4 ms·
A credible immediate threat of violence seems to cross the threshold of free speech, but is no-platforming the remedy? Because it is a pre-emptive meassure, sho
by publicola1990 6y ago
A credible immediate threat of violence seems to cross the threshold of free speech, but is no-platforming the remedy? Because it is a pre-emptive meassure, should private companies needs to have power to do so?
I think prohibited speech should be addressed through post-fact punitive measures, not through blanket premptive actions.
Even if someone does say prohibited things, it does not necessarily follow that all that say ought to be prohibited. So no-platforming is morally and ethically problematic.
- krapp 6y agoIf I own a bar, and you, a patron, start threatening people (prohibited speech), should I have the power to (pre-emptively) have the bouncer toss you out? Or should I be forced to take only "post-fact" measures, and just stand there and let the brawl happen and wait patiently for police to arrive? To me, it seems more ethically problematic to allow immediate threats of violence to proliferate on a platform unchecked until it can be proven that violence actually occurred, simply for the sake of ideological purity.
- mPReDiToR 6y agoThe problem there is that "history is written by the victors" and until they decide you're "one man's freedom fighter" you're de facto "another man's terrorist". Taking steps to stop violence before it begins makes more sense than using hindsight to judge the merits of the violence. IMO.
- publicola1990 6y agoThere is no merit to violence. Those who indulge in violence and other law breaking should suffer consequences. No-platforming however has no role in that. I doubt if these platforms or anyone have the ability to determine legality of posts before they are made.