4 ms·

Talk of violence and murder is not free speech. I've been on these platforms before the riot and I've seen a lot of unmoderated criminal activity.

yurielt 6y ago
Got any proof?
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  What constitutes "proof"? Here's the Parler account archive of one of the insurrectionists who died at the Capitol this week: >Let’s take this fucking Country BACK!! Load your guns and take to the streets! https://web.archive.org/web/20210108170202/https://parler.com/profile/KevinDGreeson/posts https://web.archive.org/web/20210108170202/https://parler.co...
  - yurielt 6y ago
    Hey roof constitutes on you showing us where and how they invited for violence which they didn’t seem to in their accounts stop being dishonest
    - three_seagrass 6y ago
      >Let’s take this fucking Country BACK!! Load your guns and take to the streets! Help me understand how that is not inviting violence.
      - s9w 6y ago
        Wait until you learn about Twitter, you won't believe what gets posted there.
- shimonabi 6y ago
  The first post I visited today on: https://thedonald.win/p/11RhTYar32/i-have-clicked-a-thousand-bicycl/c/ https://thedonald.win/p/11RhTYar32/i-have-clicked-a-thousand... They are still talking about throwing liberals off helicopters in the comments.
  - jgwil2 6y ago
    What is a bike click? I can't make any sense of this page.
    - shimonabi 6y ago
      I didn't know either until just now. It took me about 10 minutes to figure it out. It refers to the anti-DDOS/anti-bot Cloudflare puzzle where you have to identify objects in images to access the website.
Proven 6y ago
So? talk isn’t criminalized, only inciting and encouraging is
golemiprague 6y ago
I have seen a lot of it on the internet in general and yet nobody is closing the internet. Legally they don't have to moderate, section 230 and all of that but I would expect them to remove illegal speech, like call for violence if someone is pointing it out to them. My problem is, where does it end, if anything right wing is banned by tech companies, or providers or ISPs or payment companies then effectively you can't claim "buy you can make your own platform". This is not a cake shop where someone can just go to another shop or just keep their views to themselves when they buy a cake. I think something like apple store should have to service everybody with no exception since they are effectively a monopoly, google store is not so clear cut since you can just put the app in your site, you don't need the store really.
capableweb 6y ago
> Talk of violence and murder is not free speech US law always seemed strange to me but why is discussions around violence and murder not covered under free speech? The countries that take free speech seriously allow you to freely speak about anything, as long as you don't break the law (inciting violence for example). Seems strange US would be so far behind on this but still see themselves as last bastion of free speech.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  My understanding is that what is not covered under free speech in the US are not "discussions around" violence and murder but actual "true threats" and calls to "imminent lawless action". Not quite the same.
- jchw 6y ago
  The US had freedom of speech encoded into the law in 1791. To this day I believe Australia has no explicit freedom of speech law. I am not a history buff but I suspect U.S. was in fact at one point ahead of the curve. I believe there is an ebb and flow to fear and control exercised over speech, whether it be fear that the speech is dangerous or just objectionable in moral systems (violence, obscenity, etc.) Some day we’ll probably be back at the other end, where the scrutiny is primarily aimed at what is disallowed rather than allowed. But, I think new media and their impact on society is always scary. It happened with books, radio, movies, TV, video games and it’s happening with social media and the internet. And with how well conspiracies and misinformation spreads online, it’s easy to see where the fear comes from. It is causing people who believe in the truth to prevail to begin to question themselves. Exactly what is covered by the first amendment is very wishy-washy and US law is intentionally elastic, so there are probably some blurred lines as to what kinds of violent threats may cause something to no longer be considered protected speech. (Of course: IANAL.)
- beowulfey 6y ago
  Well, free speech through the First Amendment of our Constitution is only protected from interference from the government. Nothing is protected about private platforms. Google is free to implement whatever policies they want. Thus the point is kind of moot because this isn’t the government interfering with free speech at all. If it were though, I think it would indeed be a tricky can of worms. Some aspects of “talking” about criminal activity are considered illegal: for example, Conspiracy to Commit Offense [1] makes it illegal to conspire to do criminal activity. Freedom of Speech was really meant to protect people from being able to criticize the government without fear of being disappeared. Great article on the history of that clause here [2]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 [2] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_1/
s9w 6y ago
It literally is free speech. Literally. Also there's more glorifying of violence on Twitter and FB than on Parler or 4ch.

yurielt 6y ago

Got any proof?

three_seagrass 6y ago
What constitutes "proof"? Here's the Parler account archive of one of the insurrectionists who died at the Capitol this week: >Let’s take this fucking Country BACK!! Load your guns and take to the streets! https://web.archive.org/web/20210108170202/https://parler.com/profile/KevinDGreeson/posts https://web.archive.org/web/20210108170202/https://parler.co...
- yurielt 6y ago
  Hey roof constitutes on you showing us where and how they invited for violence which they didn’t seem to in their accounts stop being dishonest
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    >Let’s take this fucking Country BACK!! Load your guns and take to the streets! Help me understand how that is not inviting violence.
    - s9w 6y ago
      Wait until you learn about Twitter, you won't believe what gets posted there.
shimonabi 6y ago
The first post I visited today on: https://thedonald.win/p/11RhTYar32/i-have-clicked-a-thousand-bicycl/c/ https://thedonald.win/p/11RhTYar32/i-have-clicked-a-thousand... They are still talking about throwing liberals off helicopters in the comments.
- jgwil2 6y ago
  What is a bike click? I can't make any sense of this page.
  - shimonabi 6y ago
    I didn't know either until just now. It took me about 10 minutes to figure it out. It refers to the anti-DDOS/anti-bot Cloudflare puzzle where you have to identify objects in images to access the website.

Proven 6y ago

So? talk isn’t criminalized, only inciting and encouraging is

golemiprague 6y ago

I have seen a lot of it on the internet in general and yet nobody is closing the internet. Legally they don't have to moderate, section 230 and all of that but I would expect them to remove illegal speech, like call for violence if someone is pointing it out to them. My problem is, where does it end, if anything right wing is banned by tech companies, or providers or ISPs or payment companies then effectively you can't claim "buy you can make your own platform". This is not a cake shop where someone can just go to another shop or just keep their views to themselves when they buy a cake. I think something like apple store should have to service everybody with no exception since they are effectively a monopoly, google store is not so clear cut since you can just put the app in your site, you don't need the store really.

capableweb 6y ago

> Talk of violence and murder is not free speech US law always seemed strange to me but why is discussions around violence and murder not covered under free speech? The countries that take free speech seriously allow you to freely speak about anything, as long as you don't break the law (inciting violence for example). Seems strange US would be so far behind on this but still see themselves as last bastion of free speech.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
My understanding is that what is not covered under free speech in the US are not "discussions around" violence and murder but actual "true threats" and calls to "imminent lawless action". Not quite the same.
jchw 6y ago
The US had freedom of speech encoded into the law in 1791. To this day I believe Australia has no explicit freedom of speech law. I am not a history buff but I suspect U.S. was in fact at one point ahead of the curve. I believe there is an ebb and flow to fear and control exercised over speech, whether it be fear that the speech is dangerous or just objectionable in moral systems (violence, obscenity, etc.) Some day we’ll probably be back at the other end, where the scrutiny is primarily aimed at what is disallowed rather than allowed. But, I think new media and their impact on society is always scary. It happened with books, radio, movies, TV, video games and it’s happening with social media and the internet. And with how well conspiracies and misinformation spreads online, it’s easy to see where the fear comes from. It is causing people who believe in the truth to prevail to begin to question themselves. Exactly what is covered by the first amendment is very wishy-washy and US law is intentionally elastic, so there are probably some blurred lines as to what kinds of violent threats may cause something to no longer be considered protected speech. (Of course: IANAL.)
beowulfey 6y ago
Well, free speech through the First Amendment of our Constitution is only protected from interference from the government. Nothing is protected about private platforms. Google is free to implement whatever policies they want. Thus the point is kind of moot because this isn’t the government interfering with free speech at all. If it were though, I think it would indeed be a tricky can of worms. Some aspects of “talking” about criminal activity are considered illegal: for example, Conspiracy to Commit Offense [1] makes it illegal to conspire to do criminal activity. Freedom of Speech was really meant to protect people from being able to criticize the government without fear of being disappeared. Great article on the history of that clause here [2]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 [2] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_1/

s9w 6y ago

It literally is free speech. Literally. Also there's more glorifying of violence on Twitter and FB than on Parler or 4ch.