7 ms·

100% concur. Illinois has to allow the Nazis to march: they are the government. You don't have to allow nazis into your private party, nor do you have to publ

100% concur. Illinois has to allow the Nazis to march: they are the government. You don't have to allow nazis into your private party, nor do you have to publish their books. You, as an individual, and corporations as entities are emphatically not the government.

SkyBelow 4y ago
>Illinois has to allow the Per the existing law, but given the Constitution can be changed, should they have to allow? Arguing they have to because the law currently prevents them from doing otherwise seems a different argument than it being good for government to have such restrictions because the benefits are worth more than the detriments (or vice versa).
DoctorOW 4y ago
But see this is where I get tripped up. I don't think laws should dictate morality. So barring the fact that it's the way the law is written in the United States. Why is Illinois morally required to protect speech and Cloudflare, who almost certainly has far greater control (theoretically) over speech not?
- phillipcarter 4y ago
  This is fast approaching the whole, "why is anyone morally required to do anything?" sort of existential discussion. The US Government has laws in place like this because those were written as founding principles and interpreted in certain ways by our legal system over time. That's only it. But it's all calvinball in the end. Congress could strike the 1A from the constitution, or all our courts could start ruling against the 1A tomorrow. We're just making it up as we go. Now this would likely result in a mass uprising, but that's besides the point. The only reason why this is a thing right now is because CloudFlare(a) is in a position to stop digital protection of Kiwi Farms (and thus force them to fully own the consequences of their speech), and (b) has explicitly chosen not to do anything about it, much to the chagrin of myself and a whole lot of other people. My belief, as is the belief of others, is that Kiwi Farms are violating their TOS and should be removed. That's it. CloudFlare, like Calvin when playing Calvinball, is deciding to make it up as they go, and we aren't happy about that.
  - DoctorOW 4y ago
    I'm genuinely struggling to see how this answers my question. You continually discuss laws when I made it abundantly clear that because laws are, as you put it, Calvinball they are irrelevant to what should be done. > CloudFlare (a) is in a position to stop digital protection of Kiwi Farms So too is Illinois to stop police protection of Nazi activists. I ask again, why SHOULD one organization protect speech and another shouldn't, given our agreement that any specific laws/amendments do not dictate what SHOULD happen?
    - phillipcarter 4y ago
      I think you're losing the plot here. Nothing has any moral obligation to do anything in this universe. Morality doesn't exist. And we're all just making it up as we go. Now that we've established that nothing matters, the reason is because a lot of us feel that Cloudflare should do something about it.
      - taxyz 4y ago
        You should entertain the idea that they claim they have a stronger responsibility to the principals of free speech than the communities you claim are harmed by their customers content.
        phillipcarter 4y ago
        You should entertain the idea that they're just ideologues who don't really know what they're doing.
        taxyz 4y ago
        The fact that you think you know what’s best for all parties involved is exactly why we protect/value free speech the way we do in the US.
      - DoctorOW 4y ago
        Bloody hell, I am definitely losing the plot. The reason you feel that way is because a lot of other people do? You have absolutely no rationale or thought process for the disparities between organizations x and y except that people are mad at organization y and not organization x?
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  Illinois is not morally required to protect speech. They are prevented from using government powers to restrict or punish speech. If counter protestors show up and shout over the Nazis, Illinois is not morally required to silence the counter protestors so the Nazis can speak. And if Nazis want to gather on private land, Illinois is not morally required to force the private landowner to permit that. The morality of equality is compromised by the practical execution of law. It’s legal for a cop to pull a gun and force you to the ground; it’s not legal for you to do that to me (or vice versa). So we place constraints on when the government can apply those special powers.
vorpalhex 4y ago
But you as a private individual or company can choose to hold the right to free speech in high regard.
- BryantD 4y ago
  I hold it in such high regard that I have considered the question of whether or not Kiwifarms inhibits free speech.
- splitrocket 4y ago
  Yup. And if your choice is pro-nazi, the rest of us can decide for ourselves what that means about you. For what it's worth, you can't be just a little bit Nazi. It's like poop in ice cream: if you have ten tons of ice cream and an ounce of poop, if you mix them together, you've just created ten tons of poop.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > It's like poop in ice cream: if you have ten tons of ice cream and an ounce of poop, if you mix them together, you've just created ten tons of poop. In that case your argument fails, because there are regulations for how much rat feces are permitted in processed food, and just FYI, it's NOT zero.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    If everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi and you believe we should restrict their rights, limit their speech and so on... you may be projecting.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  check the paradox of tolerance
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Are you ok with prohibiting the spread of Islam? Islam is incompatible with tolerance. Women's rights, depictions of Muhammed, etc. If we accept the paradox of tolerance you must either be anti-Islam or the paradox is broken. The fix is not new and is older than the paradox of tolerance: your rights end where mine begin. You have a right to write and speak what you will - I have a right to not listen. I do not have a right to stop speech I find offensive. Islam has a right to exist and take offense, but it may not use violence or law to get it's way.

SkyBelow 4y ago

>Illinois has to allow the Per the existing law, but given the Constitution can be changed, should they have to allow? Arguing they have to because the law currently prevents them from doing otherwise seems a different argument than it being good for government to have such restrictions because the benefits are worth more than the detriments (or vice versa).

DoctorOW 4y ago

But see this is where I get tripped up. I don't think laws should dictate morality. So barring the fact that it's the way the law is written in the United States. Why is Illinois morally required to protect speech and Cloudflare, who almost certainly has far greater control (theoretically) over speech not?

phillipcarter 4y ago
This is fast approaching the whole, "why is anyone morally required to do anything?" sort of existential discussion. The US Government has laws in place like this because those were written as founding principles and interpreted in certain ways by our legal system over time. That's only it. But it's all calvinball in the end. Congress could strike the 1A from the constitution, or all our courts could start ruling against the 1A tomorrow. We're just making it up as we go. Now this would likely result in a mass uprising, but that's besides the point. The only reason why this is a thing right now is because CloudFlare(a) is in a position to stop digital protection of Kiwi Farms (and thus force them to fully own the consequences of their speech), and (b) has explicitly chosen not to do anything about it, much to the chagrin of myself and a whole lot of other people. My belief, as is the belief of others, is that Kiwi Farms are violating their TOS and should be removed. That's it. CloudFlare, like Calvin when playing Calvinball, is deciding to make it up as they go, and we aren't happy about that.
- DoctorOW 4y ago
  I'm genuinely struggling to see how this answers my question. You continually discuss laws when I made it abundantly clear that because laws are, as you put it, Calvinball they are irrelevant to what should be done. > CloudFlare (a) is in a position to stop digital protection of Kiwi Farms So too is Illinois to stop police protection of Nazi activists. I ask again, why SHOULD one organization protect speech and another shouldn't, given our agreement that any specific laws/amendments do not dictate what SHOULD happen?
  - phillipcarter 4y ago
    I think you're losing the plot here. Nothing has any moral obligation to do anything in this universe. Morality doesn't exist. And we're all just making it up as we go. Now that we've established that nothing matters, the reason is because a lot of us feel that Cloudflare should do something about it.
    - taxyz 4y ago
      You should entertain the idea that they claim they have a stronger responsibility to the principals of free speech than the communities you claim are harmed by their customers content.
      - phillipcarter 4y ago
        You should entertain the idea that they're just ideologues who don't really know what they're doing.
        taxyz 4y ago
        The fact that you think you know what’s best for all parties involved is exactly why we protect/value free speech the way we do in the US.
    - DoctorOW 4y ago
      Bloody hell, I am definitely losing the plot. The reason you feel that way is because a lot of other people do? You have absolutely no rationale or thought process for the disparities between organizations x and y except that people are mad at organization y and not organization x?
snowwrestler 4y ago
Illinois is not morally required to protect speech. They are prevented from using government powers to restrict or punish speech. If counter protestors show up and shout over the Nazis, Illinois is not morally required to silence the counter protestors so the Nazis can speak. And if Nazis want to gather on private land, Illinois is not morally required to force the private landowner to permit that. The morality of equality is compromised by the practical execution of law. It’s legal for a cop to pull a gun and force you to the ground; it’s not legal for you to do that to me (or vice versa). So we place constraints on when the government can apply those special powers.

vorpalhex 4y ago

But you as a private individual or company can choose to hold the right to free speech in high regard.

BryantD 4y ago
I hold it in such high regard that I have considered the question of whether or not Kiwifarms inhibits free speech.
splitrocket 4y ago
Yup. And if your choice is pro-nazi, the rest of us can decide for ourselves what that means about you. For what it's worth, you can't be just a little bit Nazi. It's like poop in ice cream: if you have ten tons of ice cream and an ounce of poop, if you mix them together, you've just created ten tons of poop.
- naasking 4y ago
  > It's like poop in ice cream: if you have ten tons of ice cream and an ounce of poop, if you mix them together, you've just created ten tons of poop. In that case your argument fails, because there are regulations for how much rat feces are permitted in processed food, and just FYI, it's NOT zero.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  If everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi and you believe we should restrict their rights, limit their speech and so on... you may be projecting.
wahnfrieden 4y ago
check the paradox of tolerance
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Are you ok with prohibiting the spread of Islam? Islam is incompatible with tolerance. Women's rights, depictions of Muhammed, etc. If we accept the paradox of tolerance you must either be anti-Islam or the paradox is broken. The fix is not new and is older than the paradox of tolerance: your rights end where mine begin. You have a right to write and speak what you will - I have a right to not listen. I do not have a right to stop speech I find offensive. Islam has a right to exist and take offense, but it may not use violence or law to get it's way.