3 ms·

> You can let people say whatever they want Indeed, you can let them say whatever they want. But that doesn't mean that anyone else should or should not. It'

by danans 6y ago

> You can let people say whatever they want Indeed, you can let them say whatever they want. But that doesn't mean that anyone else should or should not. It's not like there aren't companies and service providers willing to host the content. > refuse to implement their proposals There are real practical limits to free speech. A "proposal" that is an incitement to organized violence is of the same kind as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. That is fundamentally different than a proposal to eliminate the estate tax, provide a universal basic income, or organizing to peacefully protest using civil disobedience.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> But that doesn't mean that anyone else should or should not. It's not like there aren't companies and service providers willing to host the content. Isn't the service currently down? > yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. 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... > A "proposal" that is an incitement to organized violence But then you need not worry about what some website or service is doing because that is illegal and the police can arrest them for it. Basically, a call to violence isn't information, it's action, like ordering a hit. The prohibited act is really the order, i.e. participation in a conspiracy to commit an act of violence, and the communication is only the evidence of it. Compare mob boss who says "whack that guy" and goes to jail for it vs. news reporter who reports that mob boss ordered a hit, unintentionally informing a hit man who wasn't aware of the order. News reporter doesn't go to jail for that because their intent was only to communicate information, not enable the act of violence, even though they conveyed the same information and it had the same result.
- danans 6y ago
  > Isn't the service currently down? They are working on getting it up and running under a Russian ISP, DDos-Guard. https://www.cnet.com/news/parler-website-is-back-online-in-limited-form-after-amazon-cut-hosting-ties/ https://www.cnet.com/news/parler-website-is-back-online-in-l... If sites like Gab and its ilk can figure it out, so cab Parler. > > yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. > https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... From that article: "[In Brandenburg v. Ohio] the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"." > But then you need not worry about what some website or service is doing because that is illegal and the police can arrest them for it. You don't need to worry, but the website is well within their rights to worry about what people are posting to their site and take action to limit that if they see fit.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > They are working on getting it up and running under a Russian ISP, DDos-Guard. The article this discussion is attached to is called "DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler". > If sites like Gab and its ilk can figure it out, so cab Parler. Parler was bigger than Gab. It remains to be seen whether the scale presents an issue. > "[In Brandenburg v. Ohio] the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"." But that isn't the case where the phrase "fire in a crowded theater" came from and that quote doesn't even appear to cover the phrase itself, since a panic is potentially dangerous but not illegal. Here's some more on why the phrase should be discontinued: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... Bottom line, it's too vague to mean anything because all it implies is that unprotected speech exists without specifying any meaningful boundaries for it, so people regularly quote it in support of arbitrary overreach. > You don't need to worry, but the website is well within their rights to worry about what people are posting to their site and take action to limit that if they see fit. But we were talking about tolerance.
    - danans 6y ago
      > But we were talking about tolerance. Tolerance for incitement to violence? I don't personally support tolerance of that, which is my right, and what I personally feel is better to avoid the spread of toxic cultures like found on Parler. Tolerance of diverse and non violence-provoking political opinions, including those I disagree with? That is something I totally support. Parler clearly does tolerate incitement to violence, which is their right. Good for them for exercising it, but nobody has to support them, nor should anyone be prevented from supporting them. Likewise, if there are consequences (commericial or legal) for tolerating incitement to violence, Parler owns those too. You are also free to tolerate it and provide services to support those who do.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago

by danans 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> But that doesn't mean that anyone else should or should not. It's not like there aren't companies and service providers willing to host the content. Isn't the service currently down? > yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. 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... > A "proposal" that is an incitement to organized violence But then you need not worry about what some website or service is doing because that is illegal and the police can arrest them for it. Basically, a call to violence isn't information, it's action, like ordering a hit. The prohibited act is really the order, i.e. participation in a conspiracy to commit an act of violence, and the communication is only the evidence of it. Compare mob boss who says "whack that guy" and goes to jail for it vs. news reporter who reports that mob boss ordered a hit, unintentionally informing a hit man who wasn't aware of the order. News reporter doesn't go to jail for that because their intent was only to communicate information, not enable the act of violence, even though they conveyed the same information and it had the same result.

danans 6y ago
> Isn't the service currently down? They are working on getting it up and running under a Russian ISP, DDos-Guard. https://www.cnet.com/news/parler-website-is-back-online-in-limited-form-after-amazon-cut-hosting-ties/ https://www.cnet.com/news/parler-website-is-back-online-in-l... If sites like Gab and its ilk can figure it out, so cab Parler. > > yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. > https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... From that article: "[In Brandenburg v. Ohio] the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"." > But then you need not worry about what some website or service is doing because that is illegal and the police can arrest them for it. You don't need to worry, but the website is well within their rights to worry about what people are posting to their site and take action to limit that if they see fit.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > They are working on getting it up and running under a Russian ISP, DDos-Guard. The article this discussion is attached to is called "DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler". > If sites like Gab and its ilk can figure it out, so cab Parler. Parler was bigger than Gab. It remains to be seen whether the scale presents an issue. > "[In Brandenburg v. Ohio] the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"." But that isn't the case where the phrase "fire in a crowded theater" came from and that quote doesn't even appear to cover the phrase itself, since a panic is potentially dangerous but not illegal. Here's some more on why the phrase should be discontinued: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... Bottom line, it's too vague to mean anything because all it implies is that unprotected speech exists without specifying any meaningful boundaries for it, so people regularly quote it in support of arbitrary overreach. > You don't need to worry, but the website is well within their rights to worry about what people are posting to their site and take action to limit that if they see fit. But we were talking about tolerance.
  - danans 6y ago
    > But we were talking about tolerance. Tolerance for incitement to violence? I don't personally support tolerance of that, which is my right, and what I personally feel is better to avoid the spread of toxic cultures like found on Parler. Tolerance of diverse and non violence-provoking political opinions, including those I disagree with? That is something I totally support. Parler clearly does tolerate incitement to violence, which is their right. Good for them for exercising it, but nobody has to support them, nor should anyone be prevented from supporting them. Likewise, if there are consequences (commericial or legal) for tolerating incitement to violence, Parler owns those too. You are also free to tolerate it and provide services to support those who do.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago