4 ms·

You are conflating "possibility of violence" with actual violence. Speech alone, in the format of threats and harassment and vague but menacing comments, alread

You are conflating "possibility of violence" with actual violence. Speech alone, in the format of threats and harassment and vague but menacing comments, already imply the possibility of violence. The notion that Jews should just ignore threats and wait to be victims of actual violence is ridiculous. And turning back to the digital realm, speech alone can be harmful. You can read many accounts from victims and researchers to know that digital ethnic cleaning can be achieved from a keyboard. The choice platforms face is whether to keep Nazis or the people they are working to drive off the platforms. From your comments, I get that you think they should prefer the Nazis, but I hope you can at least understand why platforms don't find that a good plan, either morally or financially.

naasking 4y ago
> Speech alone, in the format of threats and harassment and vague but menacing comments, already imply the possibility of violence. Threats imply the possibility of violence. Harassment may or may not imply the possibility of violence. "Vague but menacing comments" are entirely subjective and do not imply the possibility of violence or they wouldn't be "vague". Frankly, I don't think I'm the one guilty of conflating separate concepts. > The notion that Jews should just ignore threats and wait to be victims of actual violence is ridiculous. No one is saying they should ignore threats. Tolerating speech is not tantamount to ignoring threats. This is why Jewish lawyers working for the ACLU fought for the rights of Nazis to protest in Skokie. > And turning back to the digital realm, speech alone can be harmful. Censoring speech can also be harmful, yet you don't seem to have considered that aspect at all. > From your comments, I get that you think they should prefer the Nazis, but I hope you can at least understand why platforms don't find that a good plan, either morally or financially. Neither you or anyone else has presented a valid moral case for violating free speech principles in these cases, and I have considerable evidence suggesting that violating such principles are generally harmful. Speech that directly implies violence is already illegal. Various forms of harassment are already illegal. If law enforcement is failing to enforce those laws, that's an argument for justice reform, not for violating free speech principles. My position follows trivially from these basic facts and nothing you've said contradicts them.
- wpietri 4y ago
  I have certainly considered that censoring speech is harmful. Which is why I think we should minimize government involvement in this and let private platforms decide what they want to publish, and which people they want to associate with. What you still haven't grappled with is that lots of individuals are working, solo and together, to restrict speech of marginalized groups. You seem to be very exercised about keeping Nazis active on Twitter, but not at all concerned about the speech of the people they are trying to censor. > If law enforcement is failing to enforce those laws, that's an argument for justice reform Oh? And how much work are you doing on this? Because if you are putting your time into "theoretical free speech rights of Nazis are very important" to the exclusion of "people targeted by Nazis must not be driven from the public square", then your priorities "follow trivially" from that.

naasking 4y ago

> Speech alone, in the format of threats and harassment and vague but menacing comments, already imply the possibility of violence. Threats imply the possibility of violence. Harassment may or may not imply the possibility of violence. "Vague but menacing comments" are entirely subjective and do not imply the possibility of violence or they wouldn't be "vague". Frankly, I don't think I'm the one guilty of conflating separate concepts. > The notion that Jews should just ignore threats and wait to be victims of actual violence is ridiculous. No one is saying they should ignore threats. Tolerating speech is not tantamount to ignoring threats. This is why Jewish lawyers working for the ACLU fought for the rights of Nazis to protest in Skokie. > And turning back to the digital realm, speech alone can be harmful. Censoring speech can also be harmful, yet you don't seem to have considered that aspect at all. > From your comments, I get that you think they should prefer the Nazis, but I hope you can at least understand why platforms don't find that a good plan, either morally or financially. Neither you or anyone else has presented a valid moral case for violating free speech principles in these cases, and I have considerable evidence suggesting that violating such principles are generally harmful. Speech that directly implies violence is already illegal. Various forms of harassment are already illegal. If law enforcement is failing to enforce those laws, that's an argument for justice reform, not for violating free speech principles. My position follows trivially from these basic facts and nothing you've said contradicts them.

wpietri 4y ago
I have certainly considered that censoring speech is harmful. Which is why I think we should minimize government involvement in this and let private platforms decide what they want to publish, and which people they want to associate with. What you still haven't grappled with is that lots of individuals are working, solo and together, to restrict speech of marginalized groups. You seem to be very exercised about keeping Nazis active on Twitter, but not at all concerned about the speech of the people they are trying to censor. > If law enforcement is failing to enforce those laws, that's an argument for justice reform Oh? And how much work are you doing on this? Because if you are putting your time into "theoretical free speech rights of Nazis are very important" to the exclusion of "people targeted by Nazis must not be driven from the public square", then your priorities "follow trivially" from that.