4 ms·

1) This part of the policy has not changed. 2) State actors warning about use of state force is likely not going to be taken as incitement of violence (inciteme

1) This part of the policy has not changed. 2) State actors warning about use of state force is likely not going to be taken as incitement of violence (incitement of violence is “someone should go and beat those people up”, not “the police, who are under my command, might go and do something” - the latter isn’t inciting anyone).

xyzzyz 6y ago
State actors warning about use of state force is likely not going to be taken as incitement of violence How do you know Facebook will not do that, when Twitter has already done exactly that?
philwelch 6y ago
It’s not clear to me that the Trump precedents were incitements of violence by that standard.
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  It's clear to me that they weren't, by any standard.
- freehunter 6y ago
  He had already used violent force to stop a legal and peaceful protest for no legal reason and was threatening to do it again. That sounds exactly like “someone should go beat those people up”.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    No, it doesn't. "Someone should go beat those people up" is an incitement to violence because the intended message is to encourage the listener to go beat those people up. "If those people don't stop misbehaving, I will send the police to stop them" doesn't incite violence; it merely warns or threatens the use of one's legal power to directly order violence. Government officials make these kinds of statements all the time. For example, consider this tweet from NYC mayor Bill de Blasio (https://twitter.com/nycmayor/status/1255309615883063297 https://twitter.com/nycmayor/status/1255309615883063297): > My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is this simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period. Or, for another example, consider President George H.W. Bush's statement during the 1992 LA riots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD_3NOIEk-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD_3NOIEk-0). In the statement, he discusses the thousands of federal law enforcement and military personnel that have already been deployed to the LA area before saying: > And let me assure you: I will use whatever force is necessary to restore order. What is going on in L.A. must and will stop. As your President, I guarantee you this violence will end. An incitement to public violence can be censored in the interest of preventing violence, but censoring statements from government officials does nothing to stop them from issuing orders to government personnel. Furthermore, if a government official states that they intend to exercise their official powers in some specific way, there is always a legitimate public interest in receiving that statement. It's not the proper role of social media to provide commentary on whether an announced or threatened use of official government power is legal, moral, or practical. Facebook and Twitter are not in the business of deciding questions of constitutional law.

xyzzyz 6y ago

State actors warning about use of state force is likely not going to be taken as incitement of violence How do you know Facebook will not do that, when Twitter has already done exactly that?

philwelch 6y ago

It’s not clear to me that the Trump precedents were incitements of violence by that standard.

stronglikedan 6y ago
It's clear to me that they weren't, by any standard.
freehunter 6y ago
He had already used violent force to stop a legal and peaceful protest for no legal reason and was threatening to do it again. That sounds exactly like “someone should go beat those people up”.
- philwelch 6y ago
  No, it doesn't. "Someone should go beat those people up" is an incitement to violence because the intended message is to encourage the listener to go beat those people up. "If those people don't stop misbehaving, I will send the police to stop them" doesn't incite violence; it merely warns or threatens the use of one's legal power to directly order violence. Government officials make these kinds of statements all the time. For example, consider this tweet from NYC mayor Bill de Blasio (https://twitter.com/nycmayor/status/1255309615883063297 https://twitter.com/nycmayor/status/1255309615883063297): > My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is this simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period. Or, for another example, consider President George H.W. Bush's statement during the 1992 LA riots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD_3NOIEk-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD_3NOIEk-0). In the statement, he discusses the thousands of federal law enforcement and military personnel that have already been deployed to the LA area before saying: > And let me assure you: I will use whatever force is necessary to restore order. What is going on in L.A. must and will stop. As your President, I guarantee you this violence will end. An incitement to public violence can be censored in the interest of preventing violence, but censoring statements from government officials does nothing to stop them from issuing orders to government personnel. Furthermore, if a government official states that they intend to exercise their official powers in some specific way, there is always a legitimate public interest in receiving that statement. It's not the proper role of social media to provide commentary on whether an announced or threatened use of official government power is legal, moral, or practical. Facebook and Twitter are not in the business of deciding questions of constitutional law.