3 ms·

They're just having a chat. It's unethical to censor them. Perhaps they should be brought in on some other charges, but there's nothing illegal about talking. T

They're just having a chat. It's unethical to censor them. Perhaps they should be brought in on some other charges, but there's nothing illegal about talking. They're not threatening to kill anyone, are they? In practice, you see this as well. There's a lot of people posting on the Internet about how they're going to do this and that, but in practice most of them are just blowing off steam. I get why a site like Facebook which wants to have community standards would like to enforce it, but it should be up to the proprietor.

anigbrowl 7y ago
They're not threatening to kill anyone, are they? Yes, that's kind of the point.
- heartbeats 7y ago
  I'm having trouble understanding your comment; the problem is that they're not threatening to kill anyone, which means they can't be subject to sanction, which is bad because they should be subject to sanction because X? If so, I'd like to hear what 'X' is. Or do you mean that they are threatening to kill people? If so, I don't agree. In America, the term 'threat' has a specific legal meaning: > Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. If it does, it is what is known as a "true threat". Otherwise, it is constitutionally protected speech. Most of what is being discussed in these establishments is constitutionally protected. A casual exclamation such as "death to the Jews" or the common meme, "gas the k—, race war now" does not a threat make. Neither does serious advocacy of genocide of one or more ethnic groups. As we can read above, four elements are required: * advocacy of the use of force or of law violation * which is directed to inciting or producing lawless action * which is likely to incite or produce lawless action * lawless action which is imminent Genocides, under the relevant contexts, are usually not suggested as illegal actions. It is as if I argue that: 1. Marijuana ought to be legalized 2. If so, people ought to consume it I am not arguing for an illegal act, as if the necessary preconditions take place, it becomes a legal act. Furthermore, it would obviously not be imminent. Likewise, casual calls for murder of the members of ethnic groups seldom follow 2, 3, or 4. People joke about how, let's say, Muslims or Jews ought to be killed, or how the likes of Brenton Tarrant were justified in their actions, but it is rarely both directed to inciting or producing and likely to incite or produce lawless action, which is imminent. It is at most one of these, and being impolite isn't enough. You could argue that people's casual racism risks increasing terrorism, fine ('stochastic terrorism'). You have to break eggs to make omelettes, in my opinion. But what people are saying does not constitute threats nor otherwise violate applicable law, since America is a country of free speech, unlike Europe.
  - dang 7y ago
    Would you please stop? This combination of flamebait and pedantry is definitely not helping. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - heartbeats 7y ago
      I don't get it - I have not introduced any new topics, nor went on any unrelated or generic tangents or controversies. I've made the claim that the clientele of a specific forum do not generally make posts which by the legal definition constitute threats, which does not seem all too flamebait-y nor unrelated to the topic at hand.
      - 1000units 7y ago
        They understand what you're saying. You are of a common mind already in this sense, but they differ in how they feel about it. "Yes, yes, you waste your breath in misreading my feigned confusion. I just wish it weren't so. Please do not remind me, so we can pretend we live in another world until it finally comes." It's a gross dialectic, and extremely common. The problem with "polite" discourse is you can't just buckle down and say "F--- you; we are enemies. Our minds our here but our spirits there and there."

anigbrowl 7y ago

They're not threatening to kill anyone, are they? Yes, that's kind of the point.

heartbeats 7y ago
I'm having trouble understanding your comment; the problem is that they're not threatening to kill anyone, which means they can't be subject to sanction, which is bad because they should be subject to sanction because X? If so, I'd like to hear what 'X' is. Or do you mean that they are threatening to kill people? If so, I don't agree. In America, the term 'threat' has a specific legal meaning: > Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. If it does, it is what is known as a "true threat". Otherwise, it is constitutionally protected speech. Most of what is being discussed in these establishments is constitutionally protected. A casual exclamation such as "death to the Jews" or the common meme, "gas the k—, race war now" does not a threat make. Neither does serious advocacy of genocide of one or more ethnic groups. As we can read above, four elements are required: * advocacy of the use of force or of law violation * which is directed to inciting or producing lawless action * which is likely to incite or produce lawless action * lawless action which is imminent Genocides, under the relevant contexts, are usually not suggested as illegal actions. It is as if I argue that: 1. Marijuana ought to be legalized 2. If so, people ought to consume it I am not arguing for an illegal act, as if the necessary preconditions take place, it becomes a legal act. Furthermore, it would obviously not be imminent. Likewise, casual calls for murder of the members of ethnic groups seldom follow 2, 3, or 4. People joke about how, let's say, Muslims or Jews ought to be killed, or how the likes of Brenton Tarrant were justified in their actions, but it is rarely both directed to inciting or producing and likely to incite or produce lawless action, which is imminent. It is at most one of these, and being impolite isn't enough. You could argue that people's casual racism risks increasing terrorism, fine ('stochastic terrorism'). You have to break eggs to make omelettes, in my opinion. But what people are saying does not constitute threats nor otherwise violate applicable law, since America is a country of free speech, unlike Europe.
- dang 7y ago
  Would you please stop? This combination of flamebait and pedantry is definitely not helping. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - heartbeats 7y ago
    I don't get it - I have not introduced any new topics, nor went on any unrelated or generic tangents or controversies. I've made the claim that the clientele of a specific forum do not generally make posts which by the legal definition constitute threats, which does not seem all too flamebait-y nor unrelated to the topic at hand.
    - 1000units 7y ago
      They understand what you're saying. You are of a common mind already in this sense, but they differ in how they feel about it. "Yes, yes, you waste your breath in misreading my feigned confusion. I just wish it weren't so. Please do not remind me, so we can pretend we live in another world until it finally comes." It's a gross dialectic, and extremely common. The problem with "polite" discourse is you can't just buckle down and say "F--- you; we are enemies. Our minds our here but our spirits there and there."