5 ms·

The government shouldn't do anything about hate speech. Full stop. Edit: I’d love a definition of hate speech from someone who downvoted me.

tarakat 4y ago
But it should do something about how 2-3 giant corporations have become effective arbiters of online speech.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Agreed. There should be (and I thought there was with Section 230) a very, very clear line between being a platform--"dumb pipe"--and a content provider with moderation and censoring capabilities. I agree with others that the law has a lot of catching up to do... but when it does catch up, that doesn't mean it will favor folks demanding censorship of this type of content no matter what.
  - roywiggins 4y ago
    > I thought there was with Section 230 You were misinformed. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
Taniwha 4y ago
Which government? surely each country gets to choose for itself - the US 1st amendment is only a US law, it doesn't apply world-wide - the internet however is a world-wide entity and once a company like CF, or Google etc gets big enough it needs to obey the law everywhere
- serverholic 4y ago
  Every government. No government should be in the business of policing hate speech.
  - Taniwha 4y ago
    Surely that is for my country to decide for itself - we're a democracy - you don't get a say here any more than I get a say in what the US does
    - serverholic 4y ago
      I don’t believe democratically voted tyranny is valid
      - Taniwha 4y ago
        I'm sorry you don't believe in democracy - I will avoid your country
        serverholic 4y ago
        What if a democracy voted to reinstate slavery? Is that valid?
        Taniwha 4y ago
        I would continue to avoid your racist country
brazzy 4y ago
It absolutely should. Full stop.
- serverholic 4y ago
  What is hate speech?
  - brazzy 4y ago
    The German criminal code has a pretty good definition; good in the sense that it is limited. It applies to speech that fulfills 4 criteria: * It happens in public * it is capable of disturbing the public peace * it attacks an entire segment of the population * by inciting hatred, insulting, defaming or calling for violence or arbitrary measures against them. You'll have a hard time explaining what the value is in allowing speech that fulfulls all of the above.
    - anotherrandom 4y ago
      Because all of the above criteria is subjective? The US Supreme Court has repeatedly denied the constitutionality of hate speech laws throughout history on the grounds of this and it violating the concept of free speech
    - serverholic 4y ago
      That doesn’t really solve the problem though because “inciting hatred” is subjective. For example, there are people who would say that anyone who disagrees with the fat acceptance movement is guilty of “inciting hatred” against fat people. Yet I would argue that we need to leave the door open to these kinds of uncomfortable conversations. Otherwise, people will be afraid to speak their minds because they don’t know if they’ve crossed the line. Edit: Also, how do you define “capable of disturbing the public peace”?
      - brazzy 4y ago
        > That doesn’t really solve the problem though because “inciting hatred” is subjective. Lots of laws are subjective to some degree (And the degree here is really not very high here), that is absolutely normal and not problematic. For example, in order to decide whether someone was acting negligent, something called the "reasonable person standard" is used in US jurisprudence. > For example, there are people who would say that anyone who disagrees with the fat acceptance movement is guilty of “inciting hatred” against fat people. That is a silly strawman. Because it really doesn't matter what some unspecified "people" on the internet say on Twitter. What matters is what a judge says after carefuly consideration of the specific circumstances and possibly precedence cases, and possibly other judges on appeal. > Yet I would argue that we need to leave the door open to these kinds of uncomfortable conversations. Otherwise, people will be afraid to speak their minds because they don’t know if they’ve crossed the line. The line is not nearly as blurry as you make it out to be, nor is it difficult to stay well away from it. > Also, how do you define “capable of disturbing the public peace”? "public peace" has been defined in case law and commentaries as the peaceful coexistence of the population, free of fear of violence or lawlessness. "capable of" (geeignet) is a recurring term in German jurisprudence and means that an action is realistically fit to achieve something, considering the concrete circumstances of the case.

tarakat 4y ago

But it should do something about how 2-3 giant corporations have become effective arbiters of online speech.

nathanaldensr 4y ago
Agreed. There should be (and I thought there was with Section 230) a very, very clear line between being a platform--"dumb pipe"--and a content provider with moderation and censoring capabilities. I agree with others that the law has a lot of catching up to do... but when it does catch up, that doesn't mean it will favor folks demanding censorship of this type of content no matter what.
- roywiggins 4y ago
  > I thought there was with Section 230 You were misinformed. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

Taniwha 4y ago

Which government? surely each country gets to choose for itself - the US 1st amendment is only a US law, it doesn't apply world-wide - the internet however is a world-wide entity and once a company like CF, or Google etc gets big enough it needs to obey the law everywhere

serverholic 4y ago
Every government. No government should be in the business of policing hate speech.
- Taniwha 4y ago
  Surely that is for my country to decide for itself - we're a democracy - you don't get a say here any more than I get a say in what the US does
  - serverholic 4y ago
    I don’t believe democratically voted tyranny is valid
    - Taniwha 4y ago
      I'm sorry you don't believe in democracy - I will avoid your country
      - serverholic 4y ago
        What if a democracy voted to reinstate slavery? Is that valid?
        Taniwha 4y ago
        I would continue to avoid your racist country

brazzy 4y ago

It absolutely should. Full stop.

serverholic 4y ago
What is hate speech?
- brazzy 4y ago
  The German criminal code has a pretty good definition; good in the sense that it is limited. It applies to speech that fulfills 4 criteria: * It happens in public * it is capable of disturbing the public peace * it attacks an entire segment of the population * by inciting hatred, insulting, defaming or calling for violence or arbitrary measures against them. You'll have a hard time explaining what the value is in allowing speech that fulfulls all of the above.
  - anotherrandom 4y ago
    Because all of the above criteria is subjective? The US Supreme Court has repeatedly denied the constitutionality of hate speech laws throughout history on the grounds of this and it violating the concept of free speech
  - serverholic 4y ago
    That doesn’t really solve the problem though because “inciting hatred” is subjective. For example, there are people who would say that anyone who disagrees with the fat acceptance movement is guilty of “inciting hatred” against fat people. Yet I would argue that we need to leave the door open to these kinds of uncomfortable conversations. Otherwise, people will be afraid to speak their minds because they don’t know if they’ve crossed the line. Edit: Also, how do you define “capable of disturbing the public peace”?
    - brazzy 4y ago
      > That doesn’t really solve the problem though because “inciting hatred” is subjective. Lots of laws are subjective to some degree (And the degree here is really not very high here), that is absolutely normal and not problematic. For example, in order to decide whether someone was acting negligent, something called the "reasonable person standard" is used in US jurisprudence. > For example, there are people who would say that anyone who disagrees with the fat acceptance movement is guilty of “inciting hatred” against fat people. That is a silly strawman. Because it really doesn't matter what some unspecified "people" on the internet say on Twitter. What matters is what a judge says after carefuly consideration of the specific circumstances and possibly precedence cases, and possibly other judges on appeal. > Yet I would argue that we need to leave the door open to these kinds of uncomfortable conversations. Otherwise, people will be afraid to speak their minds because they don’t know if they’ve crossed the line. The line is not nearly as blurry as you make it out to be, nor is it difficult to stay well away from it. > Also, how do you define “capable of disturbing the public peace”? "public peace" has been defined in case law and commentaries as the peaceful coexistence of the population, free of fear of violence or lawlessness. "capable of" (geeignet) is a recurring term in German jurisprudence and means that an action is realistically fit to achieve something, considering the concrete circumstances of the case.