5 ms·

If I posted AOC's tweets and statements in support of BLM and represented them without attribution as being legitimate views in support of the magas... what wou

If I posted AOC's tweets and statements in support of BLM and represented them without attribution as being legitimate views in support of the magas... what would be FB's reaction? E.g. a tweet from AOC: 'The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows. To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that's the point.'

vyhd 6y ago
You may notice there's quite a gulf between "uncomfortable" and literal sedition [1]. > To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States [1]: https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2384.html https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...
gamblor956 6y ago
Today's "protestors" left an explosive device on the Capitol. That's not speech, that's terrorism.
- disgrunt 6y ago
  And the Antifa protesters that burned down police precincts and small businesses are "freedom fighters"?
  - vyhd 6y ago
    Non sequitur.
  - MichaelZuo 6y ago
    The correct response is that people of all stripes are capable of both promoting and destroying civil society. And I would personally add all animals, machines, and so on, too are capable depending on how society is defined.
  - anshumankmr 6y ago
    I think we can all agree that both of those things are bad.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    The BLM protests were so large that large numbers of non-protestors used the protests as cover to vandalize and loot, but the protests themselves were never organized around vandalism or violence. And indeed, investigations revealed that a number of the worst instances of vandalism were in fact instigated or committed by undercover police officers or members of the right wing, including the head of the Proud Boys (and he has admitted as much in public interviews). (The BLM bears some blame for organizing events knowing that non-protestors would use their protests as cover for committing unrelated crimes. The LA organizer admits that they deliberately disregarded this risk.) Today, the protestors themselves were engaged in the acts of violence with the stated intention of intimidating legislators into disregarding their statutory duties. Several of the people breaking into the Capitol building organized the protest, and at least two of them are far-right-wing legislators and members of right-wing terrorist groups like the Proud Boys. The female protestor shot and killed today was shot in the act of attempting to break into the legislative chambers and her social media reveals extremist views supporting violence against legislators, which strongly suggests her plan, had she succeeded, would have involved threats of violence to intimidate the legislators trapped in the building. The violence today was so different from the BLM protests that 3 White House staffers resigned, almost all of the Republican senators walked back their electoral objections and spent their time during the debate excoriating the President, and Republican leadership and cabinet members have openly begun planning to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the president before his term expires in 14 days because of the danger they think he will attempt to inflict in the next 2 weeks.
    - Smithalicious 6y ago
      No true BLM protestor would ever loot and burn!
  - africanboy 6y ago
    The police is the problem in USA, they were right to protest against it. Private properties burned down can be rebuilt, a democracy overturned overnight with weapons against the people will is a completely different thing entirely. It's bad to watch cars burning in the streets after a riot (assuming it was the rioters to burn down things, it's easy to infiltrate and take advantage of the situation in those cases, it happens all the times here in Italy), but when you think about it Antifa were rioting for the right of the people to be treated equally regardless of their ethnicity, they were protesting against the fascism of the police, you can see videos of police officers in the Congress taking selfies with the attackers, it is now undeniable that something is wrong and should change, even if you are not Antifa or dislike their methods, I think we can all agree that the police should not welcome hijackers of our democracies as they were close friends. The attack on Capitol Hill is one of the worst episodes that the west remembers in modern and contemporary history (I think that to find something similar we have to go back to Franco in Spain...) That's domestic terrorism, there is no turning back if they win, there are no small business to rebuild, that would be a complete disaster, for the entire planet.
- totony 6y ago
  The organized group known as "protestors"
eyelidlessness 6y ago
Making people uncomfortable by demanding humans be treated as humans isn’t the same thing as making people uncomfortable by demanding even a flawed democracy be overturned to bullying. The point of protest is to disrupt, whether the disruption is of an idea or a system of power. The moral equivalence of disrupting because people are oppressed vs disrupting because people want to illegitimately retain power is bankrupt.
- casefields 6y ago
  So it's degrees of comfortable. Do I need to guess who gets to decide what's considered kosher in this regard? This is why we have hard rules about 1A. Being able to define what's acceptable free speech just means the majority bullies the minority. Imagine a world where that's the case. Do you think MLK or any other civil rights leaders would've had a chance in hell of not being muzzle by the mainstream opinion of the day? 1A protected them, and when they were incorrectly arrested or muzzled, there were legions of lawyers ready to remind the government in court what the law says.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    > So it's degrees of comfortable No, it’s a moral judgment of the underlying cause and the actions taken. > Do I need to guess who gets to decide what's considered kosher in this regard? We’re all deciding it, every day. > This is why we have hard rules about 1A. Being able to define what's acceptable free speech just means the majority bullies the minority. Imagine a world where that's the case. I can also imagine a world where the minority bullies the majority. It’s the only one I’ve ever known. > Do you think MLK or any other civil rights leaders would've had a chance in hell of not being muzzle by the mainstream opinion of the day? > 1A protected them, and when they were incorrectly arrested or muzzled, there were legions of lawyers ready to remind the government in court what the law says. This is one of those times I wish HN allowed emojis. This is so laughably historically ignorant I don’t even know what to say. I’ll try: do you know how dead MLK and a bunch of other civil rights leaders got for their “protection”? Do you know that federal government agents and various state governments actively conspired with the people who’d make them dead? I mean, I take your point. The 1A is so expansive as to be nearly unlimited. That’s true. And it’s an important protection. Anyway all of that said, it has nothing to do with FB’s policy.

vyhd 6y ago

You may notice there's quite a gulf between "uncomfortable" and literal sedition [1]. > To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States [1]: https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2384.html https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...

gamblor956 6y ago

Today's "protestors" left an explosive device on the Capitol. That's not speech, that's terrorism.

disgrunt 6y ago
And the Antifa protesters that burned down police precincts and small businesses are "freedom fighters"?
- vyhd 6y ago
  Non sequitur.
- MichaelZuo 6y ago
  The correct response is that people of all stripes are capable of both promoting and destroying civil society. And I would personally add all animals, machines, and so on, too are capable depending on how society is defined.
- anshumankmr 6y ago
  I think we can all agree that both of those things are bad.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  The BLM protests were so large that large numbers of non-protestors used the protests as cover to vandalize and loot, but the protests themselves were never organized around vandalism or violence. And indeed, investigations revealed that a number of the worst instances of vandalism were in fact instigated or committed by undercover police officers or members of the right wing, including the head of the Proud Boys (and he has admitted as much in public interviews). (The BLM bears some blame for organizing events knowing that non-protestors would use their protests as cover for committing unrelated crimes. The LA organizer admits that they deliberately disregarded this risk.) Today, the protestors themselves were engaged in the acts of violence with the stated intention of intimidating legislators into disregarding their statutory duties. Several of the people breaking into the Capitol building organized the protest, and at least two of them are far-right-wing legislators and members of right-wing terrorist groups like the Proud Boys. The female protestor shot and killed today was shot in the act of attempting to break into the legislative chambers and her social media reveals extremist views supporting violence against legislators, which strongly suggests her plan, had she succeeded, would have involved threats of violence to intimidate the legislators trapped in the building. The violence today was so different from the BLM protests that 3 White House staffers resigned, almost all of the Republican senators walked back their electoral objections and spent their time during the debate excoriating the President, and Republican leadership and cabinet members have openly begun planning to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the president before his term expires in 14 days because of the danger they think he will attempt to inflict in the next 2 weeks.
  - Smithalicious 6y ago
    No true BLM protestor would ever loot and burn!
- africanboy 6y ago
  The police is the problem in USA, they were right to protest against it. Private properties burned down can be rebuilt, a democracy overturned overnight with weapons against the people will is a completely different thing entirely. It's bad to watch cars burning in the streets after a riot (assuming it was the rioters to burn down things, it's easy to infiltrate and take advantage of the situation in those cases, it happens all the times here in Italy), but when you think about it Antifa were rioting for the right of the people to be treated equally regardless of their ethnicity, they were protesting against the fascism of the police, you can see videos of police officers in the Congress taking selfies with the attackers, it is now undeniable that something is wrong and should change, even if you are not Antifa or dislike their methods, I think we can all agree that the police should not welcome hijackers of our democracies as they were close friends. The attack on Capitol Hill is one of the worst episodes that the west remembers in modern and contemporary history (I think that to find something similar we have to go back to Franco in Spain...) That's domestic terrorism, there is no turning back if they win, there are no small business to rebuild, that would be a complete disaster, for the entire planet.
totony 6y ago
The organized group known as "protestors"

eyelidlessness 6y ago

Making people uncomfortable by demanding humans be treated as humans isn’t the same thing as making people uncomfortable by demanding even a flawed democracy be overturned to bullying. The point of protest is to disrupt, whether the disruption is of an idea or a system of power. The moral equivalence of disrupting because people are oppressed vs disrupting because people want to illegitimately retain power is bankrupt.

casefields 6y ago
So it's degrees of comfortable. Do I need to guess who gets to decide what's considered kosher in this regard? This is why we have hard rules about 1A. Being able to define what's acceptable free speech just means the majority bullies the minority. Imagine a world where that's the case. Do you think MLK or any other civil rights leaders would've had a chance in hell of not being muzzle by the mainstream opinion of the day? 1A protected them, and when they were incorrectly arrested or muzzled, there were legions of lawyers ready to remind the government in court what the law says.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  > So it's degrees of comfortable No, it’s a moral judgment of the underlying cause and the actions taken. > Do I need to guess who gets to decide what's considered kosher in this regard? We’re all deciding it, every day. > This is why we have hard rules about 1A. Being able to define what's acceptable free speech just means the majority bullies the minority. Imagine a world where that's the case. I can also imagine a world where the minority bullies the majority. It’s the only one I’ve ever known. > Do you think MLK or any other civil rights leaders would've had a chance in hell of not being muzzle by the mainstream opinion of the day? > 1A protected them, and when they were incorrectly arrested or muzzled, there were legions of lawyers ready to remind the government in court what the law says. This is one of those times I wish HN allowed emojis. This is so laughably historically ignorant I don’t even know what to say. I’ll try: do you know how dead MLK and a bunch of other civil rights leaders got for their “protection”? Do you know that federal government agents and various state governments actively conspired with the people who’d make them dead? I mean, I take your point. The 1A is so expansive as to be nearly unlimited. That’s true. And it’s an important protection. Anyway all of that said, it has nothing to do with FB’s policy.