4 ms·

The whole idea of free speech rights rests on the assumption that speech can cause action. There have been quite a few recent shooting sprees where the perpetr

The whole idea of free speech rights rests on the assumption that speech can cause action. There have been quite a few recent shooting sprees where the perpetrators either explicitly referenced online personae, or the investigation revealed they consumed these sources predominantly. That’s not to mention the obviously far larger number of people who don’t get radicalized to the degree where they livestream mass murder, but where society still suffer because they live out their hatred in less obvious ways. The idea that people aren’t influenced by what they read seems somewhat indefensible, anyway. Because if it were true, we could shut down the non-transactional parts of the internet without it having any effect.

naasking 7y ago
> The whole idea of free speech rights rests on the assumption that speech can cause action. No, free speech is a natural right. The recognition of free speech is not contingent on any outside factors aside from the recognition that humans speak just like they breath. > There have been quite a few recent shooting sprees where the perpetrators either explicitly referenced online personae, or the investigation revealed they consumed these sources predominantly. So? Did these shooters also go to the grocery store? It's ridiculous to ban Coca Cola because a shooter predominantly drank diet coke. You're a) inferring a spurious causation simply because you want there to be one, and b) even if there were a causation, that does not entail that the online personnae are in any way responsible for the shooter's actions. > The idea that people aren’t influenced by what they read seems somewhat indefensible, anyway. Who's defending that? The issue I'm raising is who's responsible for someone's actions. Speech is not action. The most widely recognized limitation on free speech is treating incitement to violence as violence. That's perfectly reasonable. Is that the case here? Doesn't seem like it, because if it were, they'd be charged with crimes.
- belltaco 7y ago
  >So? Did these shooters also go to the grocery store? It's ridiculous to ban Coca Cola because a shooter predominantly drank diet coke. This is ridiculous, if drinking diet coke made people violent and go on shooting sprees against innocent people, it'd be banned. We all know they're radicalized on places like 4chan, 8chan, Voat, Gab.ai, many alt-right subreddits, alt-right YouTube channels and Facebook accounts.
  - naasking 7y ago
    > This is ridiculous, if drinking diet coke made people violent and go on shooting sprees against innocent people, it'd be banned. We all know they're radicalized on places like 4chan, 8chan, Voat, Gab.ai, many alt-right subreddits, alt-right YouTube channels and Facebook accounts. And you can prove that these online sites cause people to go out and shoot people? Because actual studies on these topics have failed to support any such conclusion: https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/internet-and-radicalisation.html https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/internet-a...
  - Fins 7y ago
    Would you also support deplatforming Sen. Sanders as well then? It was his supporter who went on a shooting spree, and I don't think he was a big fan of Jones or Milo.

naasking 7y ago

> The whole idea of free speech rights rests on the assumption that speech can cause action. No, free speech is a natural right. The recognition of free speech is not contingent on any outside factors aside from the recognition that humans speak just like they breath. > There have been quite a few recent shooting sprees where the perpetrators either explicitly referenced online personae, or the investigation revealed they consumed these sources predominantly. So? Did these shooters also go to the grocery store? It's ridiculous to ban Coca Cola because a shooter predominantly drank diet coke. You're a) inferring a spurious causation simply because you want there to be one, and b) even if there were a causation, that does not entail that the online personnae are in any way responsible for the shooter's actions. > The idea that people aren’t influenced by what they read seems somewhat indefensible, anyway. Who's defending that? The issue I'm raising is who's responsible for someone's actions. Speech is not action. The most widely recognized limitation on free speech is treating incitement to violence as violence. That's perfectly reasonable. Is that the case here? Doesn't seem like it, because if it were, they'd be charged with crimes.

belltaco 7y ago
>So? Did these shooters also go to the grocery store? It's ridiculous to ban Coca Cola because a shooter predominantly drank diet coke. This is ridiculous, if drinking diet coke made people violent and go on shooting sprees against innocent people, it'd be banned. We all know they're radicalized on places like 4chan, 8chan, Voat, Gab.ai, many alt-right subreddits, alt-right YouTube channels and Facebook accounts.
- naasking 7y ago
  > This is ridiculous, if drinking diet coke made people violent and go on shooting sprees against innocent people, it'd be banned. We all know they're radicalized on places like 4chan, 8chan, Voat, Gab.ai, many alt-right subreddits, alt-right YouTube channels and Facebook accounts. And you can prove that these online sites cause people to go out and shoot people? Because actual studies on these topics have failed to support any such conclusion: https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/internet-and-radicalisation.html https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/internet-a...
- Fins 7y ago
  Would you also support deplatforming Sen. Sanders as well then? It was his supporter who went on a shooting spree, and I don't think he was a big fan of Jones or Milo.