4 ms·

>Of course, but truth wins out over the long run. I doubt that, and if that was even the case, until then lies can do a lot of damage. >How do you stay above

by zaarn 6y ago

>Of course, but truth wins out over the long run. I doubt that, and if that was even the case, until then lies can do a lot of damage. >How do you stay above it all? It's not censored now but you seem able to detect it and protect yourself. I don't. Sometimes I get fed bullshit and believe it. I'm certain there is things I believe right now that are lies. Sometimes I find out a more proper explanation, sometimes I never get any truth. Getting behind what is lies and what not requires education, something the US for example has abandoned over time for the rich to enjoy. >That is censorship, I'm not sure how that supports an argument for more free speech? We have laws against assault already. Censorship is enacted by government, not private individuals. Besides, they are smart enough to never call for violence directly. They say "I wish someone would call SWAT on this guy" or "this kinda behaviour ends you with a broken nose wink wink". >How could they win? Defamation laws, at least in the US, value truth above other considerations. In the US, a lawsuit isn't about who is right but who has enough money to keep the lawsuit going for longer. >Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with a free speech argument? Free speech is valuable in respectful and calm debate. Disrespectful and violent speech is not free speech, it's violence. >Violence and disrespect really are completely different ball games, I don't see how conflating them clarifies things Reread, I don't conflate them. >If you could find someone who can judge such things infallibly then perhaps I would agree. It doesn't have to be infallible, just reasonably provable or not disprovable. If you're lying on purpose then this entire point is moot anyway, no need to prove anything. Then you're just out for harm.

brigandish 6y ago
> I doubt that, and if that was even the case, until then lies can do a lot of damage. Strangely, it's only the proponents of censorship that claim it will lead to utopia. > Censorship is enacted by government, not private individuals. This is not true at all. Free speech is not a synonym for the US 1st amendment. That part of the constitution only protects government interference, which implies that there can be other types, and there's more than one country in the world. Are you really going to claim that social media companies cannot censor? > Besides, they are smart enough to never call for violence directly. They say "I wish someone would call SWAT on this guy" or "this kinda behaviour ends you with a broken nose wink wink". This sounds to me like conspiracy theory talk, as does the bit about rich people. I'm sure both happen but to paint everything or everyone that way lacks nuance at best and sounds like something you'd hear from a quack in a tinfoil hat at worst. > In the US, a lawsuit isn't about who is right but who has enough money to keep the lawsuit going for longer. This is partly true, but it is no doubt true that the law - explicit as it is - states the opposite. Again, who was claiming that the system was perfect? > Disrespectful and violent speech is not free speech, it's violence. > Reread, I don't conflate them. If you didn't then you just have. I suspect you, either knowingly or unknowingly wish to tie disrespect to violence because it's convenient for arguing against disrespectful speech being free. Well, SCOTUS has ruled that even some forms of "violent speech" are covered by the 1st amendment (speech containing threats must be credible and imminent to lose coverage), disrespect is definitely covered. Can I blashpheme or is that too disrespectful? Is satire allowed or is that too disrespecful? Would I be committing violent acts by dismissing God? I'd expect that kind of talk from religious fundamentalists. > It doesn't have to be infallible, just reasonably provable or not disprovable You're circling back to a court system with judges, but… > If you're lying on purpose then this entire point is moot anyway, no need to prove anything. Then you're just out for harm. …you appear to have discarded presumption of innocence along the way. Terrifying.
- zaarn 6y ago
  >…you appear to have discarded presumption of innocence along the way. Terrifying. No, a court still has to prove that but it's a lot easier in most cases where harm is intended. >Can I blashpheme or is that too disrespectful? Is satire allowed or is that too disrespecful? Would I be committing violent acts by dismissing God? I'd expect that kind of talk from religious fundamentalists. The disrespect is meant in terms of a reasonable discussion. Blasphemy usually lies in the realm of religion, which is in the realm of opinion, unless you don't believe in freedom in religion. Satire is rarely calling for violence last I checked and most reputable satirists I know check their facts before the show to make sure they don't get things wrong. Plenty of people like to dress up violent speech as satire but it rarely works well when they're not punching up. >If you didn't then you just have. I suspect you, either knowingly or unknowingly wish to tie disrespect to violence because it's convenient for arguing against disrespectful speech being free. Well, SCOTUS has ruled that even some forms of "violent speech" are covered by the 1st amendment (speech containing threats must be credible and imminent to lose coverage), disrespect is definitely covered. As you so beautifully stated above, free speech isn't a synonym for the US paper scrolls. In germany, violent speech is far outside the realm of protected speech. If you threaten to punch someone in germany, the courts can put you in jail for up to 30 days, depending on situation, history and such, usually it's a fine or 1-2 weeks probation/public work. The exceptable clause is that the speech must clearly be unactionable, ie you jokingly tell your friend you're gonna punch them if they win against you in Mario Kart or something like that. >This is partly true, but it is no doubt true that the law - explicit as it is - states the opposite. Again, who was claiming that the system was perfect? If it's not actionable then it doesn't matter what the law says since it's not enforcced. >This sounds to me like conspiracy theory talk, as does the bit about rich people. I'm sure both happen but to paint everything or everyone that way lacks nuance at best and sounds like something you'd hear from a quack in a tinfoil hat at worst. There have been multiple instances of this happening over the years, most famously KeemStar, if I recall the name correctly, had a private stream for dedicated followers where he would repeatedly wish for someone to be SWATted, which can be a death sentence in the US. >This is not true at all. Free speech is not a synonym for the US 1st amendment. That part of the constitution only protects government interference, which implies that there can be other types, and there's more than one country in the world. Are you really going to claim that social media companies cannot censor? The german constitution may not know free speech, but it knows freedom of opinion, which is a tighter subset. Censorship in germany is still defined as being done by the government. In colloquial language you may refer to some actions that SMC do as censorship but it is hardly correct. What SMC are doing is enabling or surpressing people's ability to share their speech. >Strangely, it's only the proponents of censorship that claim it will lead to utopia. Germany has clauses that make you criminally accountable for lies you tell. It's called "Volksverhetzung" and generally means any type of speech that is capable or suitable to arouse hatred against people, a group of people or otherwise defined membership in some thing. It has well defined (by our constitutional court) limits and it has worked well in the past to root out fascist groups and bring them to justice before they do anything to actually harm people.

by zaarn 6y ago

brigandish 6y ago

> I doubt that, and if that was even the case, until then lies can do a lot of damage. Strangely, it's only the proponents of censorship that claim it will lead to utopia. > Censorship is enacted by government, not private individuals. This is not true at all. Free speech is not a synonym for the US 1st amendment. That part of the constitution only protects government interference, which implies that there can be other types, and there's more than one country in the world. Are you really going to claim that social media companies cannot censor? > Besides, they are smart enough to never call for violence directly. They say "I wish someone would call SWAT on this guy" or "this kinda behaviour ends you with a broken nose wink wink". This sounds to me like conspiracy theory talk, as does the bit about rich people. I'm sure both happen but to paint everything or everyone that way lacks nuance at best and sounds like something you'd hear from a quack in a tinfoil hat at worst. > In the US, a lawsuit isn't about who is right but who has enough money to keep the lawsuit going for longer. This is partly true, but it is no doubt true that the law - explicit as it is - states the opposite. Again, who was claiming that the system was perfect? > Disrespectful and violent speech is not free speech, it's violence. > Reread, I don't conflate them. If you didn't then you just have. I suspect you, either knowingly or unknowingly wish to tie disrespect to violence because it's convenient for arguing against disrespectful speech being free. Well, SCOTUS has ruled that even some forms of "violent speech" are covered by the 1st amendment (speech containing threats must be credible and imminent to lose coverage), disrespect is definitely covered. Can I blashpheme or is that too disrespectful? Is satire allowed or is that too disrespecful? Would I be committing violent acts by dismissing God? I'd expect that kind of talk from religious fundamentalists. > It doesn't have to be infallible, just reasonably provable or not disprovable You're circling back to a court system with judges, but… > If you're lying on purpose then this entire point is moot anyway, no need to prove anything. Then you're just out for harm. …you appear to have discarded presumption of innocence along the way. Terrifying.

zaarn 6y ago
>…you appear to have discarded presumption of innocence along the way. Terrifying. No, a court still has to prove that but it's a lot easier in most cases where harm is intended. >Can I blashpheme or is that too disrespectful? Is satire allowed or is that too disrespecful? Would I be committing violent acts by dismissing God? I'd expect that kind of talk from religious fundamentalists. The disrespect is meant in terms of a reasonable discussion. Blasphemy usually lies in the realm of religion, which is in the realm of opinion, unless you don't believe in freedom in religion. Satire is rarely calling for violence last I checked and most reputable satirists I know check their facts before the show to make sure they don't get things wrong. Plenty of people like to dress up violent speech as satire but it rarely works well when they're not punching up. >If you didn't then you just have. I suspect you, either knowingly or unknowingly wish to tie disrespect to violence because it's convenient for arguing against disrespectful speech being free. Well, SCOTUS has ruled that even some forms of "violent speech" are covered by the 1st amendment (speech containing threats must be credible and imminent to lose coverage), disrespect is definitely covered. As you so beautifully stated above, free speech isn't a synonym for the US paper scrolls. In germany, violent speech is far outside the realm of protected speech. If you threaten to punch someone in germany, the courts can put you in jail for up to 30 days, depending on situation, history and such, usually it's a fine or 1-2 weeks probation/public work. The exceptable clause is that the speech must clearly be unactionable, ie you jokingly tell your friend you're gonna punch them if they win against you in Mario Kart or something like that. >This is partly true, but it is no doubt true that the law - explicit as it is - states the opposite. Again, who was claiming that the system was perfect? If it's not actionable then it doesn't matter what the law says since it's not enforcced. >This sounds to me like conspiracy theory talk, as does the bit about rich people. I'm sure both happen but to paint everything or everyone that way lacks nuance at best and sounds like something you'd hear from a quack in a tinfoil hat at worst. There have been multiple instances of this happening over the years, most famously KeemStar, if I recall the name correctly, had a private stream for dedicated followers where he would repeatedly wish for someone to be SWATted, which can be a death sentence in the US. >This is not true at all. Free speech is not a synonym for the US 1st amendment. That part of the constitution only protects government interference, which implies that there can be other types, and there's more than one country in the world. Are you really going to claim that social media companies cannot censor? The german constitution may not know free speech, but it knows freedom of opinion, which is a tighter subset. Censorship in germany is still defined as being done by the government. In colloquial language you may refer to some actions that SMC do as censorship but it is hardly correct. What SMC are doing is enabling or surpressing people's ability to share their speech. >Strangely, it's only the proponents of censorship that claim it will lead to utopia. Germany has clauses that make you criminally accountable for lies you tell. It's called "Volksverhetzung" and generally means any type of speech that is capable or suitable to arouse hatred against people, a group of people or otherwise defined membership in some thing. It has well defined (by our constitutional court) limits and it has worked well in the past to root out fascist groups and bring them to justice before they do anything to actually harm people.