6 ms·

“Praise and support of the storming of the US Capitol” is non violent for you?

by S4M 6y ago

ethbr0 6y ago
Last I checked, the US didn't have a law against praising and supporting neo-Nazis. (Hypothetically) If I can praise and support them, the majority of what they advocate being conceptually illegal if implemented, then yes... the First Amendment seems clear that anything shy of advocating and/or planning imminent action is permissible. Of course, Facebook as a private company is under no obligation to follow Constitutional limits on permissible vs non-permissible speech. But should they be?
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  > Of course, Facebook as a private company is under no obligation to follow Constitutional limits on permissible vs non-permissible speech. But should they be? Absolutely not, the first amendment only applies to the government for a reason. Perhaps there should be a government-run equivalent that is subject to the first amendment. Though honestly, I think that would work out horribly. The number of people you can reach by shouting in a town square isn't very high, that's why the government can allow any kind of crank to do it. If you can reach millions...bad things would happen.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    The problem is that network effects create monopolies. Social network effects create monopolies on free speech. I'm not an American, and I still don't know if there was cheating or not, and actually I don't understand whether there is enough data on it to decide, though usually the bigger problem is when a president stays in the president seat forever.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      > Social network effects create monopolies on free speech. Absolutely. Many people want to talk in the public (or at least town) square, which trends strongly towards a few providers (where everybody is), which establishes de facto global free speech limits via those provider's policies. And "moving to another service" isn't a feasible redress. Do we want to live in a world where conservatives only read ConservaPedia, and liberals read LibPedia? Or one where they're exposed to each other's ideas and share some facts? >> the first amendment only applies to the government for a reason. [...] The number of people you can reach by shouting in a town square isn't very high, that's why the government can allow any kind of crank to do it. If you can reach millions...bad things would happen. I'll assume that's the reason you were referring to? If so, we disagree on the intent of the First Amendment. I don't think it's about audience reach, so much as relative power: government has historically had controls not available to private companies. Yet in modern times, Facebook / Twitter / Youtube have as much or more control over their platforms, which are as bigger or bigger than the largest First Amendment-covered venue. So while Facebook or Google can't send the FBI to your door, they can effectively disappear your idea / product from their ecosystems, and there are very few checks on that power, particularly when ranking algorithms are allowed to be shielded from public scrutiny.
- africanboy 6y ago
  > the US didn't have a law against praising and supporting neo-Nazis Maybe that's the problem?
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    I don't think so? It's a pretty core feature of America's system to ban actions, not speech.
    - africanboy 6y ago
      I am not convinced. Some speeches are omens to terrible actions and they are usually supported by symbols. I've seen the pictures of the Confederate Flag waving in the halls of the Senate, It was pretty disturbing to me. If I am not wrong that never happened before, not even during the Civil war. IMO if the flag entered the Capitol Building in 1860 it would have been normal, but today it has become the symbol of the resistance to the racial integration and the support to the segregation, hence it should be banned and people speaking openly about any "racial supremacy" should face consequences. outside the contexts of "art or science, research or teaching" (quoting the The German Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code) in section § 86a) it is simply unacceptable. After all it is written in the US Constitution that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
      - ethbr0 6y ago
        > Some speeches are omens to terrible actions and they are usually supported by symbols Absolutely. Which is why the US Supreme Court has continually debated and weighed First Amendment tension against public safety. To my knowledge, the Confederate battle flag has never flown in the US Capitol. Not in July, 1864, when the Confederate Army stared at it across 6 miles and lightly defended lines [0]. Not after 1939 when it was hoisted in film by Gone with the Wind with sanitized nostalgia for an antebellum past [1]. And certainly not in the 50s and 60s when it was appropriated by the reborn Ku Klux Klan to represent their racist beliefs [2]. But it has been present at all three instances of armed insurrection against the US government -- Civil War, first US terrorist organization, and modern, militant Trump supporters. And ultimately, it's those people's actions, not their ideas or symbols, that are dangerous. As Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in Whitney v. California [3], by way of Jefferson's views [4]: "[Those who won our independence] believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones." To consign evil to the shadows is no victory, for there are always shadows. [0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-washington-dc-came-close-to-being-conquered-by-the-confederacy-180951994/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-washington-dc-ca... [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qSEVyzKmlyU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qSEVyzKmlyU [2] https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-confederate-flag-flies-as-ku-klux-klan-members-gather-news-photo/113917842 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-confederat... [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/357 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/357 [4] https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/elijah-boardman-0 https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/eli...
mikedilger 6y ago
We must be able to discuss and even support things that are currently illegal, including discussion of acts of violence (but not carrying them out, just talking about them), to explore whether or not existing laws might need changes. So this cannot be the boundary between allowed and disallowed speech. In this particular case, I would quickly argue "Hell no, storming the US Capital is illegal for good cause, and I will never condone such acts of violence." But I would allow the discussion. We have to allow the discussion. Because if you draw a line here, then you will be censored when you argue for things like marijuana legalisation and gay marraige while they are still illegal as McCarthyites will censor you based on inciting people to break the law. This is why 'incitement' has such a high bar. I could be wrong. Maybe "praise and support for /storming/" is incitement to violence. I'm glad I'm not a judge that has to make that call. So long as the line isn't drawn on the wrong side of the points I argued above.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  > We must be able to discuss and even support things that are currently illegal, including discussion of acts of violence (but not carrying them out, just talking about them), to explore whether or not existing laws might need changes. So this cannot be the boundary between allowed and disallowed speech. I strongly agree with this. I just don’t agree that you’re entitled to use other people’s publishing resources to do it.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  You can argue that an illegal thing should be legal without inciting people to do it while it's illegal. Under your reasoning, any act of inciting violence could be dismissed as "discussion". There's probably not a clear line in every instance. Whether you think "praise and support" crosses the line, it would be pretty hard to claim it made things better, and pretty easy to see how those words, from the most powerful person in the country, might make a person more likely to continue doing whatever it is they're doing.
  - mikedilger 6y ago
    I agree with all of that in spirit, but I don't think the "under your reasonsing" part accurately reflected my reasoning (maybe it reflected a inference or a poorly chosen word). Incitement intends the act to occur while illegal, and I didn't mean to argue that such a thing should be legal.

“Praise and support of the storming of the US Capitol” is non violent for you?

by S4M 6y ago

“Praise and support of the storming of the US Capitol” is non violent for you?

Last I checked, the US didn't have a law against praising and supporting neo-Nazis. (Hypothetically) If I can praise and support them, the majority of what they advocate being conceptually illegal if implemented, then yes... the First Amendment seems clear that anything shy of advocating and/or planning imminent action is permissible. Of course, Facebook as a private company is under no obligation to follow Constitutional limits on permissible vs non-permissible speech. But should they be?

TulliusCicero 6y ago
> Of course, Facebook as a private company is under no obligation to follow Constitutional limits on permissible vs non-permissible speech. But should they be? Absolutely not, the first amendment only applies to the government for a reason. Perhaps there should be a government-run equivalent that is subject to the first amendment. Though honestly, I think that would work out horribly. The number of people you can reach by shouting in a town square isn't very high, that's why the government can allow any kind of crank to do it. If you can reach millions...bad things would happen.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  The problem is that network effects create monopolies. Social network effects create monopolies on free speech. I'm not an American, and I still don't know if there was cheating or not, and actually I don't understand whether there is enough data on it to decide, though usually the bigger problem is when a president stays in the president seat forever.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    > Social network effects create monopolies on free speech. Absolutely. Many people want to talk in the public (or at least town) square, which trends strongly towards a few providers (where everybody is), which establishes de facto global free speech limits via those provider's policies. And "moving to another service" isn't a feasible redress. Do we want to live in a world where conservatives only read ConservaPedia, and liberals read LibPedia? Or one where they're exposed to each other's ideas and share some facts? >> the first amendment only applies to the government for a reason. [...] The number of people you can reach by shouting in a town square isn't very high, that's why the government can allow any kind of crank to do it. If you can reach millions...bad things would happen. I'll assume that's the reason you were referring to? If so, we disagree on the intent of the First Amendment. I don't think it's about audience reach, so much as relative power: government has historically had controls not available to private companies. Yet in modern times, Facebook / Twitter / Youtube have as much or more control over their platforms, which are as bigger or bigger than the largest First Amendment-covered venue. So while Facebook or Google can't send the FBI to your door, they can effectively disappear your idea / product from their ecosystems, and there are very few checks on that power, particularly when ranking algorithms are allowed to be shielded from public scrutiny.
africanboy 6y ago
> the US didn't have a law against praising and supporting neo-Nazis Maybe that's the problem?
- ethbr0 6y ago
  I don't think so? It's a pretty core feature of America's system to ban actions, not speech.
  - africanboy 6y ago
    I am not convinced. Some speeches are omens to terrible actions and they are usually supported by symbols. I've seen the pictures of the Confederate Flag waving in the halls of the Senate, It was pretty disturbing to me. If I am not wrong that never happened before, not even during the Civil war. IMO if the flag entered the Capitol Building in 1860 it would have been normal, but today it has become the symbol of the resistance to the racial integration and the support to the segregation, hence it should be banned and people speaking openly about any "racial supremacy" should face consequences. outside the contexts of "art or science, research or teaching" (quoting the The German Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code) in section § 86a) it is simply unacceptable. After all it is written in the US Constitution that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      > Some speeches are omens to terrible actions and they are usually supported by symbols Absolutely. Which is why the US Supreme Court has continually debated and weighed First Amendment tension against public safety. To my knowledge, the Confederate battle flag has never flown in the US Capitol. Not in July, 1864, when the Confederate Army stared at it across 6 miles and lightly defended lines [0]. Not after 1939 when it was hoisted in film by Gone with the Wind with sanitized nostalgia for an antebellum past [1]. And certainly not in the 50s and 60s when it was appropriated by the reborn Ku Klux Klan to represent their racist beliefs [2]. But it has been present at all three instances of armed insurrection against the US government -- Civil War, first US terrorist organization, and modern, militant Trump supporters. And ultimately, it's those people's actions, not their ideas or symbols, that are dangerous. As Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in Whitney v. California [3], by way of Jefferson's views [4]: "[Those who won our independence] believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones." To consign evil to the shadows is no victory, for there are always shadows. [0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-washington-dc-came-close-to-being-conquered-by-the-confederacy-180951994/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-washington-dc-ca... [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qSEVyzKmlyU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qSEVyzKmlyU [2] https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-confederate-flag-flies-as-ku-klux-klan-members-gather-news-photo/113917842 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-confederat... [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/357 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/357 [4] https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/elijah-boardman-0 https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/eli...

mikedilger 6y ago

We must be able to discuss and even support things that are currently illegal, including discussion of acts of violence (but not carrying them out, just talking about them), to explore whether or not existing laws might need changes. So this cannot be the boundary between allowed and disallowed speech. In this particular case, I would quickly argue "Hell no, storming the US Capital is illegal for good cause, and I will never condone such acts of violence." But I would allow the discussion. We have to allow the discussion. Because if you draw a line here, then you will be censored when you argue for things like marijuana legalisation and gay marraige while they are still illegal as McCarthyites will censor you based on inciting people to break the law. This is why 'incitement' has such a high bar. I could be wrong. Maybe "praise and support for /storming/" is incitement to violence. I'm glad I'm not a judge that has to make that call. So long as the line isn't drawn on the wrong side of the points I argued above.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
> We must be able to discuss and even support things that are currently illegal, including discussion of acts of violence (but not carrying them out, just talking about them), to explore whether or not existing laws might need changes. So this cannot be the boundary between allowed and disallowed speech. I strongly agree with this. I just don’t agree that you’re entitled to use other people’s publishing resources to do it.
ineedasername 6y ago
You can argue that an illegal thing should be legal without inciting people to do it while it's illegal. Under your reasoning, any act of inciting violence could be dismissed as "discussion". There's probably not a clear line in every instance. Whether you think "praise and support" crosses the line, it would be pretty hard to claim it made things better, and pretty easy to see how those words, from the most powerful person in the country, might make a person more likely to continue doing whatever it is they're doing.
- mikedilger 6y ago
  I agree with all of that in spirit, but I don't think the "under your reasonsing" part accurately reflected my reasoning (maybe it reflected a inference or a poorly chosen word). Incitement intends the act to occur while illegal, and I didn't mean to argue that such a thing should be legal.