3 ms·
Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific th
by borski 4y ago
Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group.
Kiwi Farms absolutely incited imminent criminal activity (harassment, among other things) and made lots of specific threats against specifically targeted people and groups.
This is a false equivalence.
- akira2501 4y ago> when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group Aren't these already crimes? Isn't the "hate crime" charge just a way to enhance the sentencing for someone thus convicted? And isn't the original charge required for this enhancement? Thus, mere "hate speech" in and of itself cannot be a crime? > Kiwi Farms absolutely incited imminent criminal activity According to you and some twitter threads. I'm not comfortable accepting this prima facie, though. > This is a false equivalence. Does Section 230 not apply to Kiwi Farms? Is Kiwi Farms actually guilty of crimes here, or is it specific forum users? If so, why are there no efforts to go after the users but just go directly to banning the entire site?
- borski 4y ago1. Yes, those are already crimes. You were making the claim that hate speech is never illegal. I was clarifying that there are caveats that take what would otherwise be free speech and turn them into actual crimes. 2. You don’t have to accept it prima facie. Go read the forums, they’re still up on Tor. Fair warning, I have, and they’re horrid. 3. Not when the mods and owners of KF are engaging in the very same. I do not know if law enforcement is looking into individual users or KF itself, but that’s not what we’re discussing. We are discussing the rights of a private company to not give a platform to a group of people they believe are committing or engaging in potentially criminal activity. CF doesn’t have to prove it. If CF is wrong, KF is welcome to find support elsewhere. Good luck.
- pessimizer 4y ago
- borski 4y agoHuh? I didn’t say hate speech was illegal. I said hate speech when it progressed to inciting crime was illegal. (I edited the parent comment to include the word “never” to clarify my position)
- dmatech 4y agoInciting harassment might be someone telling everyone to order pizzas and send them to an address. It wouldn't be posting a picture of someone's house with no context. While that might facilitate harassment, it doesn't actually incite it.
- borski 4y agoAgreed. And? KF actively encouraged and supported the former.
- not_a_shill 4y agoCan you provide any proof for your claims about advocating for imminent criminal activity? Ie something that would pass the Brandenburg test?
- borski 4y agoI’m not interested in going to KF again because I don’t want to read all their horrid shit (too much of that the past few days), but you are welcome to, while it is still up on Tor. Moon was a frequent participant, and KF’s stated goal was to abuse and dox and threaten people and their families and their friends until they drive someone to commit suicide.
- not_a_shill 4y ago
- borski 4y agoHave you read through it? I have. I don’t want to do it again. Sounds like we’re not going to come to a conclusion here, which is fine.
- Akronymus 4y agoIt is impossible to prove a negative. So the burden of proof is on the accusers, in this case.
- Dylan16807 4y agoTo some extent, but "I haven't even looked" is a very tepid defense.
- Akronymus 4y agoWell, I crawled a LOT of pages when it was up. Havent found any examples. And as the claims are usually about it being widespread, it should be very easy to provide at least one example.