5 ms·

Why would anyone want this to be illegal? It does two things - offends people (you have no right to not be offended, and this is a good thing), and, broadcasts

Why would anyone want this to be illegal? It does two things - offends people (you have no right to not be offended, and this is a good thing), and, broadcasts a signal that this is not someone you want to be involved with, not someone you want to hire, and someone who authorities can keep an eye on. Letting such people out themselves seems to be more beneficial then letting them lurk in polite society.

colechristensen 6y ago
Put simply, a large population of public support continually creates a small stream of people willing to turn ideas into violent action. You can’t get in front of the first time violent offenders before they do things, and there doesn’t seem to be much you can do to disincentivize them so you have to go after the publicly expressed ideas.
ggggtez 6y ago
Because the people who "like" calls to genocide and murder, and stockpile weapons... are the kind of people that you don't want running around in society? It's not like they are arrest everyone who liked this photo. Just this one particular person who showed a pattern of behavior that advocates murder.
luckylion 6y ago
> Letting such people out themselves seems to be more beneficial then letting them lurk in polite society. Removing them from society is the best course of action, which is what France seems to try to do right now.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  I would argue that they removed the first one who was dumb enough to out themselves with a like button click. There are many more who will just keep a lower profile. Regardless, I just can’t bring myself to accept the idea that clicking a thumbs up emoji can send you to prison. I don’t care how bad the picture is. That doesn’t sit right.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Sure, others may keep a low profile, but one less on the street is a good thing. And I doubt that most of them can keep a low profile - only the elite of islamists can pretend not to be, the vast majority is obvious. The same applies to all extremists. I don't like the concept either, but short of deporting them wholesale, there's little other possibilities if you wish to live in a society tomorrow.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - mulmen 6y ago
      > I don't like the concept either, but short of deporting them wholesale, there's little other possibilities if you wish to live in a society tomorrow. This is a dog whistle. There appears to be an implication that only immigrants or minorities need to be charged for their speech and that only immigrants or minorities can be radicalized. I completely reject that kind of racist, xenophobic nonsense. This is also incredibly shortsighted. Who decides what is severe enough to justify charges? What if your ideas are deemed too harmful? It’s the most elementary freedom of speech argument.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        > There appears to be an implication that only immigrants or minorities need to be charged for their speech and that only immigrants or minorities can be radicalized. No, but you can't deport citizens, and you can deport foreigners. There's no point in dealing with trouble makers if you can just avoid them. > Who decides what is severe enough to justify charges? What if your ideas are deemed too harmful? Those are good points, and I don't have the answers. I'm not suggesting actual policy, I'm saying that you can't ignore them or "agree to disagree" with them and keep a free and open society. You have to choose, and I value society more than being nice to every person on earth.
        mulmen 6y ago
- mulmen 6y ago
  So we have completely given up on rehabilitation then? Or even education to prevent radicalization?
mdifrgechd 6y ago
It will sound harsh but I have observed there is a political alignment that doesn't feel comfortable with people being exposed to information and allowed to make their own decisions, and believe that a learned class has to shield the common people from bad ideas they could unwittingly adopt. Curbing this kind of speech is just an extension of this, and as you point out, ends if having the opposite effect than that being held up as a reason to curb the speech.
- fragsworth 6y ago
  You have to shut down intolerance, because if you don't, it threatens to take over your free society. Ideas spread, and shutting them down prevents them from spreading. "Bad ideas" are real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

colechristensen 6y ago

Put simply, a large population of public support continually creates a small stream of people willing to turn ideas into violent action. You can’t get in front of the first time violent offenders before they do things, and there doesn’t seem to be much you can do to disincentivize them so you have to go after the publicly expressed ideas.

ggggtez 6y ago

Because the people who "like" calls to genocide and murder, and stockpile weapons... are the kind of people that you don't want running around in society? It's not like they are arrest everyone who liked this photo. Just this one particular person who showed a pattern of behavior that advocates murder.

luckylion 6y ago

> Letting such people out themselves seems to be more beneficial then letting them lurk in polite society. Removing them from society is the best course of action, which is what France seems to try to do right now.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago
I would argue that they removed the first one who was dumb enough to out themselves with a like button click. There are many more who will just keep a lower profile. Regardless, I just can’t bring myself to accept the idea that clicking a thumbs up emoji can send you to prison. I don’t care how bad the picture is. That doesn’t sit right.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Sure, others may keep a low profile, but one less on the street is a good thing. And I doubt that most of them can keep a low profile - only the elite of islamists can pretend not to be, the vast majority is obvious. The same applies to all extremists. I don't like the concept either, but short of deporting them wholesale, there's little other possibilities if you wish to live in a society tomorrow.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - mulmen 6y ago
    > I don't like the concept either, but short of deporting them wholesale, there's little other possibilities if you wish to live in a society tomorrow. This is a dog whistle. There appears to be an implication that only immigrants or minorities need to be charged for their speech and that only immigrants or minorities can be radicalized. I completely reject that kind of racist, xenophobic nonsense. This is also incredibly shortsighted. Who decides what is severe enough to justify charges? What if your ideas are deemed too harmful? It’s the most elementary freedom of speech argument.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > There appears to be an implication that only immigrants or minorities need to be charged for their speech and that only immigrants or minorities can be radicalized. No, but you can't deport citizens, and you can deport foreigners. There's no point in dealing with trouble makers if you can just avoid them. > Who decides what is severe enough to justify charges? What if your ideas are deemed too harmful? Those are good points, and I don't have the answers. I'm not suggesting actual policy, I'm saying that you can't ignore them or "agree to disagree" with them and keep a free and open society. You have to choose, and I value society more than being nice to every person on earth.
      - mulmen 6y ago
mulmen 6y ago
So we have completely given up on rehabilitation then? Or even education to prevent radicalization?

mdifrgechd 6y ago

It will sound harsh but I have observed there is a political alignment that doesn't feel comfortable with people being exposed to information and allowed to make their own decisions, and believe that a learned class has to shield the common people from bad ideas they could unwittingly adopt. Curbing this kind of speech is just an extension of this, and as you point out, ends if having the opposite effect than that being held up as a reason to curb the speech.

fragsworth 6y ago
You have to shut down intolerance, because if you don't, it threatens to take over your free society. Ideas spread, and shutting them down prevents them from spreading. "Bad ideas" are real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance