4 ms·

If the examples they used of "hate" are the worst they can find, I actually think that we've struck a pretty good balance.

f6v 3y ago
I mean, it’s still pretty bad and these accounts(in the examples) should be banned and owners prosecuted if applicable.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > owners prosecuted The First Amendment applies to offensive speech too.
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    And it does not apply to private fora. If you own a bar and fire the bouncer and Nazis cook meth in your back room and no normies come drink there anymore, don't blame the 1A.
xracy 3y ago
I assume some of this is balanced for not having to read the truly vitriolic stuff on there... That said "Hitler was right" posts are a good balance to strike? That's someone saying that mass genocide is okay... That's concerning to me.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Should we equally ban support for any group that have ever killed anyone? Or done any bad thing?
  - morkalork 3y ago
    That's some real whataboutism right there. Following your logic, Germany sending Jews into gas chambers is on the same level as USA invading Iraq?
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      Pretty much yes. I think we can at least agree that political parties and those funding the parties behind the invasion of Iraq are at lest 95% there. And thus should be treated with same distain. Voters are maybe 90% there.
  - xracy 3y ago
    I mean, you're getting way to vague here. "Any group that have ever killed anyone? or done any bad thing?" The nature of the law is being a lot less cut-and-dry than this. But I think hate groups are a pretty readily available opportunity. And there's a lot of them that are operating pretty openly. Like, I hope no one is wringing their hands that we might get the wrong "nazis" or the wrong "kkk". Let's start with the very straightforward obvious groups, and then we can have a hand-wringing conversation about where to draw the line. But let's not pretend like this is a hard classification problem with hate groups openly running around.

f6v 3y ago

I mean, it’s still pretty bad and these accounts(in the examples) should be banned and owners prosecuted if applicable.

josephcsible 3y ago
> owners prosecuted The First Amendment applies to offensive speech too.
- Zigurd 3y ago
  And it does not apply to private fora. If you own a bar and fire the bouncer and Nazis cook meth in your back room and no normies come drink there anymore, don't blame the 1A.

xracy 3y ago

I assume some of this is balanced for not having to read the truly vitriolic stuff on there... That said "Hitler was right" posts are a good balance to strike? That's someone saying that mass genocide is okay... That's concerning to me.

Ekaros 3y ago
Should we equally ban support for any group that have ever killed anyone? Or done any bad thing?
- morkalork 3y ago
  That's some real whataboutism right there. Following your logic, Germany sending Jews into gas chambers is on the same level as USA invading Iraq?
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Pretty much yes. I think we can at least agree that political parties and those funding the parties behind the invasion of Iraq are at lest 95% there. And thus should be treated with same distain. Voters are maybe 90% there.
- xracy 3y ago
  I mean, you're getting way to vague here. "Any group that have ever killed anyone? or done any bad thing?" The nature of the law is being a lot less cut-and-dry than this. But I think hate groups are a pretty readily available opportunity. And there's a lot of them that are operating pretty openly. Like, I hope no one is wringing their hands that we might get the wrong "nazis" or the wrong "kkk". Let's start with the very straightforward obvious groups, and then we can have a hand-wringing conversation about where to draw the line. But let's not pretend like this is a hard classification problem with hate groups openly running around.