3 ms·

I didn’t see that in the methodology section. Can you point to that?

• itishappy 2y ago
  > General expressions of opinion > Comments fell into this category if meaning could be interpreted from them, they were not illegal, did not contain linguistic attacks or fell outside the scope of the report (e.g. CSAM, revenge porn, marketing). Most comments belonged to this category. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Preventing-Torrents-of-Hate-or-Stifling-Free-Expression-Online-The-Future-of-Free-Speech.pdf https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Prev...
  • ch4s3 2y ago
    They are saying that those CSAM fell outside of the scope of the report not that it was considered legal speech. Its awkwardly worded. If you read further they say: > Criminal restrictions on content that can be classed as The Future of Free Speech “revenge porn” or Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) are discounted from discussion in this report as they are universally recognized as unprotected speech.
    • itishappy 2y ago
      No, they are saying that since CSAM fell outside of the scope of the report that for the purposes of this report it is not coded as illegal speech. Section 2.3 Coding of Data: > These legal notes are based on legislation related to freedom of expression, which means that violations of marketing legislation, for example, were not coded as illegal.
      • ch4s3 2y ago
        You have taken that out of context, they say exactly the opposite of what you're claiming very clearly if you read further.