4 ms·

that last paragraph is something I've naively never given much thought and you're right. The rise of facist groups has really made me realize how disproportion

that last paragraph is something I've naively never given much thought and you're right. The rise of facist groups has really made me realize how disproportionate 'free speech' can be. The first example that comes to mind is police presence at protests against them. If 100 of them show up and 1000 counter protestors show up then the onus is on the police to protect their protest. The minorities targeted by these hate groups are at a disadvantage in so many ways, they are more likely targets of the police, they are more likely to already have convictions so the risks are higher in the legal system. They are much more likely to be killed by the police. free speech is not necessarily a level playing field and these groups are both aware and weaponize that.

sintaxi 8y ago
The manifesto includes direct calls to violence. So promoting and spreading the manifesto in that way should be a crime. However, reading and sharing the material for informing ones self should be seen as right that one has - especially since it is being used as justification to take rights and freedoms away.
- seventhtiger 8y ago
  Any radical voice that made the news, in any light, has gotten a larger following. Every single time a moderate brings a radical to debate it is a net gain for the radical. You can measure this by simply plotting the number of various social media followings such voices have, and plotting them against time and marking notable appearances. If someone is so radical they reject all authority, whether it's political or scientific or religious, and they can justify any conspiracy that fits their world view, then they have constructed an immunity to information. Whatever evidence you give, no matter how hot your take is, no matter what your message or framing is, hosting such voices on your platform becomes an enabler. I'm not for expanded censorship of ideology or debate. I'm for better prosecution of incitement of violence. This should also include spreading of false information designed to create a false sense of distress and push people to violence. Whether you think this applies to the alt-right, ISIS, or antifa doesn't matter. What's important is combating the rampant incitement of violence that social media is enabling.
  - sdwisely 8y ago
    > I'm for better prosecution of incitement of violence. This should also include spreading of false information designed to create a false sense of distress and push people to violence. I think this is the only option that ticks all the boxes for the solution I've been trying to find in my head.
    - sintaxi 8y ago
      "This is the result of a massacre, stoked by people like you and the words you put out [...] 49 people died because of the rhetoric you put out there." Those are the words that were used to accuse Chelsea Clinton of being responsible for the attack - which means according to those who confronted Chelsea Clinton she would meet the standard you have just set. Do you see the problem?
      - seventhtiger 8y ago
        We don't have to wait for the massacres and wait for the accusations. Inciting rhetoric can be defined. "Go kill them" is already illegal rhetoric. Why isn't "Get your guns and be ready. Something is happening. We are at war. They're coming to kill us." Violence, other than in direct physical self defense, should be the exclusive domain of the state.
        repolfx 8y ago
        That second example isn't "inciting violence", that's self defence! This should be obvious but how does your law work in a situation where, in fact, there is a war and there are people coming to kill us. Or are you naively believing that we live in some sort of utopian post-conflict era, in which self defence against armed groups will never be necessary?
        seventhtiger 8y ago
        The difference between mob justice and lawful justice is government. Declaration of war is the exclusive right of the government. How can random citizens declaring war be any less than incitement of violence? Self defense is legally defined. It's not about a general fear of future outcomes. It's about preventing immediate physical harm. If you're urgently telling people to defend themselves from someone not even in the room, and is actually just a description of a group of people, then that's not self defense in any meaningful way. That's also incitement of violence.
- rimliu 8y ago
  Should we ban religious texts then too?

sintaxi 8y ago

The manifesto includes direct calls to violence. So promoting and spreading the manifesto in that way should be a crime. However, reading and sharing the material for informing ones self should be seen as right that one has - especially since it is being used as justification to take rights and freedoms away.

seventhtiger 8y ago
Any radical voice that made the news, in any light, has gotten a larger following. Every single time a moderate brings a radical to debate it is a net gain for the radical. You can measure this by simply plotting the number of various social media followings such voices have, and plotting them against time and marking notable appearances. If someone is so radical they reject all authority, whether it's political or scientific or religious, and they can justify any conspiracy that fits their world view, then they have constructed an immunity to information. Whatever evidence you give, no matter how hot your take is, no matter what your message or framing is, hosting such voices on your platform becomes an enabler. I'm not for expanded censorship of ideology or debate. I'm for better prosecution of incitement of violence. This should also include spreading of false information designed to create a false sense of distress and push people to violence. Whether you think this applies to the alt-right, ISIS, or antifa doesn't matter. What's important is combating the rampant incitement of violence that social media is enabling.
- sdwisely 8y ago
  > I'm for better prosecution of incitement of violence. This should also include spreading of false information designed to create a false sense of distress and push people to violence. I think this is the only option that ticks all the boxes for the solution I've been trying to find in my head.
  - sintaxi 8y ago
    "This is the result of a massacre, stoked by people like you and the words you put out [...] 49 people died because of the rhetoric you put out there." Those are the words that were used to accuse Chelsea Clinton of being responsible for the attack - which means according to those who confronted Chelsea Clinton she would meet the standard you have just set. Do you see the problem?
    - seventhtiger 8y ago
      We don't have to wait for the massacres and wait for the accusations. Inciting rhetoric can be defined. "Go kill them" is already illegal rhetoric. Why isn't "Get your guns and be ready. Something is happening. We are at war. They're coming to kill us." Violence, other than in direct physical self defense, should be the exclusive domain of the state.
      - repolfx 8y ago
        That second example isn't "inciting violence", that's self defence! This should be obvious but how does your law work in a situation where, in fact, there is a war and there are people coming to kill us. Or are you naively believing that we live in some sort of utopian post-conflict era, in which self defence against armed groups will never be necessary?
        seventhtiger 8y ago
        The difference between mob justice and lawful justice is government. Declaration of war is the exclusive right of the government. How can random citizens declaring war be any less than incitement of violence? Self defense is legally defined. It's not about a general fear of future outcomes. It's about preventing immediate physical harm. If you're urgently telling people to defend themselves from someone not even in the room, and is actually just a description of a group of people, then that's not self defense in any meaningful way. That's also incitement of violence.
rimliu 8y ago
Should we ban religious texts then too?