6 ms·

Is it OK to silence people now?

gruez 6y ago
Actually yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action. Not saying what happened on /r/donaldtrump actually met that criteria (that's up to a court to decide), but the precedent to silence people (by the government no less) is definitely there.
- jakearmitage 6y ago
  So you are against the freedom of speech principle?
  - afuchs 6y ago
    Is everything supposed to be black and white? Following the arguments put forth in the rest of this thread, it is possible to support free speech while still arguing for exceptions and being against free speech absolutism. Such an argument against an entire whole does not logically follow from the given argument that specific exception should be made.
  - gruez 6y ago
    What gave you that impression? Moreover, what do you mean by "the freedom of speech principle"? It can mean anything ranging from "you can literally say anything you want and the government should protect you while doing so (eg. punishing companies that refuse to transmit your speech)", to "most speech, excluding a laundry list of exceptions like hate speech, copyright infringement, defamation, heresy, certain ideologies, etc."
    - jakearmitage 6y ago
      What is hate speech?
      - 24gttghh 6y ago
        Everyone, please stop engaging this person who is arguing in bad faith, and only seeks to waste your time.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    If you think it can't have exceptions, do you think libel and slander laws are a travesty?
hobofan 6y ago
I think you will find very few people defending free speech in the face of "actually planning crime".
- jakearmitage 6y ago
  Of course. But the problem lies in what constitutes crime. Few years ago, interracial marriage was crime. Should ISP's be shutting down forums where couples can find the social safety that they long for? Would you support the silencing if leaders of the Augusta Civil Rights Riot were using forums, or Reddit, or FB, to organize themselves? There is a reason why freedom of speech, without any limitations, is so valued in the free world. Those in power will always use "crime" and "think of the children" as tools to sway the public into weaponizing the government.
  - hobofan 6y ago
    Ah yes, the "free world" that is the USA. Sorry, as a German with "plenty" of limitations on free speech (from denying the holocaust, to "insulting") I can't empathize too much.
_jal 6y ago
Imagine a situation where people are credibly planning an armed assault on, say, Citibank, in public forums. Do you believe it is OK to disrupt their planning? Do you believe it becomes not-OK if the target of the domestic terror is the seat of our government?
- jakearmitage 6y ago
  Let me use another scenario. 1969, Brazil. Members of a revolutionary group kidnapped the US Ambassador. After that, and a few other incidents, the government used the same argument you presented to review and approve contents of newspapers, magazines, radio shows, movies and correspondence. Do you believe it is OK to do this, in order to disrupt their planning? Do you believe it becomes not-OK if the target of domestic terror is a tyrannical government? [1]: https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/kidnapped-why-an-american-ambassador-was-taken-in-rio-in-1969 https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/kidnapped-why-an-...
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  Arrest the conspirators and thank them for their candor.

Actually yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action. Not saying what happened on /r/donaldtrump actually met that criteria (that's up to a court to decide), but the precedent to silence people (by the government no less) is definitely there.

jakearmitage 6y ago
So you are against the freedom of speech principle?
- afuchs 6y ago
  Is everything supposed to be black and white? Following the arguments put forth in the rest of this thread, it is possible to support free speech while still arguing for exceptions and being against free speech absolutism. Such an argument against an entire whole does not logically follow from the given argument that specific exception should be made.
- gruez 6y ago
  What gave you that impression? Moreover, what do you mean by "the freedom of speech principle"? It can mean anything ranging from "you can literally say anything you want and the government should protect you while doing so (eg. punishing companies that refuse to transmit your speech)", to "most speech, excluding a laundry list of exceptions like hate speech, copyright infringement, defamation, heresy, certain ideologies, etc."
  - jakearmitage 6y ago
    What is hate speech?
    - 24gttghh 6y ago
      Everyone, please stop engaging this person who is arguing in bad faith, and only seeks to waste your time.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  If you think it can't have exceptions, do you think libel and slander laws are a travesty?

hobofan 6y ago

I think you will find very few people defending free speech in the face of "actually planning crime".

jakearmitage 6y ago
Of course. But the problem lies in what constitutes crime. Few years ago, interracial marriage was crime. Should ISP's be shutting down forums where couples can find the social safety that they long for? Would you support the silencing if leaders of the Augusta Civil Rights Riot were using forums, or Reddit, or FB, to organize themselves? There is a reason why freedom of speech, without any limitations, is so valued in the free world. Those in power will always use "crime" and "think of the children" as tools to sway the public into weaponizing the government.
- hobofan 6y ago
  Ah yes, the "free world" that is the USA. Sorry, as a German with "plenty" of limitations on free speech (from denying the holocaust, to "insulting") I can't empathize too much.

_jal 6y ago

Imagine a situation where people are credibly planning an armed assault on, say, Citibank, in public forums. Do you believe it is OK to disrupt their planning? Do you believe it becomes not-OK if the target of the domestic terror is the seat of our government?

jakearmitage 6y ago
Let me use another scenario. 1969, Brazil. Members of a revolutionary group kidnapped the US Ambassador. After that, and a few other incidents, the government used the same argument you presented to review and approve contents of newspapers, magazines, radio shows, movies and correspondence. Do you believe it is OK to do this, in order to disrupt their planning? Do you believe it becomes not-OK if the target of domestic terror is a tyrannical government? [1]: https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/kidnapped-why-an-american-ambassador-was-taken-in-rio-in-1969 https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/kidnapped-why-an-...
pnw_hazor 6y ago
Arrest the conspirators and thank them for their candor.