5 ms·

Shutting down a largely toxic website that fuels the flames of extremism is an order of magnitude less alarming than 50+ people losing their lives. I don't rea

Shutting down a largely toxic website that fuels the flames of extremism is an order of magnitude less alarming than 50+ people losing their lives. I don't really see much value lost in taking 4chan down, just like it's not a big deal if Stormfront or an Isis affiliated site was blocked. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, with no threat of consequences.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
freehunter 8y ago
In addition, New Zealand does not have have a blanket freedom of speech guarantee. In fact their laws specifically say speech can be suppressed to protect public safety.
NikkiA 8y ago
Is it even freedom of speech? The users aren't being banned, they're free to go elsewhere like twitter and take their lumps with their precious hate speech.
- insickness 8y ago
  That's like saying that the government can ban a newspaper because, after all, people can just read another newspaper.
  - reallydude 8y ago
    Well, there are an infinite number of newspapers via the internet, so that's a valid comparison. It's not a slippery slope, when the infrastructure to deliver a message is not affected.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      If it has no effect on speech, what's the point of banning it?
      - odessacubbage 8y ago
        impotent rage
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    A newspaper is publishing its own speech, so banning a newspaper is a direct infringement of free speech. 4chan and 8chan claim to be message boards where other people are saying things. This is an important distinction, because if they were claiming it's their own (protected) speech, they're liable for incitement, defamation, and various other crimes and torts in dozens of countries. But they're not. And while free speech laws might protect the content of speech they don't protect the manner of said speech or the forum in which such speech occur (except that in the US, "public" areas are open to all speech.) You're also missing the crucial distinction that while the words of the posts on 4chan and 8chan might be protected by free speech law, the acts they represent can be crimes, even in the U.S. And as I've already pointed out, NZ's free speech rights aren't as expansive as the US.
    - justforyoubabe 8y ago
      >while free speech laws might protect the content of speech they don't protect the manner of said speech or the forum in which such speech occur (except that in the US, "public" areas are open to all speech.) 4chan is public, dolt. When the tide turns and your precious group isn't in power and your views are considered harmful, just remember to take it on the chin, sweetie. ;)
    - icebraining 8y ago
      > while free speech laws might protect the content of speech they don't protect the manner of said speech or the forum in which such speech occur Yes they do, the standard may be a bit lower, but they still have to show that a bunch of conditions apply.
    - alexandre_m 8y ago
      According to your newspaper analogy, message boards are more akin to public spaces (privately owned). A government banning them because there can be some dissent speaches is equal to banning a pub because someone has said unpleasant things. The best thing you can do as message board owners is flagging the specific message as being offensive. Unless it breaks specific rules/laws, where you must remove the content, of course.
- spaginal 8y ago
  There is no such thing as hate speech, it is a political concept to crush dissenting opinions and limit speech. That’s it. Pushing it further underground out of public view doesn’t make it go away either. You get a further closed echo chamber that will metastasize. If you want to stop this behavior, you open it to a wider forum and debate and drag the people ideologically out of the muck. Censorship doesn’t solve anything. Engage with people and see why issues are popping up and engage with them or expect more of this to happen as you close them off from view.
  - adamrezich 8y ago
    Just vouched this comment; that it was flagged instead of replied to seems to basically reenforce what the comment says.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
aokiji 8y ago
You are a corporate censorship shill trying to paint any undesirable political targets into an "extremism umbrella". We are beyond that. Please stop.
natalyarostova 8y ago
>Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, with no threat of consequences Of course it doesn't. Who said it does? What it means is there is a governmental, and cultural, commitment to not bestowing authoritative power on the state to determine what people can or cannot say, read, or discuss.
StanislavPetrov 8y ago
>Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, with no threat of consequences. No, it means the government cannot prevent you from saying whatever you want. Its frightening how widespread opposition to free speech has become (especially among the younger generation who has been conditioned to accept authoritarianism).
- odessacubbage 8y ago
  we deprive children of their liberties for 12+ years and put them in a box where they are taught explicitly and implicitly that all that matters is appealing to authority, so why is it any surprise to see them so drawn towards authoritarianism? for that matter, why would they care about freedom of speech at all when they never get to use it? it might as well be as foreign to them as the polar bear.
  - StanislavPetrov 8y ago
    Its no surprise at all - I agree completely. Its extremely ominous all the same.
Torgo 8y ago
It is an undeniable fact that mosques have radicalized more people than imageboards have.
- snvzz 8y ago
  And that's not by coincidence. Not only will extremists find anonymous people successfully arguing against their points in these image boards, but the moderators are giving their best to delete the worst posts and ban the worst posters. There's nothing like that to be found in mosques. They're echo chambers.
sandov 8y ago
>Shutting down a largely toxic website that fuels the flames of extremism is an order of magnitude less alarming than 50+ people losing their lives. Under that logic, let's also shut down Twitter, Facebook and Reddit. Also, one thing has nothing to do with the other. >I don't really see much value lost in taking 4chan down, just like it's not a big deal if Stormfront or an Isis affiliated site was blocked. Censorship is fine if it's against people you don't like? >Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, with no threat of consequences. It means you get to say whatever you want without the state or other people attacking you for saying it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

freehunter 8y ago

In addition, New Zealand does not have have a blanket freedom of speech guarantee. In fact their laws specifically say speech can be suppressed to protect public safety.

NikkiA 8y ago

Is it even freedom of speech? The users aren't being banned, they're free to go elsewhere like twitter and take their lumps with their precious hate speech.

insickness 8y ago
That's like saying that the government can ban a newspaper because, after all, people can just read another newspaper.
- reallydude 8y ago
  Well, there are an infinite number of newspapers via the internet, so that's a valid comparison. It's not a slippery slope, when the infrastructure to deliver a message is not affected.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    If it has no effect on speech, what's the point of banning it?
    - odessacubbage 8y ago
      impotent rage
- gamblor956 8y ago
  A newspaper is publishing its own speech, so banning a newspaper is a direct infringement of free speech. 4chan and 8chan claim to be message boards where other people are saying things. This is an important distinction, because if they were claiming it's their own (protected) speech, they're liable for incitement, defamation, and various other crimes and torts in dozens of countries. But they're not. And while free speech laws might protect the content of speech they don't protect the manner of said speech or the forum in which such speech occur (except that in the US, "public" areas are open to all speech.) You're also missing the crucial distinction that while the words of the posts on 4chan and 8chan might be protected by free speech law, the acts they represent can be crimes, even in the U.S. And as I've already pointed out, NZ's free speech rights aren't as expansive as the US.
  - justforyoubabe 8y ago
    >while free speech laws might protect the content of speech they don't protect the manner of said speech or the forum in which such speech occur (except that in the US, "public" areas are open to all speech.) 4chan is public, dolt. When the tide turns and your precious group isn't in power and your views are considered harmful, just remember to take it on the chin, sweetie. ;)
  - icebraining 8y ago
    > while free speech laws might protect the content of speech they don't protect the manner of said speech or the forum in which such speech occur Yes they do, the standard may be a bit lower, but they still have to show that a bunch of conditions apply.
  - alexandre_m 8y ago
    According to your newspaper analogy, message boards are more akin to public spaces (privately owned). A government banning them because there can be some dissent speaches is equal to banning a pub because someone has said unpleasant things. The best thing you can do as message board owners is flagging the specific message as being offensive. Unless it breaks specific rules/laws, where you must remove the content, of course.
spaginal 8y ago
There is no such thing as hate speech, it is a political concept to crush dissenting opinions and limit speech. That’s it. Pushing it further underground out of public view doesn’t make it go away either. You get a further closed echo chamber that will metastasize. If you want to stop this behavior, you open it to a wider forum and debate and drag the people ideologically out of the muck. Censorship doesn’t solve anything. Engage with people and see why issues are popping up and engage with them or expect more of this to happen as you close them off from view.
- adamrezich 8y ago
  Just vouched this comment; that it was flagged instead of replied to seems to basically reenforce what the comment says.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

aokiji 8y ago

You are a corporate censorship shill trying to paint any undesirable political targets into an "extremism umbrella". We are beyond that. Please stop.

natalyarostova 8y ago

>Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, with no threat of consequences Of course it doesn't. Who said it does? What it means is there is a governmental, and cultural, commitment to not bestowing authoritative power on the state to determine what people can or cannot say, read, or discuss.

StanislavPetrov 8y ago

>Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, with no threat of consequences. No, it means the government cannot prevent you from saying whatever you want. Its frightening how widespread opposition to free speech has become (especially among the younger generation who has been conditioned to accept authoritarianism).

odessacubbage 8y ago
we deprive children of their liberties for 12+ years and put them in a box where they are taught explicitly and implicitly that all that matters is appealing to authority, so why is it any surprise to see them so drawn towards authoritarianism? for that matter, why would they care about freedom of speech at all when they never get to use it? it might as well be as foreign to them as the polar bear.
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago
  Its no surprise at all - I agree completely. Its extremely ominous all the same.

Torgo 8y ago

It is an undeniable fact that mosques have radicalized more people than imageboards have.

snvzz 8y ago
And that's not by coincidence. Not only will extremists find anonymous people successfully arguing against their points in these image boards, but the moderators are giving their best to delete the worst posts and ban the worst posters. There's nothing like that to be found in mosques. They're echo chambers.

sandov 8y ago

>Shutting down a largely toxic website that fuels the flames of extremism is an order of magnitude less alarming than 50+ people losing their lives. Under that logic, let's also shut down Twitter, Facebook and Reddit. Also, one thing has nothing to do with the other. >I don't really see much value lost in taking 4chan down, just like it's not a big deal if Stormfront or an Isis affiliated site was blocked. Censorship is fine if it's against people you don't like? >Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, with no threat of consequences. It means you get to say whatever you want without the state or other people attacking you for saying it.