3 ms·

Yeah I think we're on the same page, no one should be able to censor speech that isn't hate speech is really the main point. And definitely no jurisdiction sho

Yeah I think we're on the same page, no one should be able to censor speech that isn't hate speech is really the main point. And definitely no jurisdiction should be given to politicians.

ashtonkem 5y ago
You’re proposing giving jurisdiction to politicians, you just don’t seem to be aware of it. Someone, somewhere will need to decide what speech is and is not “censorable” (a gross abuse of that word) above and beyond the regular standard of “protected speech”. Basically nobody wants to live on an internet where Twitter cannot moderate some protected speech , as that’s how you end up with 4chan. Hate speech is protected speech, pornography is protected speech, as is all kinds of harassment and bullying. Someone will need to draw the line for what can and cannot be moderated on all platforms, and that is a huge amount of power to hand out. It’s also fundamentally unconstitutional. You cannot do this via legislation alone. The courts have long held that forcing someone to speak is as bad as punishing someone for speaking, and there is no constitutional framework for anything other than protected and unprotected speech. The courts will strike this bill down, it’s pure political theater for the base.
- alexfromapex 5y ago
  I think 4chan is the perfect example of a site filled with lots of hate speech. There are well-established legal precedents for what hate speech is already. There would not be enforcers of this on each website but if a person's rights are violated they would be able to sue the company and a court would decide if they were censoring the person without a legitimate reason or not. It would have to be done at the federal level one way or another due to Section 230 precluding state laws. If anything, Section 230 is too loosely defined right now: "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" The otherwise objectionable bit is basically a blank check to censor anything.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    > There are well-established legal precedents for what hate speech is already. [Citation Needed] > There would not be enforcers of this on each website but if a person's rights are violated they would be able to sue the company and a court would decide if they were censoring the person without a legitimate reason or not. Creating a legal cause of action is a fantastic way to create a chilling effect without getting your hands dirty. This is a pretty common trick lawmakers use to try and backdoor introduce rules they can’t legally enforce themselves. Also, the courts consider themselves to be constrained by the first amendment. You can’t endrun around that amendment by using the judiciary, which is why Times v. Sullivan was decided the way it was, even though that was a civil action between private parties. > It would have to be done at the federal level one way or another Doing it at the federal level is not sufficient if the courts believe that the law is unconstitutional. > The otherwise objectionable bit is basically a blank check to censor anything. Again, this is not censorship. You are grossly abusing that word. The moment you face legal consequences for speech, we can talk about censorship. The word you’re looking for is “moderation”. Second, you’re tap dancing around a really big problem. It’s fine and dandy to point at 230 and say “it’s too vague”, but arguing against something is easy. You need to propose a clear alternative standard that will stand up to judicial scrutiny. You have not done that.
suifbwish 5y ago
No. “Hate speech” is a vague BS term that can be applied to anything that disagrees with any established political group. I would rejoin the military to fight in a war that keeps “Hate speech” out of the US law books. The first amendment shall not be infringed on even if whatever being said is the most hateful diabolical thing imaginable. Absolutely no exceptions.
charwalker 5y ago
You should read up on the tolerance paradox. The people behind this FL bill are the type to abuse such tolerance, all while telling bakeries it's chill if they refuse services for gay wedding or similar.

Yeah I think we're on the same page, no one should be able to censor speech that isn't hate speech is really the main point. And definitely no jurisdiction should be given to politicians.

ashtonkem 5y ago

You’re proposing giving jurisdiction to politicians, you just don’t seem to be aware of it. Someone, somewhere will need to decide what speech is and is not “censorable” (a gross abuse of that word) above and beyond the regular standard of “protected speech”. Basically nobody wants to live on an internet where Twitter cannot moderate some protected speech , as that’s how you end up with 4chan. Hate speech is protected speech, pornography is protected speech, as is all kinds of harassment and bullying. Someone will need to draw the line for what can and cannot be moderated on all platforms, and that is a huge amount of power to hand out. It’s also fundamentally unconstitutional. You cannot do this via legislation alone. The courts have long held that forcing someone to speak is as bad as punishing someone for speaking, and there is no constitutional framework for anything other than protected and unprotected speech. The courts will strike this bill down, it’s pure political theater for the base.

alexfromapex 5y ago
I think 4chan is the perfect example of a site filled with lots of hate speech. There are well-established legal precedents for what hate speech is already. There would not be enforcers of this on each website but if a person's rights are violated they would be able to sue the company and a court would decide if they were censoring the person without a legitimate reason or not. It would have to be done at the federal level one way or another due to Section 230 precluding state laws. If anything, Section 230 is too loosely defined right now: "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" The otherwise objectionable bit is basically a blank check to censor anything.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > There are well-established legal precedents for what hate speech is already. [Citation Needed] > There would not be enforcers of this on each website but if a person's rights are violated they would be able to sue the company and a court would decide if they were censoring the person without a legitimate reason or not. Creating a legal cause of action is a fantastic way to create a chilling effect without getting your hands dirty. This is a pretty common trick lawmakers use to try and backdoor introduce rules they can’t legally enforce themselves. Also, the courts consider themselves to be constrained by the first amendment. You can’t endrun around that amendment by using the judiciary, which is why Times v. Sullivan was decided the way it was, even though that was a civil action between private parties. > It would have to be done at the federal level one way or another Doing it at the federal level is not sufficient if the courts believe that the law is unconstitutional. > The otherwise objectionable bit is basically a blank check to censor anything. Again, this is not censorship. You are grossly abusing that word. The moment you face legal consequences for speech, we can talk about censorship. The word you’re looking for is “moderation”. Second, you’re tap dancing around a really big problem. It’s fine and dandy to point at 230 and say “it’s too vague”, but arguing against something is easy. You need to propose a clear alternative standard that will stand up to judicial scrutiny. You have not done that.

suifbwish 5y ago

No. “Hate speech” is a vague BS term that can be applied to anything that disagrees with any established political group. I would rejoin the military to fight in a war that keeps “Hate speech” out of the US law books. The first amendment shall not be infringed on even if whatever being said is the most hateful diabolical thing imaginable. Absolutely no exceptions.

charwalker 5y ago

You should read up on the tolerance paradox. The people behind this FL bill are the type to abuse such tolerance, all while telling bakeries it's chill if they refuse services for gay wedding or similar.