4 ms·
US Is Joining Christchurch Call to Action to Eliminate Terrorist Content Online
- donkarma 5y agoAnd how do they plan on doing that?
- bitwize 5y agoWe are going to have to acknowledge that the First Amendment right to free speech is not as broad as was set forth in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), and that it is within the government's purview, and the public interest, to curtail hate speech and radicalization with civil and criminal penalties.
- nerdponx 5y agoI would need to see some evidence that it's worth the downsides, before I could support something like this.
- nights192 5y agoThis seems like a delightful way to set precedent for any manner of disgruntling opinions--whether inimical or simply unpleasant to the status quo--as illegal.
- bitwize 5y agoIt's already being done -- in countries considered freer and less corrupt than the USA.
- risedotmoe 5y agoAnd who gets to decide what is hate speech and “radicalization”?
- etrabroline 5y agoThe government.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoBingo. That's exactly the problem.
- dcolkitt 5y agoSorry. But this will never ever happen in our lifetime. Not a single member of SCOTUS supports rescinding first amendment protections for “hate speech”. On that both the liberal and conservative justices are in complete agreement. There’s not any serious major faction in American jurisprudence that supports such an interpretation. And good luck trying to get 3/4 of state legislatures to sign off on a Constitutional amendment.
- etrabroline 5y agohttps://noqreport.com/2017/11/01/surprising-support-restricting-free-speech-banning-hate-speech-cato-survey/ https://noqreport.com/2017/11/01/surprising-support-restrict... >One in four think hate speech is currently illegal >strong majorities of both African-Americans and Latinos, believe that supporting someone’s legal right to say something racist is as bad as saying it yourself. >two-thirds of white respondents oppose government bans on “public hate speech,” nearly three in five African-Americans (56%) and Latinos (58%) support such bans >five in nine (55%) white Democrats oppose the bans EDIT: I would like to apologize to effingwewt for not linking the original study and simply posting numbers taken directly from the study.
- effingwewt 5y agoHahaha wow, right at the bottom of your 'website >Join fellow patriots as we keep Americans informed and advance the cause of conservatism At least link the study[1], instead of that piece of shit website, whose' article'btw is no more than some rando's fucked up words on an already stupid 'poll'. [1] https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/survey-reports/pdf/the-state-of-free-speech-and-tolerance.pdf https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/survey-reports/...
- MikeUt 5y ago> curtail hate speech and radicalization Would truth be a defense? If you're accused of hate speech, but you can show that everything you said is true*, does that make it legal hate speech? Or would truth also be curtailed, in the name of fighting hate? *Ignoring for now how truth is determined. For the sake of argument, lets say you have reliable, non-controversial mainstream sources for every statement.
- uniqueid 5y agoI don't think disinformation is an essential component of terrorist propaganda. It's easy enough to stoke hatred and urge violence against almost any group by harping on actual qualities they have, or actions they have taken.
- ttt0 5y agoPresumably by pressuring corporations. The current status quo is that censorship from corporations is not censorship, so people will go along with it. And I believe the American government is already doing that anyways.
- a0-prw 5y agoAlternative title: Puppetmaster heeds puppet's call to action.