5 ms·

Its interesting that you mention this infinite money problem. Have you ever noticed that the second a fully free speech site opens it is almost instantly cripp

Its interesting that you mention this infinite money problem. Have you ever noticed that the second a fully free speech site opens it is almost instantly crippled with CP? Do you really think that is just happening naaturally? How can something universally loathed also be so prolific that it needs to constanly infect venues to propogate? Its almost like its a tactic to suppress free speech but im just a nut.

mountainb 5y ago
This is a problem with the post-'60s post-Chatterly trial conception of free speech. Since then, amidst other developments, the concept of free speech has been conflated with a rabid opposition to any obscenity laws. The US and Great Britain have had a much longer history in which free speech had a meaning separate from the absence of prohibition against obscene material (with some small exceptions we have today like child pornography). There is actually no contradiction between moderating to remove obscene and other illegal content and supporting the principle of free speech. It's just our understanding of what free speech is has become deeply muddled. Depending on your understanding of free speech, the Comstock Law regime for example either contradicts the principle or fits within that principle. SA is a good example of the limits of the post-60s conception of free speech and the problems associated with a fanatical dedication to an only recently established reinterpretation of the first amendment. James Madison would not have recognized the post-60s speech regime as something he was establishing in Bill of Rights. He would have seen it as an odd stretch of a relatively ancient and well established principle under British law and political culture.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Is there more information about the changing definition of free speech? How did modern activists get it so wrong?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > There is actually no contradiction between moderating to remove obscene and other illegal content and supporting the principle of free speech. Yes, there is. There is, in fact, a fundamental contradiction between the idea that the State can declare content “illegal” and “free speech”. The obscenity exception turns free speech from “the government cannot ban content” to “the government cannot ban content unless both the judge [0] and a sufficiently large portion of the public sufficiently dislikes it [1] and it has to do with sex and/or excretion.” That's not to say the founders wouldn't have agreed with it; the founders agreed that hereditary slavery had no conflict with the right of persona not to have life or liberty deprived without due process of law, so as a whole thet had pretty big blind spots in their conception of rights. [0] the official prong being that the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value [1] that the average member of the community would find it appeals to a prurient interest.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    These arguments take a form which implies that each right operates in a vacuum. But, of course, if we were to allow any right without exception, then we would soon find that we have no rights. Not only would the limitless interpretation of one right eventually decimate other rights but, apart from that, it would also undermine society's solvency; hence its ability to enforce even the expanded right. Rights, as ideas, have no utility. They must be layered onto the substrate of a functioning society. Hence, there has always been work towards achieving balance, as every right must be circumscribed to some degree. This is why we have courts, reasonableness standards, etc. So, sure, we could interpret these as "contradictions", but that becomes a meaningless characterization in any practical sense.
    - mountainb 5y ago
      They don't operate within a vacuum: the historical context matters. Over the last 400-500 years, the Anglo-American elite mostly decided to support the free exchange of ideas relating to politics and religion to support vigorous debate and an open public sphere. That's the primary value that the first amendment is supposed to protect. It's also supposed to act as a sort of political safety valve that prevents civil war and that tends to privilege parliamentary procedure over arbitrary executive/royal rule. The intention was not to enshrine a right to smut in the constitution, nor was it to legalize criminal harassment, threats, or defamation. That's something that was read into it by judicial activism.
shadowgovt 5y ago
> Do you really think that is just happening naaturally? Yes, in the same natural way that water flows down a gravity gradient. As water will be found at the bottom of wells because it can't generally flow uphill, content that is excluded from every other location will only appear where it is not excluded. And the speed at which it appears is the speed of communication on the internet, which is fast. There's no conspiracy here, other than the very dedicated conspiracy that is the tiny minority of horrible people thirsty for a horrible thing desperate to find an outlet for it. It is, unfortunately, the natural consequence of not excluding them that they show up and do their thing (disproportionately more on a site that allows it because no other site will).
- citizenpaul 5y ago
  You didnt address my points at all. I'll be more clear. CP is actively used by state actors to shut down sites that are free speech oriented. It happens too fast and too frequently to be natural. CP has to come from somewhere either through the truly horrific creation at source or by saving a large amount then sharing it and exposing your illegal activity. There is no reason to post CP on a public rather than a private place when it is so actively policed. Might as well just call the police and say you have CP to share. CP = Publicly Everywhere and police do nothing. CP = Is not actually everywhere something else is going on. Choose one.
  - newbie789 5y ago
    Hi! Have you ever been the owner of a free hosting service of any kind whatsoever? A long time ago I was, and I can assure you that horrific child/animal abuse material does literally show up as an emergent phenomenon, necessitating moderation in 100% of platforms. I don’t think that it was the result of some complex conspiracy by the government to undermine my site since the only time I had contact with the police was when I reached out and provided the authorities with logs and whatever other relevant information I had on hand. The factually correct statement is your first one. CP is publicly everywhere and police do nothing. The issue that you’ve maybe missed or chosen to ignore is that it’s indeed everywhere. It’s everywhere to such a huge extent that the police have to rely on private operators to self-report CSAM to them. I’d suggest that you try making a website where people can upload images or videos for free, getting the word out, and counting the hours/days until you are contacted by your users about horrifying content that you’re hosting. That would require actually putting money (and legal liability) into providing a free-speech-themed service though, which for some reason nobody wants to do. Edit: Pedophiles do not necessarily act rationally, and tend to put a lot of effort into protecting their anonymity. They aren’t like you and I. They are fucking deranged.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mountainb 5y ago

This is a problem with the post-'60s post-Chatterly trial conception of free speech. Since then, amidst other developments, the concept of free speech has been conflated with a rabid opposition to any obscenity laws. The US and Great Britain have had a much longer history in which free speech had a meaning separate from the absence of prohibition against obscene material (with some small exceptions we have today like child pornography). There is actually no contradiction between moderating to remove obscene and other illegal content and supporting the principle of free speech. It's just our understanding of what free speech is has become deeply muddled. Depending on your understanding of free speech, the Comstock Law regime for example either contradicts the principle or fits within that principle. SA is a good example of the limits of the post-60s conception of free speech and the problems associated with a fanatical dedication to an only recently established reinterpretation of the first amendment. James Madison would not have recognized the post-60s speech regime as something he was establishing in Bill of Rights. He would have seen it as an odd stretch of a relatively ancient and well established principle under British law and political culture.

Apocryphon 5y ago
Is there more information about the changing definition of free speech? How did modern activists get it so wrong?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> There is actually no contradiction between moderating to remove obscene and other illegal content and supporting the principle of free speech. Yes, there is. There is, in fact, a fundamental contradiction between the idea that the State can declare content “illegal” and “free speech”. The obscenity exception turns free speech from “the government cannot ban content” to “the government cannot ban content unless both the judge [0] and a sufficiently large portion of the public sufficiently dislikes it [1] and it has to do with sex and/or excretion.” That's not to say the founders wouldn't have agreed with it; the founders agreed that hereditary slavery had no conflict with the right of persona not to have life or liberty deprived without due process of law, so as a whole thet had pretty big blind spots in their conception of rights. [0] the official prong being that the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value [1] that the average member of the community would find it appeals to a prurient interest.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  These arguments take a form which implies that each right operates in a vacuum. But, of course, if we were to allow any right without exception, then we would soon find that we have no rights. Not only would the limitless interpretation of one right eventually decimate other rights but, apart from that, it would also undermine society's solvency; hence its ability to enforce even the expanded right. Rights, as ideas, have no utility. They must be layered onto the substrate of a functioning society. Hence, there has always been work towards achieving balance, as every right must be circumscribed to some degree. This is why we have courts, reasonableness standards, etc. So, sure, we could interpret these as "contradictions", but that becomes a meaningless characterization in any practical sense.
  - mountainb 5y ago
    They don't operate within a vacuum: the historical context matters. Over the last 400-500 years, the Anglo-American elite mostly decided to support the free exchange of ideas relating to politics and religion to support vigorous debate and an open public sphere. That's the primary value that the first amendment is supposed to protect. It's also supposed to act as a sort of political safety valve that prevents civil war and that tends to privilege parliamentary procedure over arbitrary executive/royal rule. The intention was not to enshrine a right to smut in the constitution, nor was it to legalize criminal harassment, threats, or defamation. That's something that was read into it by judicial activism.

shadowgovt 5y ago

> Do you really think that is just happening naaturally? Yes, in the same natural way that water flows down a gravity gradient. As water will be found at the bottom of wells because it can't generally flow uphill, content that is excluded from every other location will only appear where it is not excluded. And the speed at which it appears is the speed of communication on the internet, which is fast. There's no conspiracy here, other than the very dedicated conspiracy that is the tiny minority of horrible people thirsty for a horrible thing desperate to find an outlet for it. It is, unfortunately, the natural consequence of not excluding them that they show up and do their thing (disproportionately more on a site that allows it because no other site will).

citizenpaul 5y ago
You didnt address my points at all. I'll be more clear. CP is actively used by state actors to shut down sites that are free speech oriented. It happens too fast and too frequently to be natural. CP has to come from somewhere either through the truly horrific creation at source or by saving a large amount then sharing it and exposing your illegal activity. There is no reason to post CP on a public rather than a private place when it is so actively policed. Might as well just call the police and say you have CP to share. CP = Publicly Everywhere and police do nothing. CP = Is not actually everywhere something else is going on. Choose one.
- newbie789 5y ago
  Hi! Have you ever been the owner of a free hosting service of any kind whatsoever? A long time ago I was, and I can assure you that horrific child/animal abuse material does literally show up as an emergent phenomenon, necessitating moderation in 100% of platforms. I don’t think that it was the result of some complex conspiracy by the government to undermine my site since the only time I had contact with the police was when I reached out and provided the authorities with logs and whatever other relevant information I had on hand. The factually correct statement is your first one. CP is publicly everywhere and police do nothing. The issue that you’ve maybe missed or chosen to ignore is that it’s indeed everywhere. It’s everywhere to such a huge extent that the police have to rely on private operators to self-report CSAM to them. I’d suggest that you try making a website where people can upload images or videos for free, getting the word out, and counting the hours/days until you are contacted by your users about horrifying content that you’re hosting. That would require actually putting money (and legal liability) into providing a free-speech-themed service though, which for some reason nobody wants to do. Edit: Pedophiles do not necessarily act rationally, and tend to put a lot of effort into protecting their anonymity. They aren’t like you and I. They are fucking deranged.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]