5 ms·

"I support free speech except the things that I don't like"

by tekla 4y ago

wussboy 4y ago
Free speech is a good, but it is not the highest good. We do not need to throw civil society away because it might infringe on free speech.
- HereIGoAgain 4y ago
  Civil society is a good, but it is not the highest good. We do not need to throw free speech away because it might infringe on civility. Especially when it's out and away from public and attention minding it's own business.
  - wussboy 4y ago
    I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that, if we could choose, we should choose free speech over civil society?
rhinoceraptor 4y ago
The site in question is one of the most notorious doxxing and harassment forums, linked to multiple suicides of their victims over the years. I'm not sure what principled political speech you think is being protected here.
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  Transparency in a society is extremely important. It is a fundamental right to gather and publish information bringing to the publics attention harmful, disturbing and potentially illegal behavior. What principled political speech should be protected you ask? My answer is investigative journalism. If you believe investigative journalism should exist and plays an important function in society, you should have no problem with outlets doing that.
  - rhinoceraptor 4y ago
    Harassing, doxxing, and swatting random people on social media is not investigative journalism.
    - convery 4y ago
      Guess we should take down traditional media as well then when they dox LibsOfTiktok and other creators so that the Twitter mob can harass and SWAT them, since they can't hide behind 'journalism'. Or does it only apply to the bad guys?
      - rhinoceraptor 4y ago
        It's a pretty big false equivalence to say revealing the name of a prominent psuedonymous account linked to doxxing, harassment and bomb threats is remotely the same as what KF or Libs of TikTok do.
  - ladyattis 4y ago
    How exactly is Kiwi Farms helping with this when the vast majority of their forum threads are like "LOL tr--ns talking about X." Seriously, just go skim their site, tell me exactly where they fulfill this function?
  - autoexec 4y ago
    KF is not "investigative journalism." It's just a site where people gather to point and laugh at mentally ill people with a web presence. Anything they dig up on someone is in service to that singular goal. There's no reason to pretend that they do what they do for any other reason. Clouflare shouldn't be shutting down websites because of their content, but making fun of mentally ill people is not "an important function in society".
- whalecancer 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Pxtl 4y ago
Free speech does not cover defamation.
- fjordelectro 4y ago
  Sounds like something for the courts to handle and not cloudflare. https://casetext.com/case/scott-v-moon-1 https://casetext.com/case/scott-v-moon-1
  - Pxtl 4y ago
    You could say that about a lot of things that are normally covered by abuse policies. For example, we expect hosts to remove content that violate copyright, why is copyright more worthy of protection at the corporate level than defamation?
    - howdyfolks 4y ago
      Because society created laws in that way?
    - nradov 4y ago
      The DMCA specifically requires hosts to remove content upon an allegation of copyright infringement. There is no law requiring hosts to remove defamatory content (without a specific court order). Congress has deemed copyright protection more worthy of protection at the corporate level than defamation. If you are unhappy with that situation then you should contact your members of Congress.
- cowtools 4y ago
- cowtools 4y ago
  Interesting. I typed up a comment that mentioned the name of the person co-ordonating the DDoS campaign, and I got instantly flagged. Test.
- subsistence234 4y ago
sealeck 4y ago
I broadly support free speech, but not hate speech.
- subsistence234 4y ago
  "Hate speech" is ill-defined, basically it's just "speech that people with enough power don't like." and what that is can changes at any time. Many people more intelligent than you (and me) have spent many decades thinking about this issue. E.g. if you can show in court that KF is defaming someone, you can go after them, or if you can show they're involved in other illegal activities. But "I don't like some of the things they're saying on their own forum" is NOT a valid reason.
- from 4y ago
  The Soviet equivalent of this is saying you support free speech but not for capitalists.
banannaise 4y ago
The Daily Stormer is a Nazi website dedicated to promoting genocide and organizing people who support genocide. That's not "things that I don't like" unless your argument is that we shouldn't actually do anything about genocide until the genocide has been done.

"I support free speech except the things that I don't like"

by tekla 4y ago

"I support free speech except the things that I don't like"

Free speech is a good, but it is not the highest good. We do not need to throw civil society away because it might infringe on free speech.

HereIGoAgain 4y ago
Civil society is a good, but it is not the highest good. We do not need to throw free speech away because it might infringe on civility. Especially when it's out and away from public and attention minding it's own business.
- wussboy 4y ago
  I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that, if we could choose, we should choose free speech over civil society?

rhinoceraptor 4y ago

The site in question is one of the most notorious doxxing and harassment forums, linked to multiple suicides of their victims over the years. I'm not sure what principled political speech you think is being protected here.

throwawayacc2 4y ago
Transparency in a society is extremely important. It is a fundamental right to gather and publish information bringing to the publics attention harmful, disturbing and potentially illegal behavior. What principled political speech should be protected you ask? My answer is investigative journalism. If you believe investigative journalism should exist and plays an important function in society, you should have no problem with outlets doing that.
- rhinoceraptor 4y ago
  Harassing, doxxing, and swatting random people on social media is not investigative journalism.
  - convery 4y ago
    Guess we should take down traditional media as well then when they dox LibsOfTiktok and other creators so that the Twitter mob can harass and SWAT them, since they can't hide behind 'journalism'. Or does it only apply to the bad guys?
    - rhinoceraptor 4y ago
      It's a pretty big false equivalence to say revealing the name of a prominent psuedonymous account linked to doxxing, harassment and bomb threats is remotely the same as what KF or Libs of TikTok do.
- ladyattis 4y ago
  How exactly is Kiwi Farms helping with this when the vast majority of their forum threads are like "LOL tr--ns talking about X." Seriously, just go skim their site, tell me exactly where they fulfill this function?
- autoexec 4y ago
  KF is not "investigative journalism." It's just a site where people gather to point and laugh at mentally ill people with a web presence. Anything they dig up on someone is in service to that singular goal. There's no reason to pretend that they do what they do for any other reason. Clouflare shouldn't be shutting down websites because of their content, but making fun of mentally ill people is not "an important function in society".
whalecancer 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Pxtl 4y ago

Free speech does not cover defamation.

fjordelectro 4y ago
Sounds like something for the courts to handle and not cloudflare. https://casetext.com/case/scott-v-moon-1 https://casetext.com/case/scott-v-moon-1
- Pxtl 4y ago
  You could say that about a lot of things that are normally covered by abuse policies. For example, we expect hosts to remove content that violate copyright, why is copyright more worthy of protection at the corporate level than defamation?
  - howdyfolks 4y ago
    Because society created laws in that way?
  - nradov 4y ago
    The DMCA specifically requires hosts to remove content upon an allegation of copyright infringement. There is no law requiring hosts to remove defamatory content (without a specific court order). Congress has deemed copyright protection more worthy of protection at the corporate level than defamation. If you are unhappy with that situation then you should contact your members of Congress.
cowtools 4y ago
cowtools 4y ago
Interesting. I typed up a comment that mentioned the name of the person co-ordonating the DDoS campaign, and I got instantly flagged. Test.
subsistence234 4y ago

sealeck 4y ago

I broadly support free speech, but not hate speech.

subsistence234 4y ago
"Hate speech" is ill-defined, basically it's just "speech that people with enough power don't like." and what that is can changes at any time. Many people more intelligent than you (and me) have spent many decades thinking about this issue. E.g. if you can show in court that KF is defaming someone, you can go after them, or if you can show they're involved in other illegal activities. But "I don't like some of the things they're saying on their own forum" is NOT a valid reason.
from 4y ago
The Soviet equivalent of this is saying you support free speech but not for capitalists.

banannaise 4y ago

The Daily Stormer is a Nazi website dedicated to promoting genocide and organizing people who support genocide. That's not "things that I don't like" unless your argument is that we shouldn't actually do anything about genocide until the genocide has been done.