5 ms·

I think you're misunderstanding the ACLU's arguments here. They're fairly consistently pro free-speech, mostly regardless of what that means. There's not much h

by yuliyp 6y ago

I think you're misunderstanding the ACLU's arguments here. They're fairly consistently pro free-speech, mostly regardless of what that means. There's not much handwringing from them about "bad" speech because they're OK with bad speech being out there. I don't think they're fans of Trump, as their statement makes clear, but they're worried about the precedent that banning him sets.

miles 6y ago
> they're OK with bad speech being out there Might be time for a bit more nuanced view: Facebook admits it was used to 'incite offline violence' in Myanmar https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 Four dead in Bangladesh riot over offensive Facebook post https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/asia/riot-deaths-facebook-post-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/asia/riot-deaths-facebook-pos... A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... Where Countries Are Tinderboxes and Facebook Is a Match https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/world/asia/facebook-sri-lanka-riots.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/world/asia/facebook-sri-l...
- rayiner 6y ago
  No. The ACLU was built on rejecting social harm arguments to free speech.
  - miles 6y ago
    > The ACLU was built on rejecting social harm arguments to free speech. So they're OK with yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Or having a president incite a riot or a war?
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > So they're OK with yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Assuming that the ACLU generally supports the Brandenburg v Ohio standard, which overturned the US v Schenck standard, I'd say the answer to that question is "yes". https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
      - miles 6y ago
        Sorry for the lazy shorthand; here’s the fuller version: What Holmes said after it, however, did become a standard for future free speech arguments. “The question in every case,” he said, “is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-shout-fire-in-crowded-theater https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-...
        bhupy 6y ago
        Just pulling from your own quote: > is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger The "clear and present danger" standard is no longer used. It's been overturned in favor of the "imminent lawless action" standard. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater does not fall under imminent lawless action.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    Even they have limits to that, as we saw from the aftermath of Charlottesville. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/charlottesville-violence-prompts-aclu-change-policy-hate-groups-protesting-guns https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/charlottesville-violence...
    - klyrs 6y ago
      > Romero told the Journal “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else,” he added. > The ACLU still officially condemns the hate speech of white supremacists, Romero told the LA Times, but “at the same time, we believe that even odious hate speech, with which we vehemently disagree, garners the protection of the 1st Amendment when expressed non-violently.” > “We’ve had people with odious views, all manner of bigots. But not people who want to carry weapons and are intent on committing violence,” [ACLU spokeswoman Stacy Sullivan] said. That decision wasn't about their speech, per se, but about the violence of their actions. To be specific: the first amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble and that's where the ACLU has drawn the line.
- manfredo 6y ago
  I think it's simplistic to point to Facebook as instrumental in these instances of unrest. Sure, they were used as an instrument of communication but had Facebook not been there people would just use SMS or IRC. The 2002 Gujarat unrest, for instance, predates Facebook. We know what deadly unrest still forms in the absence of Facebook and other social media. I don't think we have evidence to claim that social media exacerbates unrest, versus the simple fact that more people are on social media and it's becoming a more popular communication tool than SMS.
  - acdha 6y ago
    There are some key differences: Facebook/Twitter/YouTube don’t just send messages, they also chooses which ones to promote to a wide audience. SMS only spreads if I know your number and think to add you. IRC only spreads if I choose to connect to a server and join a channel. In contrast, Facebook will promote things to you unprompted and will use your friends’ names and pictures to promote them. YouTube will suggest videos and start playing them automatically (there was a time where almost any gaming related video would get unhinged anti-feminist rants next because the guys who were outraged by Anita Sarkeesian’s existence showed high engagement numbers and the ad maximization algorithm suggested other things they liked). This is why Trump et al. are so outraged like this. He’s a millionaire and could afford his own copy of WordPress but that won’t come with a free recruitment machine.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  The USPS has been used to disseminate hate speech and plan criminal activities. Should we ban the post service? Clearly they have no ability to regulate the hateful content they disseminate.
- yuliyp 6y ago
  > Might be time for a bit more nuanced view That's a valid view for you to hold. I was just pointing out that the ACLU does not hold the same view. Their arguments in this case feel consistent with their own previous views, even while it's at odds with your views.

by yuliyp 6y ago

miles 6y ago

> they're OK with bad speech being out there Might be time for a bit more nuanced view: Facebook admits it was used to 'incite offline violence' in Myanmar https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 Four dead in Bangladesh riot over offensive Facebook post https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/asia/riot-deaths-facebook-post-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/asia/riot-deaths-facebook-pos... A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... Where Countries Are Tinderboxes and Facebook Is a Match https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/world/asia/facebook-sri-lanka-riots.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/world/asia/facebook-sri-l...

rayiner 6y ago
No. The ACLU was built on rejecting social harm arguments to free speech.
- miles 6y ago
  > The ACLU was built on rejecting social harm arguments to free speech. So they're OK with yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Or having a president incite a riot or a war?
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > So they're OK with yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Assuming that the ACLU generally supports the Brandenburg v Ohio standard, which overturned the US v Schenck standard, I'd say the answer to that question is "yes". https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
    - miles 6y ago
      Sorry for the lazy shorthand; here’s the fuller version: What Holmes said after it, however, did become a standard for future free speech arguments. “The question in every case,” he said, “is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-shout-fire-in-crowded-theater https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-...
      - bhupy 6y ago
        Just pulling from your own quote: > is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger The "clear and present danger" standard is no longer used. It's been overturned in favor of the "imminent lawless action" standard. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater does not fall under imminent lawless action.
- monocasa 6y ago
  Even they have limits to that, as we saw from the aftermath of Charlottesville. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/charlottesville-violence-prompts-aclu-change-policy-hate-groups-protesting-guns https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/charlottesville-violence...
  - klyrs 6y ago
    > Romero told the Journal “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else,” he added. > The ACLU still officially condemns the hate speech of white supremacists, Romero told the LA Times, but “at the same time, we believe that even odious hate speech, with which we vehemently disagree, garners the protection of the 1st Amendment when expressed non-violently.” > “We’ve had people with odious views, all manner of bigots. But not people who want to carry weapons and are intent on committing violence,” [ACLU spokeswoman Stacy Sullivan] said. That decision wasn't about their speech, per se, but about the violence of their actions. To be specific: the first amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble and that's where the ACLU has drawn the line.
manfredo 6y ago
I think it's simplistic to point to Facebook as instrumental in these instances of unrest. Sure, they were used as an instrument of communication but had Facebook not been there people would just use SMS or IRC. The 2002 Gujarat unrest, for instance, predates Facebook. We know what deadly unrest still forms in the absence of Facebook and other social media. I don't think we have evidence to claim that social media exacerbates unrest, versus the simple fact that more people are on social media and it's becoming a more popular communication tool than SMS.
- acdha 6y ago
  There are some key differences: Facebook/Twitter/YouTube don’t just send messages, they also chooses which ones to promote to a wide audience. SMS only spreads if I know your number and think to add you. IRC only spreads if I choose to connect to a server and join a channel. In contrast, Facebook will promote things to you unprompted and will use your friends’ names and pictures to promote them. YouTube will suggest videos and start playing them automatically (there was a time where almost any gaming related video would get unhinged anti-feminist rants next because the guys who were outraged by Anita Sarkeesian’s existence showed high engagement numbers and the ad maximization algorithm suggested other things they liked). This is why Trump et al. are so outraged like this. He’s a millionaire and could afford his own copy of WordPress but that won’t come with a free recruitment machine.
bpodgursky 6y ago
The USPS has been used to disseminate hate speech and plan criminal activities. Should we ban the post service? Clearly they have no ability to regulate the hateful content they disseminate.
yuliyp 6y ago
> Might be time for a bit more nuanced view That's a valid view for you to hold. I was just pointing out that the ACLU does not hold the same view. Their arguments in this case feel consistent with their own previous views, even while it's at odds with your views.