3 ms·

> Hate speech may be in a dictionary but its not well enough defined to decide whether or not someone actually broke any law In many countries it IS defined in

by zapnuk 6y ago

> Hate speech may be in a dictionary but its not well enough defined to decide whether or not someone actually broke any law In many countries it IS defined in such a way. >"how do we get there?" Peacefully maybe? Maybe not? Maybe its just a really stupid idea and there is no reason to find a way to get there? But anyway there is no call for violence anywhere in the expressed opinion. If you argue against every option but violence, you indicate your support indirectly. > Consequently? Really? Yes. The radicalization patterns are well documented and it starts with self proclaimed intellectuals who use lies to lead viewers down a certain path that leads to even more extreme views. Same holds for Muslim extremists. And while we don't ban the Quran, we DO ban or investigate some religious groups. Now, this is in some ways more easy because they often meet in real life.

noxer 6y ago
>If you argue against every option but violence, you indicate your support indirectly. Absolutely not. See my example above about solving the worlds poverty problem. I've never heard of a peaceful solution that I think would work. Therefore I would argue against all ideas and uncover their flaws. That doesn't mean I would support a violent solution at all. Also the "implied support" you seem to talk about is not an action or a call to action it's an opinion. Opinions again go under free speech and it still doesn't matter if the opinions is somehow flawed/wrong/offensive to you or someone else. For example I could express the opinion that earth would be a better place without humans. That's not a call for action/violence even if is almost certainly impossible to find a non-violent way to achieve this. >[...]who use lies to lead viewers down a certain path[...] Lies are protected by free speech if they are expressed to voluntary listeners with no relationship between the parties. There is really no difference between expressing a objectively wrong opinion and intentionally expressing something you know is wrong. See flatearther/hollow earther, Alien abduction believers, homeopaths etc. etc. Whether they believe the crap they teach or intentionally lie never mattered. Homeopaths probably causes thousands of death per year and its a billion dollar fraudulent but legal industry that causes real damage to people who practice it but also to tax payers. Ever heard of homeopaths getting banned for hate speech? For lying? For leading "viewers down a certain path that leads to even more extreme views" like abandoning real medicine? >we DO ban or investigate some religious groups. We do that with right and left-wing extremest groups too based on real investigations the applicable laws and court rulings which should respect free speech. Now with all the reasons mentioned why we should not banning opinions, how about telling us why we should? Does removing some ethnostates sympathizer from YouTube really solve a problem? And if so which one?

by zapnuk 6y ago

noxer 6y ago

>If you argue against every option but violence, you indicate your support indirectly. Absolutely not. See my example above about solving the worlds poverty problem. I've never heard of a peaceful solution that I think would work. Therefore I would argue against all ideas and uncover their flaws. That doesn't mean I would support a violent solution at all. Also the "implied support" you seem to talk about is not an action or a call to action it's an opinion. Opinions again go under free speech and it still doesn't matter if the opinions is somehow flawed/wrong/offensive to you or someone else. For example I could express the opinion that earth would be a better place without humans. That's not a call for action/violence even if is almost certainly impossible to find a non-violent way to achieve this. >[...]who use lies to lead viewers down a certain path[...] Lies are protected by free speech if they are expressed to voluntary listeners with no relationship between the parties. There is really no difference between expressing a objectively wrong opinion and intentionally expressing something you know is wrong. See flatearther/hollow earther, Alien abduction believers, homeopaths etc. etc. Whether they believe the crap they teach or intentionally lie never mattered. Homeopaths probably causes thousands of death per year and its a billion dollar fraudulent but legal industry that causes real damage to people who practice it but also to tax payers. Ever heard of homeopaths getting banned for hate speech? For lying? For leading "viewers down a certain path that leads to even more extreme views" like abandoning real medicine? >we DO ban or investigate some religious groups. We do that with right and left-wing extremest groups too based on real investigations the applicable laws and court rulings which should respect free speech. Now with all the reasons mentioned why we should not banning opinions, how about telling us why we should? Does removing some ethnostates sympathizer from YouTube really solve a problem? And if so which one?