5 ms·

> and he would like to censor every single word before it is public - that is not freedom, it is authoritarianism He never said that. He said that a publishing

by corrys 7y ago

> and he would like to censor every single word before it is public - that is not freedom, it is authoritarianism He never said that. He said that a publishing delay just enough to filter out potential illegal content (snuff, hate speech are illegal under US law) would benefit the society overall.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deogeo 7y ago
> hate speech are illegal under US law False - explained by a 1st Amendment lawyer: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amendment-slogans-20170608-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amen...
bassman9000 7y ago
And who decides what's filtered? Unless it's the judicial system, don't want it. If you have 2 opposing views, and one is delayed long enough, you've effectively censored it, in favor of the other. Which is exactly what's going to happen. Once the dissenting view "passes filter", the news cycle is over, the unfiltered view remains in everyone's retinas, the filtered one ignored, despite any merits it may have. This is just preparing the field for stronger, more arbitrary censorship.
- mempko 7y ago
  Who is deciding which content is promoted now on social media? An unaccountable algorithm. Isn't this just the flip side of the censorship coin? Except now the truth is being censored and lies are being promoted because it's financially better for the publisher. Wouldn't the most appropriate legal response to this be not allow social media companies to have any sort of recommendation algorithm and force them to have feeds that are linear in time of people who you follow?
  - bassman9000 7y ago
    The appropriate response would be to take them to justice if law was broken, and for you not to use the platforms if you don't want to, as a free citizen. The problem with the mixed approach is that these platforms get the official recognition they don't deserve, and the private censors we don't need or want.
manfredo 7y ago
Neither "snuff" (unless you're talking about CSE or other specific categories) nor hate speech are illegal in the US. The supreme Court has repeatedly ruled on this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_St...
- bduerst 7y ago
  That's because, unlike other countries, the US Supreme Court doesn't define speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group as "hate speech". That specific type of imminent danger speech and it's expression are not protected by first amendment rights. It's right there in your Brandenbug v. Ohio.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    The above commenter wrote that hate speech was illegal. This is not correct. I'm not sure what you think I'm missing here. The bar for speech to be inciting imminent lawless action is pretty high: > Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] against "Niggers," "Jews," and those who supported them. This was determined to be protected speech under the First Amendment.

by corrys 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deogeo 7y ago

> hate speech are illegal under US law False - explained by a 1st Amendment lawyer: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amendment-slogans-20170608-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amen...

bassman9000 7y ago

And who decides what's filtered? Unless it's the judicial system, don't want it. If you have 2 opposing views, and one is delayed long enough, you've effectively censored it, in favor of the other. Which is exactly what's going to happen. Once the dissenting view "passes filter", the news cycle is over, the unfiltered view remains in everyone's retinas, the filtered one ignored, despite any merits it may have. This is just preparing the field for stronger, more arbitrary censorship.

mempko 7y ago
Who is deciding which content is promoted now on social media? An unaccountable algorithm. Isn't this just the flip side of the censorship coin? Except now the truth is being censored and lies are being promoted because it's financially better for the publisher. Wouldn't the most appropriate legal response to this be not allow social media companies to have any sort of recommendation algorithm and force them to have feeds that are linear in time of people who you follow?
- bassman9000 7y ago
  The appropriate response would be to take them to justice if law was broken, and for you not to use the platforms if you don't want to, as a free citizen. The problem with the mixed approach is that these platforms get the official recognition they don't deserve, and the private censors we don't need or want.

manfredo 7y ago

Neither "snuff" (unless you're talking about CSE or other specific categories) nor hate speech are illegal in the US. The supreme Court has repeatedly ruled on this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_St...

bduerst 7y ago
That's because, unlike other countries, the US Supreme Court doesn't define speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group as "hate speech". That specific type of imminent danger speech and it's expression are not protected by first amendment rights. It's right there in your Brandenbug v. Ohio.
- manfredo 7y ago
  The above commenter wrote that hate speech was illegal. This is not correct. I'm not sure what you think I'm missing here. The bar for speech to be inciting imminent lawless action is pretty high: > Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] against "Niggers," "Jews," and those who supported them. This was determined to be protected speech under the First Amendment.