4 ms·

Are you equating consensual pornography between adults (presumably legal, free expression) with speech advocating violence?

by tcbawo 6y ago

yurielt 6y ago
Are you being dishonest with rhetorical questions ?
- kar5pt 6y ago
  No, he's pointing out that pornography and hate speech are two completely different things.
  - yurielt 6y ago
    I know but he is not actually engaging with the topic in a honest way he is presupposing a lot in the framing of his question like presupposing is consensual when in a lot of cases porn is not not only that but it dismissed the effects of porn on people and society while making us believe that the evil nazis in Parler are there and actually advocating for violence which mostly are not
cbozeman 6y ago
> Are you equating consensual pornography between adults (presumably legal, free expression) with speech advocating violence? Uh, yes... because they're both legal and they're both free expression. If I tweet out, "We should burn all this shit down some day and execute the people responsible!" in regards to the corruption of our modern institutions, that's 100% legal, and the reason is because it doesn't pass the imminent lawless action standard, because I didn't say, "We should burn all this shit down and execute the people responsible for the corruption of our institutions on July 4, 2021 at 2:19 p.m. EST!" I'm advocating for illegal action at some future undefined time in the first example, which therefore does not meet the imminence requirement. Also, there's no such thing as hate speech... there's only speech you don't like. Or more accurately, a bunch of self-appointed, self-aggrandizing, self-righteous jackasses in Silicon Valley - many of whom probably post here on HN - may think there's a such thing as hate speech, but it doesn't exist in America, because, as actor David Margulies so eloquently said in Ghostbusters 2, "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right." Just expand "New Yorker" to "American".
- tcbawo 6y ago
  You're describing the legal standard of free speech, vs the terms of service laid out by a corporate. As a private company, Twitter is presumably free to draw a line and enforce it consistently. I'm sure it's a fine line to walk. But, saying you have to allow Nazi propaganda because you allow pornography is a false equivalence. There are plenty of illegal/objectionable forms of pornography, which I purposefully did not include. Deciding you are not going to filter any content regardless of imminent lawless action seems especially reckless. I'm sure we'll be seeing this play out in court over the next few years.

Are you equating consensual pornography between adults (presumably legal, free expression) with speech advocating violence?

by tcbawo 6y ago

Are you equating consensual pornography between adults (presumably legal, free expression) with speech advocating violence?

yurielt 6y ago

Are you being dishonest with rhetorical questions ?

kar5pt 6y ago
No, he's pointing out that pornography and hate speech are two completely different things.
- yurielt 6y ago
  I know but he is not actually engaging with the topic in a honest way he is presupposing a lot in the framing of his question like presupposing is consensual when in a lot of cases porn is not not only that but it dismissed the effects of porn on people and society while making us believe that the evil nazis in Parler are there and actually advocating for violence which mostly are not

cbozeman 6y ago

> Are you equating consensual pornography between adults (presumably legal, free expression) with speech advocating violence? Uh, yes... because they're both legal and they're both free expression. If I tweet out, "We should burn all this shit down some day and execute the people responsible!" in regards to the corruption of our modern institutions, that's 100% legal, and the reason is because it doesn't pass the imminent lawless action standard, because I didn't say, "We should burn all this shit down and execute the people responsible for the corruption of our institutions on July 4, 2021 at 2:19 p.m. EST!" I'm advocating for illegal action at some future undefined time in the first example, which therefore does not meet the imminence requirement. Also, there's no such thing as hate speech... there's only speech you don't like. Or more accurately, a bunch of self-appointed, self-aggrandizing, self-righteous jackasses in Silicon Valley - many of whom probably post here on HN - may think there's a such thing as hate speech, but it doesn't exist in America, because, as actor David Margulies so eloquently said in Ghostbusters 2, "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right." Just expand "New Yorker" to "American".

tcbawo 6y ago
You're describing the legal standard of free speech, vs the terms of service laid out by a corporate. As a private company, Twitter is presumably free to draw a line and enforce it consistently. I'm sure it's a fine line to walk. But, saying you have to allow Nazi propaganda because you allow pornography is a false equivalence. There are plenty of illegal/objectionable forms of pornography, which I purposefully did not include. Deciding you are not going to filter any content regardless of imminent lawless action seems especially reckless. I'm sure we'll be seeing this play out in court over the next few years.