for newspapers. And there's been considerable litigation over protests in shopping malls. So can Patreon legally discriminate and censor, based on politics? Yes, clearly. But can they legitimately be criticized for doing so? Also yes.

Erlich_Bachman 8y ago

Aside from what you say being inconstitutional, how can you not see that no suppression of freedom of speech gives you any real benefits, nothing besides just creating more problems on top of existing ones, no matter what your political cause is? If you hide people and prevent the people you disagree with from talking - they will just go underground and grow there. The public will just see that you have no real arguments against them (because you would have presented them) - and instead are trying to silence them. If you want real change, you need to argue with your opponenets, not try to push them into underground.

Faark 8y ago
Euro guy here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand your freedom of speech it only protects you from your government. I to doesn't give me the right to spout nonsense in a private space like your living room or on twitch and not get kicked out. You also have protected classes, but that's a different story. Social repercussion, up to casting people out of communities, can actually be a highly valuable since very effective tool in such situations. Humans are social beings, after all. But you are right, it must be used sparingly, otherwise those outcast will form communities of their own and reinforce each other.
claudiawerner 8y ago
>If you hide people and prevent the people you disagree with from talking - they will just go underground and grow there. To what extent is this historically true? In fact, the big instances (like the actual Nazis) were very much silenced by force; the Nazi State was not defeated through the Jews debating them. From Sartre, > “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” Maybe J.S. Mill's ideal would be better of revised rather than assumed.