10 ms·

People are wondering "How far does this go? How can Twitter say this is not cool, but allow something like violent movies or games? Where's the line?" The lead

People are wondering "How far does this go? How can Twitter say this is not cool, but allow something like violent movies or games? Where's the line?" The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.

dijit 6y ago
We have laws in the UK that curtail speech like that, "Inciting violence" is a crime. Which I agree with to some extent, you're not innocent of a crime because you convinced a person to harm another, just because you were too cowardly to get your hands dirty yourself. But the US is rather famously not British, so I'm not sure if it's a relevant thing to add to the discussion.
- chooseaname 6y ago
  People in the US will say the First allows him say such things. They'd be wrong.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  I'm also on the other* side of the Atlantic from this circus, but a little googling over lunch led me to the "Brandenburg Test" for when "Inciting violence" is no longer protected by the 1A. (NB: 1A is an entirely different subject than Twitter's TOS, which I addressed in the original thread) Briefly: speech which both incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action fails to be protected as US "free speech". In this case, my IANAL analysis would be that the tweet had imminent application, but would be unlikely to produce action, for reasons given in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347453 (tl;dr lethal force is the last resort of a well-regulated militia when restoring public order) * and am therefore fond of "On the fact..." https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd06xx/EWD611.PDF https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd06xx/EWD611.PDF
- mjburgess 6y ago
  There's plenty of "speech" criminalized in the US: many crimes are just matters of conspiring to X, or fradulently X... which may have been conducted entirely in speech. The relevant kind of speech for "free expression" is that which seeks to express an idea/opinion/belief of the speaker. That isn't criminalised in the UK as far as I'm aware, and would fall under the EHCR protections in any case which are in UK law as the human rights act.
  - tombert 6y ago
    You could even argue that Copyright law itself, and particularly the DMCA provisions, are a violation of free speech. Obviously practically this wouldn't be possible, but if I were to write down all binary digits that my blu-ray of John Wick has, give it to a friend, and they wrote those digits down in their computer to watch the movie, that would be illegal for copyright violation. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have copyright in any capacity (though I do think that US's model is especially draconian), just giving an example of a curtailment of free speech that isn't really controversial.
    - ip26 6y ago
      If you want to go all absolutist reductio ad absurdum, you would argue that even treason (in the form of divulging state secrets) is protected by free speech.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  Part of the issue is if you're hostile to the speaker, you can interpret a call for peace to mean a call for violence. Try to imagine for a moment, that this comment was not made by an evil racist orange man, but someone you like... maybe Ghandi. If Ghandi said: "Looting leads to shooting." Which interpretation would you more likely choose? 1. Please don't loot, it escalates violence and people will get killed 2. Let's kill all the looters Whether it's Trump or Ghandi, we're imagining we know something about the internal state of the speaker's mind that we don't know.
  - ryani 6y ago
    This seems like attempting to weasel-word. If Ghandi said "We have a lot of guns, and looting leads to shooting", it's a lot more clear that the meaning is (2). Trumps tweet didn't just say that one sentence, it said, in order: * "the Military is with [the governor]" * "any difficulty and we will assume control" * "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" There's a clear causal relationship between these three statements, this is not a plea for peace, it is a threat of violence.
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      A threat of violence and a call for peace are not mutually exclusive. Regardless, all that's in evidence is the federal government is going to back the state and if this keeps going people are going to die. Anything else is something you've imagined/projected into someone else's mind.
umvi 6y ago
> The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting That's an extremely literal interpretation of his words. Most people would interpret that phrase to mean "you better think twice before looting because I'm not going to sit idly by and let you do it" but in the form of a vaguely threatening, yet catchy rhyme.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chooseaname 6y ago
  > The phrase was used by Miami's police chief, Walter Headley, in 1967, when he addressed his department's "crackdown on ... slum hoodlums," according to a United Press International article from the time. > Headley, who was chief of police in Miami for 20 years, said that law enforcement was going after “young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken advantage of the civil rights campaign. ... We don't mind being accused of police brutality." This is where the quote comes from. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-when-looting-starts-shooting-starts-come-n1217676 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-... Edit: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-race-riot-tweet-2020-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-rac... > The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that Headley's remarks and policing policies had been a significant factor in sparking the riots. > Headley died four months after the riots. The Times in its obituary noted his policies had caused "growing resentment" among black Miami residents. Our President fully understands the gravity of those words. This is what he wanted to say. This is what he meant. This is what he believes. This is WHO HE IS.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    There are many ways I would describe Donald Trump, but “deeply knowledgeable about American civil rights history” is not one of them. I can almost certainly guarantee you that Trump’s statement was not intended as an homage or reference to a Miami police chief from the 1960’s.
tootahe45 6y ago
> encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens Also, small business owners getting their livelihoods destroyed by thieving thugs.
- ikeyany 6y ago
  Rioters should not destroy businesses, correct.
TheHypnotist 6y ago
If the "people" you reference are incapable of telling the difference between movies/games and the POTUS threatening violence on his own people (and arguably a majority of the country), than this is exactly why Twitter needs to do what it's doing.
- mc32 6y ago
  So on the one hand people can tell the difference between presidential tweets and movie violence... but on the other hand they take all his tweets and interpret them in the most literal way?
chlodwig 6y ago
Do you think it is morally wrong for a store owner to protect his store using guns? Do you think it was morally wrong for the Koreans to sit on their rooftops with guns to protect their stores from looters during the LA riots ( https://warisboring.com/the-legacy-of-the-roof-koreans-28-years-later/ https://warisboring.com/the-legacy-of-the-roof-koreans-28-ye...)?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
illuminated 6y ago
I believe the person in question has crossed the line long time ago. And Twitter should improve their fact-checking and restricting algorithms and apply it all the time.
- ikeyany 6y ago
  I am in agreement that waiting to do something is foolish, but I can see why they did not wait any longer.
mc32 6y ago
Well, so do you censor things like Dr Dre’s 187 because it might be interpreted as inciting violence against (corrupt) police? A public figure of renown among fans.
- ikeyany 6y ago
  Two notes: 1) I am not Jack Dorsey and Twitter is not my product, so I'm not sure why you said "you". 2) Dr Dre is not the president of the United States and does not have the authority to direct law enforcement and the military... surely you see the difference.
  - mc32 6y ago
    People “affiliated” certainly can direct violence.
    - ikeyany 6y ago
      I think Dr Dre would be censored if he were president.
      - mc32 6y ago
        That’s a good thought experiment. They might. It seems they would under current rules. Maybe can run for mayorship somewhere and see what happens when he tweets.
      - jaquers 6y ago
        I think Dr. Dre is a sensible human being who's able to distinguish between art that he made 30 years ago and his current hypothetical circumstance, in which he would presumably act w/ the the dignity, prestige and responsibility of the office.
  - aikinai 6y ago
    "Do you" in a sentence like this is equivalent to "does one;" it doesn't actually refer to the listener, at least in American English.
jtbayly 6y ago
It is literally the president’s job to command the military. If he gives a warning that looting will lead to shooting, it is not glorifying violence. It is a statement of fact. And looting always leads to shooting, regardless of who is saying it.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > It is literally the president’s job to command the military. Even if one views the Tweet as a legitimate military command, which it is not, unless the government has seized Twitter with just compensation as required by the 5th Amendment, it is not Twitter's obligation to ignore its own standard sfor the purpose of relaying such orders by the President. Otherwise, except as to explaining why Twitter opted for the public interest notice rather than simple removal, the President’s job is irrelevant here. > If he gives a warning that looting will lead to shooting, it is not glorifying violence. That doesn't follow from the preceding, and the statement as written glorifies violence, both potential future violence and specific historical violence by the government against it's citizens, in much better the same way (though far more proximate historically and thus much worse) that it would if Trump said “Kill them all, and God will know his own.” > It is a statement of fact. It is quite possible to state a fact (or make a threat which one has the power to declare execute, which is more the case here than statement of fact) while glorifying the outcome that would be produced and/or the past historical antecedent which is invoked.
- philjohn 6y ago
  First of all, look up the Posse Comitatus Act. Next, the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments to the United States constitution. Telling armed forces to shoot unarmed people because they happen to be looting (e.g. when there is no imminent threat to life) is summary execution and unconstitutional.
  - zo1 6y ago
    Sure and let's ignore the fact that if anyone stayed in those shops and tried to prevent protestors from "protesting", they'd just be peacefully left alone by those violent criminals because... Some random X-th amendment? How about martial law, seeing as we're throwing around unrelated legal laws and concepts? Either way, these ridiculous "protests" indicate a complete break down of society and the government should be sending in the military to arrest people.
downerending 6y ago
Sword rattling is pretty standard behavior for leaders everywhere throughout history.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  Sure, alongside slavery, genocide and mass murder. Perhaps we might draw a line on occasion?
  - downerending 6y ago
    If you're not familiar with the phrase, "sword rattling" is something you do when you're trying to avoid conflict. If you want to attack someone, you just do it.
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      Disagreement doesn't imply misunderstanding.
dependenttypes 6y ago
> The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line. Is this supposed to be bad? I actually wish that our own PM had done the same. I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree. It seems that the US citizens are fine with state mandated violence as long as it does not include them. Nothing happened regarding https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 for example.
- tunesmith 6y ago
  > Is this supposed to be bad? Yes. > I actually wish that our own PM had done the same. That would be bad. > I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree. They are also bad. What is better is to have a functional police system that responds proportionately.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    Why would that be bad exactly? Anyway, I am glad that you did not have to survive through something like that. > What is better is to have a functional police system that responds proportionately. In times of mass-looting? I doubt that even the most functional police system could be able to help. That being said we are talking about the extremely dysfunctional American police system. I doubt that they can change it into a functional one within an hour. What would you suggest for right now?
    - modoc 6y ago
      It would be bad because it would be enforcing a death penalty for theft, and because it's extra-judicial (no arrest, no jury, no conviction, etc...).
      - dependenttypes 6y ago
        > because it would be enforcing a death penalty for theft Looting is not just theft > because it's extra-judicial (no arrest, no jury, no conviction, etc...). Is it still bad if the police shoot someone attempting to murder someone else?
koheripbal 6y ago
> ...shoot American citizens for looting... When the government uses violence to enforce the law... that's part of the system. ...but the more fundamental question is "Who gets to decide?". Should it be a corporation or an elected body?

dijit 6y ago

We have laws in the UK that curtail speech like that, "Inciting violence" is a crime. Which I agree with to some extent, you're not innocent of a crime because you convinced a person to harm another, just because you were too cowardly to get your hands dirty yourself. But the US is rather famously not British, so I'm not sure if it's a relevant thing to add to the discussion.

chooseaname 6y ago
People in the US will say the First allows him say such things. They'd be wrong.
082349872349872 6y ago
I'm also on the other* side of the Atlantic from this circus, but a little googling over lunch led me to the "Brandenburg Test" for when "Inciting violence" is no longer protected by the 1A. (NB: 1A is an entirely different subject than Twitter's TOS, which I addressed in the original thread) Briefly: speech which both incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action fails to be protected as US "free speech". In this case, my IANAL analysis would be that the tweet had imminent application, but would be unlikely to produce action, for reasons given in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347453 (tl;dr lethal force is the last resort of a well-regulated militia when restoring public order) * and am therefore fond of "On the fact..." https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd06xx/EWD611.PDF https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd06xx/EWD611.PDF
mjburgess 6y ago
There's plenty of "speech" criminalized in the US: many crimes are just matters of conspiring to X, or fradulently X... which may have been conducted entirely in speech. The relevant kind of speech for "free expression" is that which seeks to express an idea/opinion/belief of the speaker. That isn't criminalised in the UK as far as I'm aware, and would fall under the EHCR protections in any case which are in UK law as the human rights act.
- tombert 6y ago
  You could even argue that Copyright law itself, and particularly the DMCA provisions, are a violation of free speech. Obviously practically this wouldn't be possible, but if I were to write down all binary digits that my blu-ray of John Wick has, give it to a friend, and they wrote those digits down in their computer to watch the movie, that would be illegal for copyright violation. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have copyright in any capacity (though I do think that US's model is especially draconian), just giving an example of a curtailment of free speech that isn't really controversial.
  - ip26 6y ago
    If you want to go all absolutist reductio ad absurdum, you would argue that even treason (in the form of divulging state secrets) is protected by free speech.
Consultant32452 6y ago
Part of the issue is if you're hostile to the speaker, you can interpret a call for peace to mean a call for violence. Try to imagine for a moment, that this comment was not made by an evil racist orange man, but someone you like... maybe Ghandi. If Ghandi said: "Looting leads to shooting." Which interpretation would you more likely choose? 1. Please don't loot, it escalates violence and people will get killed 2. Let's kill all the looters Whether it's Trump or Ghandi, we're imagining we know something about the internal state of the speaker's mind that we don't know.
- ryani 6y ago
  This seems like attempting to weasel-word. If Ghandi said "We have a lot of guns, and looting leads to shooting", it's a lot more clear that the meaning is (2). Trumps tweet didn't just say that one sentence, it said, in order: * "the Military is with [the governor]" * "any difficulty and we will assume control" * "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" There's a clear causal relationship between these three statements, this is not a plea for peace, it is a threat of violence.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    A threat of violence and a call for peace are not mutually exclusive. Regardless, all that's in evidence is the federal government is going to back the state and if this keeps going people are going to die. Anything else is something you've imagined/projected into someone else's mind.

umvi 6y ago

> The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting That's an extremely literal interpretation of his words. Most people would interpret that phrase to mean "you better think twice before looting because I'm not going to sit idly by and let you do it" but in the form of a vaguely threatening, yet catchy rhyme.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chooseaname 6y ago
> The phrase was used by Miami's police chief, Walter Headley, in 1967, when he addressed his department's "crackdown on ... slum hoodlums," according to a United Press International article from the time. > Headley, who was chief of police in Miami for 20 years, said that law enforcement was going after “young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken advantage of the civil rights campaign. ... We don't mind being accused of police brutality." This is where the quote comes from. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-when-looting-starts-shooting-starts-come-n1217676 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-... Edit: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-race-riot-tweet-2020-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-rac... > The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that Headley's remarks and policing policies had been a significant factor in sparking the riots. > Headley died four months after the riots. The Times in its obituary noted his policies had caused "growing resentment" among black Miami residents. Our President fully understands the gravity of those words. This is what he wanted to say. This is what he meant. This is what he believes. This is WHO HE IS.
- philwelch 6y ago
  There are many ways I would describe Donald Trump, but “deeply knowledgeable about American civil rights history” is not one of them. I can almost certainly guarantee you that Trump’s statement was not intended as an homage or reference to a Miami police chief from the 1960’s.

tootahe45 6y ago

> encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens Also, small business owners getting their livelihoods destroyed by thieving thugs.

ikeyany 6y ago
Rioters should not destroy businesses, correct.

TheHypnotist 6y ago

If the "people" you reference are incapable of telling the difference between movies/games and the POTUS threatening violence on his own people (and arguably a majority of the country), than this is exactly why Twitter needs to do what it's doing.

mc32 6y ago
So on the one hand people can tell the difference between presidential tweets and movie violence... but on the other hand they take all his tweets and interpret them in the most literal way?

chlodwig 6y ago

Do you think it is morally wrong for a store owner to protect his store using guns? Do you think it was morally wrong for the Koreans to sit on their rooftops with guns to protect their stores from looters during the LA riots ( https://warisboring.com/the-legacy-of-the-roof-koreans-28-years-later/ https://warisboring.com/the-legacy-of-the-roof-koreans-28-ye...)?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

illuminated 6y ago

I believe the person in question has crossed the line long time ago. And Twitter should improve their fact-checking and restricting algorithms and apply it all the time.

ikeyany 6y ago
I am in agreement that waiting to do something is foolish, but I can see why they did not wait any longer.

mc32 6y ago

Well, so do you censor things like Dr Dre’s 187 because it might be interpreted as inciting violence against (corrupt) police? A public figure of renown among fans.

ikeyany 6y ago
Two notes: 1) I am not Jack Dorsey and Twitter is not my product, so I'm not sure why you said "you". 2) Dr Dre is not the president of the United States and does not have the authority to direct law enforcement and the military... surely you see the difference.
- mc32 6y ago
  People “affiliated” certainly can direct violence.
  - ikeyany 6y ago
    I think Dr Dre would be censored if he were president.
    - mc32 6y ago
      That’s a good thought experiment. They might. It seems they would under current rules. Maybe can run for mayorship somewhere and see what happens when he tweets.
    - jaquers 6y ago
      I think Dr. Dre is a sensible human being who's able to distinguish between art that he made 30 years ago and his current hypothetical circumstance, in which he would presumably act w/ the the dignity, prestige and responsibility of the office.
- aikinai 6y ago
  "Do you" in a sentence like this is equivalent to "does one;" it doesn't actually refer to the listener, at least in American English.

jtbayly 6y ago

It is literally the president’s job to command the military. If he gives a warning that looting will lead to shooting, it is not glorifying violence. It is a statement of fact. And looting always leads to shooting, regardless of who is saying it.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> It is literally the president’s job to command the military. Even if one views the Tweet as a legitimate military command, which it is not, unless the government has seized Twitter with just compensation as required by the 5th Amendment, it is not Twitter's obligation to ignore its own standard sfor the purpose of relaying such orders by the President. Otherwise, except as to explaining why Twitter opted for the public interest notice rather than simple removal, the President’s job is irrelevant here. > If he gives a warning that looting will lead to shooting, it is not glorifying violence. That doesn't follow from the preceding, and the statement as written glorifies violence, both potential future violence and specific historical violence by the government against it's citizens, in much better the same way (though far more proximate historically and thus much worse) that it would if Trump said “Kill them all, and God will know his own.” > It is a statement of fact. It is quite possible to state a fact (or make a threat which one has the power to declare execute, which is more the case here than statement of fact) while glorifying the outcome that would be produced and/or the past historical antecedent which is invoked.
philjohn 6y ago
First of all, look up the Posse Comitatus Act. Next, the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments to the United States constitution. Telling armed forces to shoot unarmed people because they happen to be looting (e.g. when there is no imminent threat to life) is summary execution and unconstitutional.
- zo1 6y ago
  Sure and let's ignore the fact that if anyone stayed in those shops and tried to prevent protestors from "protesting", they'd just be peacefully left alone by those violent criminals because... Some random X-th amendment? How about martial law, seeing as we're throwing around unrelated legal laws and concepts? Either way, these ridiculous "protests" indicate a complete break down of society and the government should be sending in the military to arrest people.

downerending 6y ago

Sword rattling is pretty standard behavior for leaders everywhere throughout history.

mjburgess 6y ago
Sure, alongside slavery, genocide and mass murder. Perhaps we might draw a line on occasion?
- downerending 6y ago
  If you're not familiar with the phrase, "sword rattling" is something you do when you're trying to avoid conflict. If you want to attack someone, you just do it.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    Disagreement doesn't imply misunderstanding.

dependenttypes 6y ago

> The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line. Is this supposed to be bad? I actually wish that our own PM had done the same. I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree. It seems that the US citizens are fine with state mandated violence as long as it does not include them. Nothing happened regarding https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 for example.

tunesmith 6y ago
> Is this supposed to be bad? Yes. > I actually wish that our own PM had done the same. That would be bad. > I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree. They are also bad. What is better is to have a functional police system that responds proportionately.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  Why would that be bad exactly? Anyway, I am glad that you did not have to survive through something like that. > What is better is to have a functional police system that responds proportionately. In times of mass-looting? I doubt that even the most functional police system could be able to help. That being said we are talking about the extremely dysfunctional American police system. I doubt that they can change it into a functional one within an hour. What would you suggest for right now?
  - modoc 6y ago
    It would be bad because it would be enforcing a death penalty for theft, and because it's extra-judicial (no arrest, no jury, no conviction, etc...).
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      > because it would be enforcing a death penalty for theft Looting is not just theft > because it's extra-judicial (no arrest, no jury, no conviction, etc...). Is it still bad if the police shoot someone attempting to murder someone else?

koheripbal 6y ago

> ...shoot American citizens for looting... When the government uses violence to enforce the law... that's part of the system. ...but the more fundamental question is "Who gets to decide?". Should it be a corporation or an elected body?