4 ms·

Nonsense. Do you think movies of child abuse are "free speech", or recruitment/instruction videos tot terrorist organizations, or inciting violence and hate? Wh

by cies 6y ago

Nonsense. Do you think movies of child abuse are "free speech", or recruitment/instruction videos tot terrorist organizations, or inciting violence and hate? What about Assange, he published some stuff, could that be free speech? Or violations of copyright? To me free speech is like free markets. The word does not adequately cover the implementation as boundaries do apply. There are little to non truly free markets (no tax, no imp/ex restrictions, etc). And there is not truly free speech. And to limit freedom to speech to prevent hate/violence inciting crowds to get a platform may --according to me-- be necessary in some cases and is allowed by many of the worlds constitutions. On top of that Reddit is a private platform, so they are free to set their standard, just like you may prohibit some speech in your own household (under the thread of being expelled or "no longer welcome).

bfieidhbrjr 6y ago
You're mixing up a lot of things. Child abuse is a physical act and isn't speech. Recruitment and instructional videos are speech. Assange is speech, but, he wasn't a journalist with protections for handling secret information. Copyright used to have a limited term before it dropped in to the public domain where it would become speech. These are all different things with their own problems.
- cies 6y ago
  > Child abuse is a physical act and isn't speech. I say movies of such acts. That's not the act itself. See Japan where comics that show sexual abuse of "young looking individuals" are freely distributed. > These are all different things with their own problems. > You're mixing up a lot of things. No, they are all current limitations to free speech encoded in law. I mean to say (please re-read my comment) that "true free speech" already does not exist (just like "truly free markets" dont). > Recruitment and instructional videos are speech. Try massively sharing those to the wider public: I'm curious how long you stay free or your endeavors remain uninterrupted. Lol.
  - pleasebegood 6y ago
    > See Japan where comics that show sexual abuse of "young looking individuals" are freely distributed. https://myanimelist.net/manga/127513/Dansei_Kyoufushou_Datta_Watashi_ga_AV_Joyuu_ni_Naru_made_no_Hanashi https://myanimelist.net/manga/127513/Dansei_Kyoufushou_Datta... A manga that depicts serious child abuse that turned the author into a porn star. It's written by herself. Maybe she shouldn't be allowed to express herself and hide it. We can all then live a happy fantasy where everyone is a good person in any depiction. My first thought when reading the manga, how can we stop this? Suffice to say, I didn't enjoy it one bit but I never thought this should be censored. There are many similar manga that depicts all sorts of stuff. Some of them written by the people which were unfortunate. It's also evident you don't care about the medium because you used the word comic. Censorship of evil acts was rampant in the history. People didn't want to admit what others were doing. There are broader issues if people are pushed to the extreme by media. Why would someone join a terrorist group after watching one of their videos? There must be something else causing the problem. The videos are a symptom, not a cause. Last, I have consumed media of both your examples. It didn't turn me into a child abuser or a terrorist. I want to help make world a safer place for children and terrorism free more than before. I want to stop it so it stops get depicted on its own.
    - cies 6y ago
      Interesting. So having a official terrorist recruitment offices in your town should be legal? (basically this is what the KKK is to me) I dont think so. > A manga that depicts serious child abuse that turned the author into a porn star. It's written by herself. I dont know if the piece was inciting violence against children. I think it does not, and if it would it'd be censored. Rightfully, imho.
      - pleasebegood 6y ago
        Incitement of violence and abuse is already illegal. I am not sure what your point is then. Your first comment paints a broad stroke. Please be more concise when talking about censoring heavy handed topics because otherwise you may be causing a chilling effect. And your example is not speech.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >Child abuse is a physical act and isn't speech. A video is a form of expression that falls under speech for all intents and purposes. There is no general caveat to freedom of speech which states that one cannot create a video of some illegal act. Child pornography seems to be the only exception in the US. Further, metaphysically, 'physical acts' such as burning flags fall under freedom of expression, and all physical actions are themselves expressive. We prohibit child abuse because it is abuse, not because it is a physical act and therefore not speech. The expression of copyrighted material, likewise, is speech. Disney is exercising its right to free speech by releasing a movie, even if that movie falls under copyright. Just as in the case of child porn, copying and/or distributing such media is a restriction on speech, albeit a widely accepted one. To me, there is no way to argue that child porn and unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material isn't a kind of speech, or at least a kind of expression. It is absolutely speech, just as sharing a video of a murder or theft is speech, and just as sharing some public domain music is speech, and it is also speech that most people agree should be restricted.
  - sebmellen 6y ago
    Your point about child abuse is ridiculous. We prohibit child abuse precisely because it is a physical act. If I said "I will whip my child 50 times", and didn't do it, that would not be child abuse. It becomes child abuse once it is a physical act. You make the faulty presumption that speech itself can be a form of abuse. This is where free speech absolutists such as myself would disagree. Speech is a protected class of expression precisely for this reason: it cannot be abusive. To argue that child pornography is a form of speech is rather ridiculous, if we define speech as "the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words". A form of expression, sure, but there are limits on forms of expression. I cannot choose to stab people as a form of free expression, nor torch a building.
    - cies 6y ago
      As said, and said agian, I mention videos of abuse (not abuse itself). I will not tell you this again if you still dot get that. > To argue that child pornography is a form of speech is rather ridiculous To lawyers it is not. Again this is about the video, not the act itself. You repeatedly dont get that difference. > but there are limits on forms of expression. I cannot choose to stab people as a form of free expression, nor torch a building. Great! you get it! We cannot allow all expression. Now on stabbing we agree. On abuse videos as well. But on inciting hate/violence we dont. May I ask why you want to defend inciting hate/violence -speech?
sebmellen 6y ago
The line where free speech ends is pretty clearly delineated, and that's when it crosses over into criminal or violent action in the "world of atoms". Almost all of your examples can be prosecuted based on their direct effect on the real world (or representation of a crime, such as with child abuse videos), not the content of their speech. The difference is crucial. To take things to an extreme, if I say "all XXXX should be killed", that's very different from actually killing all members of the XXXX group, or even plotting to do so.
- cies 6y ago
  So you want law to protect people that say "all X should be killed", then X is not demonstrably super violent/intolerant in the first place? Let's say someone campaigns that all people that have gay sex should be killed: do you want this "speech" protected? Well: I dont. That's why I think "intolerance of the intolerant" is good. Most law books in developed democracies agree with me. White supremacists, racists, fascists, extreme wahabists/salafits dont. They want to incite hatred/violence (to non-violent/tolerant people). I'd say shut 'm down and/or dont give platform.
  - umvi 6y ago
    How about religious people who believe gay marriage/abortion should be illegal? Should they be shut down as well?
    - DavidVoid 6y ago
      Depends on what they're doing. They definitely shouldn't be allowed to harass gay weddings and health centers that perform abortions.
      - umvi 6y ago
        What if they spread their ideas via proselyting and convert more people to their way of thinking, causing abortion centers to close and gay marriage to become illegal? Should that be allowed?
nickthemagicman 6y ago
I would argue that your argument is nice in theory, nonsense in practicality. Who decides what speech is hateful or violent and should be limited? You, me, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un ? How easy is it to label something as hateful and ban it? Very easy. That's the flaw in your argument, the human element. The revolution to create America had violent and hateful speech towards the British crown. Private companies can do what they want, but in public sphere the parent poster was right free speech exists to enable dissent, not support the status quo.
- cies 6y ago
  > I would argue that your argument is nice in theory, nonsense in practicality. Well, it already is encoded in law. Most countries prohibit hate speech and/or inciting violence, while most people consider that free speech is protected in those places. So it's already practical. > Who decides what speech is hateful or violent and should be limited? You, me, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un ? This gets coded in law and jurisprudence and gets enforced by police. Just like any other unlawful acts. Again: this is already how it works in most developed democracies. > How easy is it to label something as hateful and ban it? Very easy. See my other comment about pesticide. Please answer that question. Inciting hate/violence is quite easy to detect in practice. > That's the flaw in your argument, the human element. Please explain. I dont get it. It's all down to culture, true. But that does not prevent it from being pretty much universal. > The revolution to create America had violent and hateful speech towards the British crown. Yes. Which was behaving intolerant and violent in the first place!! Just like now with police brutality in the US: so much violence from them that expressing/inciting hate toward them becomes acceptable in my book. > Private companies can do what they want, but in public sphere the parent poster was right free speech exists to enable dissent, not support the status quo. Dissent have no need to exist when there is no oppression/violence/exploitation/marginalization. Hence dissent is the best example of "intolerance of the intolerant". Thanks.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Well, it already is encoded in law. Most countries prohibit hate speech and/or inciting violence, while most people consider that free speech is protected in those places. Depends. Germany for example takes a similar route as Reddit does. If you're Turkish, you're allowed to say "Germans are a dog race" when the German parliament recognize the fact that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians (hey, fun fact, they're re-activating their ISIS-buddies to try again right now). If a German said "Turks are a dog race", they'd be prosecuted. Hate speech isn't outlawed, it's majority hate speech that's outlawed.
djsumdog 6y ago
There are limits in every country for free speech. It's usually images of child abuse, threats of direct and imminent harm to specific people, etc. I just did a post about this: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/why-i-no-longer-hate-america/#the-freedom-to-speak https://battlepenguin.com/politics/why-i-no-longer-hate-amer... Remember, at one time, saying homosexuality was okay was considered dangerous, hateful, flawed and needed to be banned. Saying god didn't exist could get you expelled from a university, excommunicated from your community or killed. You only view some speech as okay today because you don't understand what some people went through to fight for that idea. Assange is clearly free speech. However leaking that information is a crime if you're a member of the US military (hence Manning; maliciously prosecuted by Obama, and then also symbolically freed by Obama). The NYT published information about Trump's taxes. That's free speech. The Person who leaked it committed a Federal crime. (technically NYT may be guilty of a crime here too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrvYNfsAgJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrvYNfsAgJY)

by cies 6y ago

bfieidhbrjr 6y ago

You're mixing up a lot of things. Child abuse is a physical act and isn't speech. Recruitment and instructional videos are speech. Assange is speech, but, he wasn't a journalist with protections for handling secret information. Copyright used to have a limited term before it dropped in to the public domain where it would become speech. These are all different things with their own problems.

cies 6y ago
> Child abuse is a physical act and isn't speech. I say movies of such acts. That's not the act itself. See Japan where comics that show sexual abuse of "young looking individuals" are freely distributed. > These are all different things with their own problems. > You're mixing up a lot of things. No, they are all current limitations to free speech encoded in law. I mean to say (please re-read my comment) that "true free speech" already does not exist (just like "truly free markets" dont). > Recruitment and instructional videos are speech. Try massively sharing those to the wider public: I'm curious how long you stay free or your endeavors remain uninterrupted. Lol.
- pleasebegood 6y ago
  > See Japan where comics that show sexual abuse of "young looking individuals" are freely distributed. https://myanimelist.net/manga/127513/Dansei_Kyoufushou_Datta_Watashi_ga_AV_Joyuu_ni_Naru_made_no_Hanashi https://myanimelist.net/manga/127513/Dansei_Kyoufushou_Datta... A manga that depicts serious child abuse that turned the author into a porn star. It's written by herself. Maybe she shouldn't be allowed to express herself and hide it. We can all then live a happy fantasy where everyone is a good person in any depiction. My first thought when reading the manga, how can we stop this? Suffice to say, I didn't enjoy it one bit but I never thought this should be censored. There are many similar manga that depicts all sorts of stuff. Some of them written by the people which were unfortunate. It's also evident you don't care about the medium because you used the word comic. Censorship of evil acts was rampant in the history. People didn't want to admit what others were doing. There are broader issues if people are pushed to the extreme by media. Why would someone join a terrorist group after watching one of their videos? There must be something else causing the problem. The videos are a symptom, not a cause. Last, I have consumed media of both your examples. It didn't turn me into a child abuser or a terrorist. I want to help make world a safer place for children and terrorism free more than before. I want to stop it so it stops get depicted on its own.
  - cies 6y ago
    Interesting. So having a official terrorist recruitment offices in your town should be legal? (basically this is what the KKK is to me) I dont think so. > A manga that depicts serious child abuse that turned the author into a porn star. It's written by herself. I dont know if the piece was inciting violence against children. I think it does not, and if it would it'd be censored. Rightfully, imho.
    - pleasebegood 6y ago
      Incitement of violence and abuse is already illegal. I am not sure what your point is then. Your first comment paints a broad stroke. Please be more concise when talking about censoring heavy handed topics because otherwise you may be causing a chilling effect. And your example is not speech.
claudiawerner 6y ago
>Child abuse is a physical act and isn't speech. A video is a form of expression that falls under speech for all intents and purposes. There is no general caveat to freedom of speech which states that one cannot create a video of some illegal act. Child pornography seems to be the only exception in the US. Further, metaphysically, 'physical acts' such as burning flags fall under freedom of expression, and all physical actions are themselves expressive. We prohibit child abuse because it is abuse, not because it is a physical act and therefore not speech. The expression of copyrighted material, likewise, is speech. Disney is exercising its right to free speech by releasing a movie, even if that movie falls under copyright. Just as in the case of child porn, copying and/or distributing such media is a restriction on speech, albeit a widely accepted one. To me, there is no way to argue that child porn and unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material isn't a kind of speech, or at least a kind of expression. It is absolutely speech, just as sharing a video of a murder or theft is speech, and just as sharing some public domain music is speech, and it is also speech that most people agree should be restricted.
- sebmellen 6y ago
  Your point about child abuse is ridiculous. We prohibit child abuse precisely because it is a physical act. If I said "I will whip my child 50 times", and didn't do it, that would not be child abuse. It becomes child abuse once it is a physical act. You make the faulty presumption that speech itself can be a form of abuse. This is where free speech absolutists such as myself would disagree. Speech is a protected class of expression precisely for this reason: it cannot be abusive. To argue that child pornography is a form of speech is rather ridiculous, if we define speech as "the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words". A form of expression, sure, but there are limits on forms of expression. I cannot choose to stab people as a form of free expression, nor torch a building.
  - cies 6y ago
    As said, and said agian, I mention videos of abuse (not abuse itself). I will not tell you this again if you still dot get that. > To argue that child pornography is a form of speech is rather ridiculous To lawyers it is not. Again this is about the video, not the act itself. You repeatedly dont get that difference. > but there are limits on forms of expression. I cannot choose to stab people as a form of free expression, nor torch a building. Great! you get it! We cannot allow all expression. Now on stabbing we agree. On abuse videos as well. But on inciting hate/violence we dont. May I ask why you want to defend inciting hate/violence -speech?

sebmellen 6y ago

The line where free speech ends is pretty clearly delineated, and that's when it crosses over into criminal or violent action in the "world of atoms". Almost all of your examples can be prosecuted based on their direct effect on the real world (or representation of a crime, such as with child abuse videos), not the content of their speech. The difference is crucial. To take things to an extreme, if I say "all XXXX should be killed", that's very different from actually killing all members of the XXXX group, or even plotting to do so.

cies 6y ago
So you want law to protect people that say "all X should be killed", then X is not demonstrably super violent/intolerant in the first place? Let's say someone campaigns that all people that have gay sex should be killed: do you want this "speech" protected? Well: I dont. That's why I think "intolerance of the intolerant" is good. Most law books in developed democracies agree with me. White supremacists, racists, fascists, extreme wahabists/salafits dont. They want to incite hatred/violence (to non-violent/tolerant people). I'd say shut 'm down and/or dont give platform.
- umvi 6y ago
  How about religious people who believe gay marriage/abortion should be illegal? Should they be shut down as well?
  - DavidVoid 6y ago
    Depends on what they're doing. They definitely shouldn't be allowed to harass gay weddings and health centers that perform abortions.
    - umvi 6y ago
      What if they spread their ideas via proselyting and convert more people to their way of thinking, causing abortion centers to close and gay marriage to become illegal? Should that be allowed?

nickthemagicman 6y ago

I would argue that your argument is nice in theory, nonsense in practicality. Who decides what speech is hateful or violent and should be limited? You, me, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un ? How easy is it to label something as hateful and ban it? Very easy. That's the flaw in your argument, the human element. The revolution to create America had violent and hateful speech towards the British crown. Private companies can do what they want, but in public sphere the parent poster was right free speech exists to enable dissent, not support the status quo.

cies 6y ago
> I would argue that your argument is nice in theory, nonsense in practicality. Well, it already is encoded in law. Most countries prohibit hate speech and/or inciting violence, while most people consider that free speech is protected in those places. So it's already practical. > Who decides what speech is hateful or violent and should be limited? You, me, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un ? This gets coded in law and jurisprudence and gets enforced by police. Just like any other unlawful acts. Again: this is already how it works in most developed democracies. > How easy is it to label something as hateful and ban it? Very easy. See my other comment about pesticide. Please answer that question. Inciting hate/violence is quite easy to detect in practice. > That's the flaw in your argument, the human element. Please explain. I dont get it. It's all down to culture, true. But that does not prevent it from being pretty much universal. > The revolution to create America had violent and hateful speech towards the British crown. Yes. Which was behaving intolerant and violent in the first place!! Just like now with police brutality in the US: so much violence from them that expressing/inciting hate toward them becomes acceptable in my book. > Private companies can do what they want, but in public sphere the parent poster was right free speech exists to enable dissent, not support the status quo. Dissent have no need to exist when there is no oppression/violence/exploitation/marginalization. Hence dissent is the best example of "intolerance of the intolerant". Thanks.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Well, it already is encoded in law. Most countries prohibit hate speech and/or inciting violence, while most people consider that free speech is protected in those places. Depends. Germany for example takes a similar route as Reddit does. If you're Turkish, you're allowed to say "Germans are a dog race" when the German parliament recognize the fact that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians (hey, fun fact, they're re-activating their ISIS-buddies to try again right now). If a German said "Turks are a dog race", they'd be prosecuted. Hate speech isn't outlawed, it's majority hate speech that's outlawed.

djsumdog 6y ago

There are limits in every country for free speech. It's usually images of child abuse, threats of direct and imminent harm to specific people, etc. I just did a post about this: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/why-i-no-longer-hate-america/#the-freedom-to-speak https://battlepenguin.com/politics/why-i-no-longer-hate-amer... Remember, at one time, saying homosexuality was okay was considered dangerous, hateful, flawed and needed to be banned. Saying god didn't exist could get you expelled from a university, excommunicated from your community or killed. You only view some speech as okay today because you don't understand what some people went through to fight for that idea. Assange is clearly free speech. However leaking that information is a crime if you're a member of the US military (hence Manning; maliciously prosecuted by Obama, and then also symbolically freed by Obama). The NYT published information about Trump's taxes. That's free speech. The Person who leaked it committed a Federal crime. (technically NYT may be guilty of a crime here too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrvYNfsAgJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrvYNfsAgJY)