4 ms·

>Countries where this doesn’t exist, free speech often leads to devastating results Never anything as bad as the murder of tens of millions of their own citize

>Countries where this doesn’t exist, free speech often leads to devastating results Never anything as bad as the murder of tens of millions of their own citizens committed in countries with no free speech like Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. >It absolutely works. There’s a reason Nazi propaganda is banned in Germany If that's your metric for success it's absolutely failed, given the "Alternative for Deutschland" is now polling at over 20%.

darth_avocado 3y ago
The Rohingya would like to disagree https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-...
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  If you have a government unwilling or unable to even enforce the laws against violence, they will be similarly unwilling or unable to enforce the laws against thoughtcrime, or will enforce them against the victims of the atrocity. Or you've got a case of someone in country A filing suit over something happening in country A under the laws of country B. Now what is the company supposed to do if the laws in country A and country B conflict? Was following the laws in the country where they're operating (i.e. the country committing the atrocity) the outcome you wanted? What about leaving that country, so that people there have to use a service which is in that country? "Everybody has free speech" doesn't solve every problem, but censorship doesn't solve any of those problems either, it just creates wicked new problems.
  - darth_avocado 3y ago
    The constitution of United States, in the first Amendment prohibits certain speech, speech inciting violence is one of those prohibited speech. The argument that censorship creates new problems is true, however there are absolute cases when censorship is needed. In this case, it was the country’s Supreme Court requesting removal of users and it was related to speech causing violence. The same request would have been completely legal in US as well.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      > The constitution of United States, in the first Amendment prohibits certain speech, speech inciting violence is one of those prohibited speech. It does? Here's the full text of the First Amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Which part of it says that? I don't see it anywhere.
      - darth_avocado 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... The Supreme Court has ruled again and again that incitement is an exception to speech covered under first amendment.
        josephcsible 3y ago
        Even if the First Amendment doesn't protect it, it most certainly does not prohibit it.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > The constitution of United States, in the first Amendment prohibits certain speech, speech inciting violence is one of those prohibited speech. No it doesn't. The First Amendment constrains the government from prohibiting most speech. It doesn't require any speech to be prohibited. If the US Congress wanted to be free speech absolutists, they wouldn't have to change the constitution. > there are absolute cases when censorship is needed. There are cases where most countries sanction it. That doesn't prove that it's needed. Can you even name a case where it would be necessary as opposed to being possible to solve through e.g. vigorous enforcement of the laws against violence? You're also avoiding the question. Sure, sometimes the same thing is illegal in both the US and China, but that's not the common case for free speech questions. And putting aside the absolutist position, that's not even what you're arguing for here. The government can punish a direct speaker for imminent incitement of violence without imposing a prior restraint or putting intermediary liability on a third party who is merely a common carrier.
whstl 3y ago
As much as I personally dislike the AfD, claiming they're breaking the law by doing Nazi propaganda is going a bit too far. They definitely straddle the line, but no court has judged them as Nazi yet. There were however other parties, like ANS, NO and FAP (amazing name) that were banned in Germany because of that. Perhaps that's why AfD has wised up.

darth_avocado 3y ago

The Rohingya would like to disagree https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-...

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
If you have a government unwilling or unable to even enforce the laws against violence, they will be similarly unwilling or unable to enforce the laws against thoughtcrime, or will enforce them against the victims of the atrocity. Or you've got a case of someone in country A filing suit over something happening in country A under the laws of country B. Now what is the company supposed to do if the laws in country A and country B conflict? Was following the laws in the country where they're operating (i.e. the country committing the atrocity) the outcome you wanted? What about leaving that country, so that people there have to use a service which is in that country? "Everybody has free speech" doesn't solve every problem, but censorship doesn't solve any of those problems either, it just creates wicked new problems.
- darth_avocado 3y ago
  The constitution of United States, in the first Amendment prohibits certain speech, speech inciting violence is one of those prohibited speech. The argument that censorship creates new problems is true, however there are absolute cases when censorship is needed. In this case, it was the country’s Supreme Court requesting removal of users and it was related to speech causing violence. The same request would have been completely legal in US as well.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    > The constitution of United States, in the first Amendment prohibits certain speech, speech inciting violence is one of those prohibited speech. It does? Here's the full text of the First Amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Which part of it says that? I don't see it anywhere.
    - darth_avocado 3y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... The Supreme Court has ruled again and again that incitement is an exception to speech covered under first amendment.
      - josephcsible 3y ago
        Even if the First Amendment doesn't protect it, it most certainly does not prohibit it.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > The constitution of United States, in the first Amendment prohibits certain speech, speech inciting violence is one of those prohibited speech. No it doesn't. The First Amendment constrains the government from prohibiting most speech. It doesn't require any speech to be prohibited. If the US Congress wanted to be free speech absolutists, they wouldn't have to change the constitution. > there are absolute cases when censorship is needed. There are cases where most countries sanction it. That doesn't prove that it's needed. Can you even name a case where it would be necessary as opposed to being possible to solve through e.g. vigorous enforcement of the laws against violence? You're also avoiding the question. Sure, sometimes the same thing is illegal in both the US and China, but that's not the common case for free speech questions. And putting aside the absolutist position, that's not even what you're arguing for here. The government can punish a direct speaker for imminent incitement of violence without imposing a prior restraint or putting intermediary liability on a third party who is merely a common carrier.

whstl 3y ago

As much as I personally dislike the AfD, claiming they're breaking the law by doing Nazi propaganda is going a bit too far. They definitely straddle the line, but no court has judged them as Nazi yet. There were however other parties, like ANS, NO and FAP (amazing name) that were banned in Germany because of that. Perhaps that's why AfD has wised up.