9 ms·

> The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating such offenses isn't a limitation to free speech. For the

by Lazare 7y ago

> The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating such offenses isn't a limitation to free speech. For the same reason why, if you start shouting nig or monkey to black people in a shopping mall, the police is likely to intervene and take you away - and I don't think that any sane person would argue that they're violating your freedom of speech. Popper taught us that we can't be tolerant towards intolerants, if we really want to protect our tolerant rule of law. Everything you just said is essentially untrue when it comes to government censorship of speech in the US. Hate speech is certainly protected by the first amendment, with only a few narrow exceptions. Personally addressed, face-to-face insults, if deemed likely to start an imminent fight is not constitutionally protected. (This is sometimes called the "fighting words" exception, and it's much narrower than you might think. The law is quite clear that just because the words might yield a violent reaction, they're still protected. Cantwell v. Connecticut involved anti-Catholic "hate speech", as we'd now term it, expressed in public in a neighbourhood that was 90% Catholic, enraged many listeners, and almost started some violence. Still protected.) > You can still have freedom of speech while implementing moderation to make sure that hate speech, bigotry and fake news don't spread Only if done, as here, by private organisations. Regulating bigotry on message boards is the precise thing type of things that the first amendment prevents. There is no hate speech exception in the constitution. Hate speech is generally an example of what is most protected.

ptah 7y ago
yes, i think this is a serious flaw in the US constitution. other countries are more sensible and reasonable when it comes to dealing with hate speech
- collinstevens 7y ago
  Not a flaw, intent. Freedom implies freedom.
  - ptah 7y ago
    is that like "brexit means brexit"? :)
  - evgen 7y ago
    It requires a great deal of ignorance of US history to make such a claim regarding “intent.” The Sedition Act of 1798 was passed by Congress less than a decade after the ratification of the Bill of Rights and many of the same venerated founders who were instrumental in creation and passage of the latter bore equal responsibility for the former. The founders most certainly did not intend the sort of free speech that is enjoyed today, so the “intent” of the first amendment means little.
    - technothrasher 7y ago
      You're conflating the Federalists with the Democratic-Republicans. Madison and Jefferson, who were largely responsible for the first amendment, objected strongly to the Aliens and Sedition Acts. The Federalists were voted out of power in the next election, and the sedition laws were allowed to sunset quickly.
- nextmemorandum 7y ago
  It would be foolish to think the US founding fathers did not think of hate speech. There was plenty of hate speech directed toward Britain at that time.
- afthonos 7y ago
  Consider that every limitation to the first amendment ever allowed by SCOTUS was the government limiting the speech of a minority, and never the speech of a popular majority to protect a vulnerable minority, and then what you advocate for becomes empowering powerful people to silence the powerless. I don’t consider being against that a flaw. Reference: https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/should-the-north-carolina-gun-store-billboard-targeting-the-squad-be-unconstitutional/ https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/should-the-north-carolina-gu...
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    I don't understand your argument: are you saying that allowing hate speech (speech denying the humanity of, and inciting violence towards, certain groups) is good because SCOUTS has historically only limited the speech of minorities?
    - afthonos 7y ago
      I am saying that the majority will brand minority speech “hate speech” and use it as a bludgeon.
      - SiempreViernes 7y ago
        That is historically plain wrong, the oppressive majority typically invokes public safety to suppress the speech of the oppressed, not "hate speech". Apartheid, DDR, Nazi Germany, and slaver states all used variations of public safety to restrict free speech as part of their systems of oppression, and none invoked anything close to "hate speech".
        Ajedi32 7y ago
        You don't think "hate speech", as currently defined in popular culture, is being presented as a public safety issue? Just look at this very article: > we draw the line at platforms that have demonstrated they directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design
- rishav_sharan 7y ago
  Strange. As someone from a developing nation, this is one aspect of US which I respect the most. The ability to say your mind without repercussions even if it is not politically correct. In India, the governments are known to use sedition and other laws pretty liberally to silence free speech. I'd rather that this "serious flaw" remain, than the US too become the same as any other nation, where posting a joke on the PM can lead to jailtime.
  - majewsky 7y ago
    There is a middle ground. Germany is choke full of jokes and even hateful comments about politicians like Angela Merkel, and no one went to prison for it as far as I'm aware. But intentionally inciteful hate speech against racial/religious minorities can (and occasionally does) lead to fines or jailtime.
    - deepbreath 7y ago
      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/german-comedian-could-face-five-year-prison-sentence-for-smear-p/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/german-comedian-...
      - kaibee 7y ago
        Fortunately, with the benefit of hindsight, we can know how this story actually played out. > On 15 April Merkel announced in a press conference that the German government had approved Böhmermann's criminal prosecution, but would abolish the respective paragraph 103 of the German penal code before 2018. Intense criticism followed the Chancellor's decision, with speculation that she decided to allow the prosecution in order to protect Germany's refugee deal with Turkey.[3] The case was dropped in October 2016.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair
    - repolfx 7y ago
      So what happens when Germany gets a Chancellor that comes from a racial minority? We already know the answer: they will claim that attacks on them are racially motivated (regardless of the truth) and shut them down. Plenty of examples of that sort of thing going on today outside of politics.
- bluescrn 7y ago
  There’s a serious flaw in the US constitution, but perhaps it’s the bit about the right to bear arms, not about the right to speak/write words
  - neverartful 7y ago
    There is a process for amending the constitution. If enough citizens feel it should be amended, it can be. It's happened a number of times in the past (although not recently). The big danger is in thinking "we don't like that process, let's circumvent it". Selective circumvention of the law and the constitution eventually will lead to anarchy.
    - astine 7y ago
      Or more likely to tyranny, as it's those in power that will do the circumvention and they will do that to remain in power. Dictators rewriting the constitution to remain in power is such recurrent event it's practically a cliche by this point.
- lordlimecat 7y ago
  Have any of those "other countries" used similar laws in the past 100 years for political suppression and consolidation of power?
- bena 7y ago
  The only freedom worth anything is the freedom to be wrong. Freedom, like the song says, isn't free. But the cost isn't the wars we fight, the cost is the potential for that freedom to be used for nefarious ends. I'll take hate speech. Slurs. Insults. Incitements to violence. If it means that I cannot be arrested for voicing my displeasure of the government when my government steps out of line.
- skrowl 7y ago
  If you only support free speech when it's speech that you agree with, you don't actually support free speech.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
blacklight86 7y ago
I know that the American legislation is quite laissez-faire when it comes to defamation than in other countries (Canada, the UK and most of the European countries). But it still exists and I believe that the 8chan case still violated what's the defamation/slander bar in the US. According to these guys http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/ http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/ there's defamation when the defendant: Published or otherwise broadcast an unprivileged, false statement of fact about the plaintiff (true, many of the messages posted on the 8chan would talk about an invasion of Hispanic people who would mostly be into crime, something that can be disproved by just comparing Hispanic crime rates against those of white Americans). Caused material harm to the plaintiff by publishing or broadcasting said false statement of fact (true, 30 casualties is a textbook definition of "material harm"). Acted either negligently or with actual malice (true, the negligent behaviour is especially evident on the 8chan side, which failed to apply simple moderation guidelines even when advised to do so).
- djsumdog 7y ago
  > defamation/slander bar in the US Those are civil issues, not criminal.
  - jai_ 7y ago
    I don't understand why defamation and slander are not classified as a criminal issue.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      Because giving the government the authority to regulate such a broad and contextually defined category of speech is basically an end run around the principals of free speech
    - Nasrudith 7y ago
      Because it is abused to turn speaking truth about power into a crime. "Toughening up" libel laws is one of the steps dictators take to secure power from people who do things like point out they are dictators.
deegles 7y ago
What about hate speech spread by malicious foreign actors?

by Lazare 7y ago

ptah 7y ago

yes, i think this is a serious flaw in the US constitution. other countries are more sensible and reasonable when it comes to dealing with hate speech

collinstevens 7y ago
Not a flaw, intent. Freedom implies freedom.
- ptah 7y ago
  is that like "brexit means brexit"? :)
- evgen 7y ago
  It requires a great deal of ignorance of US history to make such a claim regarding “intent.” The Sedition Act of 1798 was passed by Congress less than a decade after the ratification of the Bill of Rights and many of the same venerated founders who were instrumental in creation and passage of the latter bore equal responsibility for the former. The founders most certainly did not intend the sort of free speech that is enjoyed today, so the “intent” of the first amendment means little.
  - technothrasher 7y ago
    You're conflating the Federalists with the Democratic-Republicans. Madison and Jefferson, who were largely responsible for the first amendment, objected strongly to the Aliens and Sedition Acts. The Federalists were voted out of power in the next election, and the sedition laws were allowed to sunset quickly.
nextmemorandum 7y ago
It would be foolish to think the US founding fathers did not think of hate speech. There was plenty of hate speech directed toward Britain at that time.
afthonos 7y ago
Consider that every limitation to the first amendment ever allowed by SCOTUS was the government limiting the speech of a minority, and never the speech of a popular majority to protect a vulnerable minority, and then what you advocate for becomes empowering powerful people to silence the powerless. I don’t consider being against that a flaw. Reference: https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/should-the-north-carolina-gun-store-billboard-targeting-the-squad-be-unconstitutional/ https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/should-the-north-carolina-gu...
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  I don't understand your argument: are you saying that allowing hate speech (speech denying the humanity of, and inciting violence towards, certain groups) is good because SCOUTS has historically only limited the speech of minorities?
  - afthonos 7y ago
    I am saying that the majority will brand minority speech “hate speech” and use it as a bludgeon.
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      That is historically plain wrong, the oppressive majority typically invokes public safety to suppress the speech of the oppressed, not "hate speech". Apartheid, DDR, Nazi Germany, and slaver states all used variations of public safety to restrict free speech as part of their systems of oppression, and none invoked anything close to "hate speech".
      - Ajedi32 7y ago
        You don't think "hate speech", as currently defined in popular culture, is being presented as a public safety issue? Just look at this very article: > we draw the line at platforms that have demonstrated they directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design
rishav_sharan 7y ago
Strange. As someone from a developing nation, this is one aspect of US which I respect the most. The ability to say your mind without repercussions even if it is not politically correct. In India, the governments are known to use sedition and other laws pretty liberally to silence free speech. I'd rather that this "serious flaw" remain, than the US too become the same as any other nation, where posting a joke on the PM can lead to jailtime.
- majewsky 7y ago
  There is a middle ground. Germany is choke full of jokes and even hateful comments about politicians like Angela Merkel, and no one went to prison for it as far as I'm aware. But intentionally inciteful hate speech against racial/religious minorities can (and occasionally does) lead to fines or jailtime.
  - deepbreath 7y ago
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/german-comedian-could-face-five-year-prison-sentence-for-smear-p/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/german-comedian-...
    - kaibee 7y ago
      Fortunately, with the benefit of hindsight, we can know how this story actually played out. > On 15 April Merkel announced in a press conference that the German government had approved Böhmermann's criminal prosecution, but would abolish the respective paragraph 103 of the German penal code before 2018. Intense criticism followed the Chancellor's decision, with speculation that she decided to allow the prosecution in order to protect Germany's refugee deal with Turkey.[3] The case was dropped in October 2016.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair
  - repolfx 7y ago
    So what happens when Germany gets a Chancellor that comes from a racial minority? We already know the answer: they will claim that attacks on them are racially motivated (regardless of the truth) and shut them down. Plenty of examples of that sort of thing going on today outside of politics.
bluescrn 7y ago
There’s a serious flaw in the US constitution, but perhaps it’s the bit about the right to bear arms, not about the right to speak/write words
- neverartful 7y ago
  There is a process for amending the constitution. If enough citizens feel it should be amended, it can be. It's happened a number of times in the past (although not recently). The big danger is in thinking "we don't like that process, let's circumvent it". Selective circumvention of the law and the constitution eventually will lead to anarchy.
  - astine 7y ago
    Or more likely to tyranny, as it's those in power that will do the circumvention and they will do that to remain in power. Dictators rewriting the constitution to remain in power is such recurrent event it's practically a cliche by this point.
lordlimecat 7y ago
Have any of those "other countries" used similar laws in the past 100 years for political suppression and consolidation of power?
bena 7y ago
The only freedom worth anything is the freedom to be wrong. Freedom, like the song says, isn't free. But the cost isn't the wars we fight, the cost is the potential for that freedom to be used for nefarious ends. I'll take hate speech. Slurs. Insults. Incitements to violence. If it means that I cannot be arrested for voicing my displeasure of the government when my government steps out of line.
skrowl 7y ago
If you only support free speech when it's speech that you agree with, you don't actually support free speech.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

blacklight86 7y ago

I know that the American legislation is quite laissez-faire when it comes to defamation than in other countries (Canada, the UK and most of the European countries). But it still exists and I believe that the 8chan case still violated what's the defamation/slander bar in the US. According to these guys http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/ http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/ there's defamation when the defendant: Published or otherwise broadcast an unprivileged, false statement of fact about the plaintiff (true, many of the messages posted on the 8chan would talk about an invasion of Hispanic people who would mostly be into crime, something that can be disproved by just comparing Hispanic crime rates against those of white Americans). Caused material harm to the plaintiff by publishing or broadcasting said false statement of fact (true, 30 casualties is a textbook definition of "material harm"). Acted either negligently or with actual malice (true, the negligent behaviour is especially evident on the 8chan side, which failed to apply simple moderation guidelines even when advised to do so).

djsumdog 7y ago
> defamation/slander bar in the US Those are civil issues, not criminal.
- jai_ 7y ago
  I don't understand why defamation and slander are not classified as a criminal issue.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Because giving the government the authority to regulate such a broad and contextually defined category of speech is basically an end run around the principals of free speech
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Because it is abused to turn speaking truth about power into a crime. "Toughening up" libel laws is one of the steps dictators take to secure power from people who do things like point out they are dictators.

deegles 7y ago

What about hate speech spread by malicious foreign actors?