4 ms·

Part of the problem is that social media is both personal interaction and a form of publication. If you view social media as personal interaction then ask your

by maire 7y ago

Part of the problem is that social media is both personal interaction and a form of publication. If you view social media as personal interaction then ask yourself how you would react to statements in real life. You would shut someone down if they threatened you or people you care about. I have seen people go so far as to threaten people's lives, but more veiled threats are also in the social space. Call it censorship if you will. The definition of censorship I will leave to pundits. The pundits have decided to define social media as publication only.

ailideex 7y ago
> You would shut someone down if they threatened you or people you care about. I guess there is some ambiguity in this but large classes of threats are illegal: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Criminal-Threats.htm https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federa... > A criminal threat involves one person threatening someone else with physical harm. The threat must be communicated in some way, though it doesn't necessarily have to be verbal. A person can make a threat through email, text message, or even through non-verbal body language such as gestures or movements. However, some states require written or verbal threats, and in those states gestures are not enough. I'm not aware of anybody asking that this should be legal either or of anybody defending this. So at least in this regard I can assure you people defending free speech for the most part (>99%) are not trying to change the law to make criminal threats non criminal.
zentiggr 7y ago
Perhaps compare this to snail mail: if you recognize the piece of mail as coming from a known source of offensive material, you can choose to open it, discard it, or respond, as you see fit. This sort of filter just puts an envelope on material online so that choice can be restored/ported from earlier media behavior.

by maire 7y ago

ailideex 7y ago

> You would shut someone down if they threatened you or people you care about. I guess there is some ambiguity in this but large classes of threats are illegal: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Criminal-Threats.htm https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federa... > A criminal threat involves one person threatening someone else with physical harm. The threat must be communicated in some way, though it doesn't necessarily have to be verbal. A person can make a threat through email, text message, or even through non-verbal body language such as gestures or movements. However, some states require written or verbal threats, and in those states gestures are not enough. I'm not aware of anybody asking that this should be legal either or of anybody defending this. So at least in this regard I can assure you people defending free speech for the most part (>99%) are not trying to change the law to make criminal threats non criminal.

zentiggr 7y ago

Perhaps compare this to snail mail: if you recognize the piece of mail as coming from a known source of offensive material, you can choose to open it, discard it, or respond, as you see fit. This sort of filter just puts an envelope on material online so that choice can be restored/ported from earlier media behavior.