3 ms·

"Give an inch give a mile" It's the ability to chip away at free speech. First 8chan, then something else that's bad, then something slightly intolerant, then

"Give an inch give a mile" It's the ability to chip away at free speech. First 8chan, then something else that's bad, then something slightly intolerant, then what? Is it really worth censoring when something else will pop up to take it's place? Monitor and move on.

LargeWu 7y ago
I see you have invoked the Slippery Slope fallacy, which is primarily a way to sidestep talking about the actual issue at hand by comparing it to hypothetical events. What's not hypothetical is that scores of people are dying in the meantime. Furthermore, the First Amendment was designed by the founders as a way to protect citizens who criticized the government. I find it unbelievable that they themselves would support extending those protections towards people who would seek to explicitly provoke mass, random violence. It is illegal to be an accessory to murder. It is illegal to incite riots. I still haven't heard a good reason why forums that are havens for users openly and explicitly encouraging terroristic acts should not bear any responsibility, beyond lazy slippery slope arguments.
- AimForTheBushes 7y ago
  What you've described in the second paragraph isn't protected by free speech.
  - LargeWu 7y ago
    Yes, that's exactly my point. And the content on 8chan should also not be protected, as it's inciting violence.
- read_if_gay_ 7y ago
  > What's not hypothetical is that scores of people are dying in the meantime. What’s hypothetical is that banning 8ch will do anything about that. > Furthermore, the First Amendment was designed by the founders as a way to protect citizens who criticized the government. I find it unbelievable that they themselves would support extending those protections towards people who would seek to explicitly provoke mass, random violence. Another thing that’s hypothetical. > I still haven't heard a good reason why forums that are havens for users openly and explicitly encouraging terroristic acts should not bear any responsibility, beyond lazy slippery slope arguments. Considering you’re just dismissing the presented argument as a fallacy, it’s surprising that your own argument contains so little substance. Or is it?

LargeWu 7y ago

I see you have invoked the Slippery Slope fallacy, which is primarily a way to sidestep talking about the actual issue at hand by comparing it to hypothetical events. What's not hypothetical is that scores of people are dying in the meantime. Furthermore, the First Amendment was designed by the founders as a way to protect citizens who criticized the government. I find it unbelievable that they themselves would support extending those protections towards people who would seek to explicitly provoke mass, random violence. It is illegal to be an accessory to murder. It is illegal to incite riots. I still haven't heard a good reason why forums that are havens for users openly and explicitly encouraging terroristic acts should not bear any responsibility, beyond lazy slippery slope arguments.

AimForTheBushes 7y ago
What you've described in the second paragraph isn't protected by free speech.
- LargeWu 7y ago
  Yes, that's exactly my point. And the content on 8chan should also not be protected, as it's inciting violence.
read_if_gay_ 7y ago
> What's not hypothetical is that scores of people are dying in the meantime. What’s hypothetical is that banning 8ch will do anything about that. > Furthermore, the First Amendment was designed by the founders as a way to protect citizens who criticized the government. I find it unbelievable that they themselves would support extending those protections towards people who would seek to explicitly provoke mass, random violence. Another thing that’s hypothetical. > I still haven't heard a good reason why forums that are havens for users openly and explicitly encouraging terroristic acts should not bear any responsibility, beyond lazy slippery slope arguments. Considering you’re just dismissing the presented argument as a fallacy, it’s surprising that your own argument contains so little substance. Or is it?