4 ms·

Come on, man. I'm not a native English speaker who is well-educated in laws and social study. By bad speech, I mean the ones that a lot of people (e.g. Warren)

Come on, man. I'm not a native English speaker who is well-educated in laws and social study. By bad speech, I mean the ones that a lot of people (e.g. Warren) were yelling at Facebook to ban the accounts/posts. I would appreciate if you try to get the main point. Thank you

topspin 6y ago
> I don't understand why none pushes for a justice process for taking out hate speech and bad speech. The term 'justice' implies government. The administering of justice is ostensibly function of government, not private entities like Facebook. The unspoken understanding that perhaps you are missing is that it is taken as given that any 'justice process' created to prevent and/or punish unpopular speech will ultimately be abused and extended to effectively all meaningful speech that the Powers That Be (kings, presidents, whomever) don't approve of. That understanding comes from the experience of history and was the basis for the 1st Amendment of the US constitution. It is certainly true that in many places on Earth 'wrong' speech is criminal and is prosecuted. In the US the attempt to outlaw speech or prosecute people for their speech is what is considered 'wrong' and 'bad.' Those points in history when these principles were violated are understood to be mistakes and aberrations. So you don't get very far in the US with ideas of making speech into a matter for law enforcement or courts. With a few narrow exceptions we don't entertain these ideas and we don't reward anyone that tries it, or even suggests it, as you can see from the moderation. > By bad speech, I mean the ones that a lot of people (e.g. Warren) were yelling at Facebook to ban the accounts/posts. Senator Warren's views do not have the force of law and no one in the US is required to honor them. Further, Senator Warren's opinions are not universal. Giving Senator Warren the ability to control what expressions Facebook does and does not permit would require something on the order of revolution, probably violent.

topspin 6y ago

> I don't understand why none pushes for a justice process for taking out hate speech and bad speech. The term 'justice' implies government. The administering of justice is ostensibly function of government, not private entities like Facebook. The unspoken understanding that perhaps you are missing is that it is taken as given that any 'justice process' created to prevent and/or punish unpopular speech will ultimately be abused and extended to effectively all meaningful speech that the Powers That Be (kings, presidents, whomever) don't approve of. That understanding comes from the experience of history and was the basis for the 1st Amendment of the US constitution. It is certainly true that in many places on Earth 'wrong' speech is criminal and is prosecuted. In the US the attempt to outlaw speech or prosecute people for their speech is what is considered 'wrong' and 'bad.' Those points in history when these principles were violated are understood to be mistakes and aberrations. So you don't get very far in the US with ideas of making speech into a matter for law enforcement or courts. With a few narrow exceptions we don't entertain these ideas and we don't reward anyone that tries it, or even suggests it, as you can see from the moderation. > By bad speech, I mean the ones that a lot of people (e.g. Warren) were yelling at Facebook to ban the accounts/posts. Senator Warren's views do not have the force of law and no one in the US is required to honor them. Further, Senator Warren's opinions are not universal. Giving Senator Warren the ability to control what expressions Facebook does and does not permit would require something on the order of revolution, probably violent.