5 ms·
We should hold resourceful politicians with their megaphones accountable for what they advocate instead of silencing people or groups that are following them wh
by stunt 6y ago
We should hold resourceful politicians with their megaphones accountable for what they advocate instead of silencing people or groups that are following them which will only irritate them.
- fred_is_fred 6y agoWe should instead do both.
- jtbayly 6y agoIt will not only irritate them. It will enrage them, add many others to their ranks, and likely lead to much more drama and violence.
- Jeema101 6y agoThey're already enraged and they have no desire to engage in civil discourse anyway because they'd rather believe in conspiracy theories. I liken it to having a toxic person in your life who can't admit that their actions are ever wrong - what do you do in a situation like that? At some point, you just have to cut them off.
- loveistheanswer 6y agoYou have a fair point, except for the fact that it ignores the elephants in the room which have been incentivizing and profiting off of extremism for years now across the world
- jtbayly 6y agoSome people already are. As I said, this action will greatly increase the number of people who are.
- cure 6y agoBut what's the alternative? Should we just let people incite violence to their heart's content, and then be surprised when people actually carry out the violence because they have been brainwashed? How is that better?
- ceilingcorner 6y agoI don’t know, you could maybe follow the laws of every country on Earth and hold people accountable for the violence they actually carry out?
- cure 6y agoThat is (hopefully) happening this time. It's worth pointing out that a lot of other countries on Earth have laws that prohibit hate speech. Quite a few countries have libel laws, too. The US does not have either of those at the federal level, making it much more difficult to use the law to stop people from inciting violence and spreading blatant lies.
- pdabbadabba 6y ago> The US does not have [libel laws] at the federal level It's true--I think--that there is no federal libel statute (though perhaps someone can correct me on this), but that assertion is misleading without a little more context. Whether it is a state or federal law doesn't really mean much in the American legal system. In the U.S., most such laws are state, not federal laws. That doesn't make them less important or enforceable. Every state that I know of recognizes libel as a tort (i.e., you can sue someone for it), and you can do so in federal court if the required ents for federal jurisdiction are met. (In this case, probably that the plaintiff and defendant are from different states.) And, in any case, what's wrong with state courts? A judgement in a state court is just as good as one in federal court.
- cure 6y agoThanks, I didn't intend to mislead. Ianal :) It's my understanding that most US state-level libel laws don't have a lot of teeth, and that they are quite a patchwork, which is why I didn't mention them.
- jtbayly 6y agoThe fact that they are a patchwork is a feature. It's why we have the 10th amendment.
- root_axis 6y agoBanning them is holding them accountable. Their irritation is not rational, they are quite "irritated" by the peaceful transition of power; no more coddling of these bad faith actors, when they stop fomenting chaos in our society then they can be allowed to shitpost on twitter once again, because of course, restricting the freedom to stoke violence online is the real story here, not their literal attack on democracy.