4 ms·

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.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    According to your newspaper analogy, message boards are more akin to public spaces (privately owned). A privately owned space is not a public space...It's literally the opposite of a public space. A government banning them because there can be some dissent speeches is equal to banning a pub because someone has said unpleasant things. Nope, not even close. There's a difference between illegal acts and "unpleasant things." It's like the difference between a nuclear weapon and a starter pistol. 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. No, from the perspective of a message board, the best thing you can do is not let shit like that even infiltrate your board. If people want to spread and incite hate, they're free to spend their own resources running a message board where that's okay.

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.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  According to your newspaper analogy, message boards are more akin to public spaces (privately owned). A privately owned space is not a public space...It's literally the opposite of a public space. A government banning them because there can be some dissent speeches is equal to banning a pub because someone has said unpleasant things. Nope, not even close. There's a difference between illegal acts and "unpleasant things." It's like the difference between a nuclear weapon and a starter pistol. 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. No, from the perspective of a message board, the best thing you can do is not let shit like that even infiltrate your board. If people want to spread and incite hate, they're free to spend their own resources running a message board where that's okay.