6 ms·

Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism? I believe we all agree that Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS should not be allo

Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism? I believe we all agree that Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS should not be allowed to use the platforms to propagate violence. Why are violent members of the Far Right any different? From the article: > On a now-deleted video on the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton by Canadian white nationalist, Stefan Molyneux (whose channel YouTube has now banned), the user wrote: “Hi guys, i need your help, i cant help but look at those shooters and think, that could be me. I watch Stefan, and black pilled and many others on the right. I think i should do the same thing they are doing.” > The user then went on to discuss methods of making explosive devices. > But the same user also discussed making explosives in other comments which were still visible on YouTube at the time of reporting, along with the user’s account. > On a video alleging acts of brutality by local police, the user appended comments urging others to “kill them, when you go to trial i wouldn’t find you guilty for shooting these criminals. Kill them all”. > According to Google’s reports, the same user appended racial slurs to videos reporting crimes which Google has since removed. These are public comments -- any user could report them to law enforcement. This seems like EXACTLY the sort of thing that SHOULD be reported to law enforcement for investigation. Law enforcement takes the tip and decides where to go from there.

cheph 6y ago
> Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism? Absolutely and the title should make it clear that is what is happening here. If this is the case then data was not shared because user was far-right, it was shared because the user's comments appear to be incitement and not protected by the first amendment[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  The first amendment doesn't apply to user comments on any Google property, unless that property is exclusively operated for and/or moderated by the US government or a direct representative thereof.
  - throwaway7851 6y ago
    First amendment protections from law enforcement (who these comments were reported to) absolutely apply to comments made on Google property, and anywhere else. It's disheartening to see such a stupid take on HN.
    - floatingatoll 6y ago
      The first amendment does not provide blanket protection from law enforcement, however much some US citizens wish otherwise.
      - throwaway7851 6y ago
        The first amendment also isn't as limited as you implied, no matter how much you might wish it. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected because of the danger, not because the theater is privately owned. The topic of discussion is comments that fall out of first amendment protection because of their content, not because of where they were posted. The authoritarian knee-jerk "first amendment doesn't apply to private companies" argument is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
    - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
      Free speech protects your right to not be arrested or otherwise punished by GOVERNMENT institutions for things you say or actions classified as speech. But it does not protect speech that is intended and likely to cause violence or intended as threat or intimidation. As ruled in Manhattan Community Access Corp et al vs Halleck et al the Supreme Court's CONSERVATIVE majority ruled that: "The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech." On this basis, Google has a right to remove or report content to authorities as it chooses: Conservatives decided that free speech protections do not apply to private platforms. With regards to police enforcement: in Brandenburg v Ohio the Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Comments advocating for violence and murder ARE NOT PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, per this ruling. Similarly the ruling of Virginia v Black held that while some forms of hate speech may be protected on their own, that protection ends when the speech is intended to intimidate. To quote: "a state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate." TL;DR: Free speech rights do not protect speech on privately owned platforms, and you can still be arrested for that speech alone if it incites violence or acts to intimidate others.

cheph 6y ago

> Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism? Absolutely and the title should make it clear that is what is happening here. If this is the case then data was not shared because user was far-right, it was shared because the user's comments appear to be incitement and not protected by the first amendment[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

floatingatoll 6y ago
The first amendment doesn't apply to user comments on any Google property, unless that property is exclusively operated for and/or moderated by the US government or a direct representative thereof.
- throwaway7851 6y ago
  First amendment protections from law enforcement (who these comments were reported to) absolutely apply to comments made on Google property, and anywhere else. It's disheartening to see such a stupid take on HN.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    The first amendment does not provide blanket protection from law enforcement, however much some US citizens wish otherwise.
    - throwaway7851 6y ago
      The first amendment also isn't as limited as you implied, no matter how much you might wish it. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected because of the danger, not because the theater is privately owned. The topic of discussion is comments that fall out of first amendment protection because of their content, not because of where they were posted. The authoritarian knee-jerk "first amendment doesn't apply to private companies" argument is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
  - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
    Free speech protects your right to not be arrested or otherwise punished by GOVERNMENT institutions for things you say or actions classified as speech. But it does not protect speech that is intended and likely to cause violence or intended as threat or intimidation. As ruled in Manhattan Community Access Corp et al vs Halleck et al the Supreme Court's CONSERVATIVE majority ruled that: "The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech." On this basis, Google has a right to remove or report content to authorities as it chooses: Conservatives decided that free speech protections do not apply to private platforms. With regards to police enforcement: in Brandenburg v Ohio the Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Comments advocating for violence and murder ARE NOT PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, per this ruling. Similarly the ruling of Virginia v Black held that while some forms of hate speech may be protected on their own, that protection ends when the speech is intended to intimidate. To quote: "a state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate." TL;DR: Free speech rights do not protect speech on privately owned platforms, and you can still be arrested for that speech alone if it incites violence or acts to intimidate others.