4 ms·

No. It serves as a defense for people to criticize government. Its why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag. People

No. It serves as a defense for people to criticize government. Its why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag. People who 'advocate' for threats, assault, or death of people should never be permitted. Like, for example, Kiwi Farms. They've advocated for online bullying, threats, and ended up getting a bunch of people killed.

jfengel 10mo ago
If you don't fear the gulag, you're not paying attention. He routinely attempts to put his political enemies in jail.
- mystraline 10mo ago
  Oh I'm paying attention. But I also stay quiet publicly. Speaking out is a way to get the hammer. Theres different ways to protest. Being an obvious target isn't what I do.
  - Aloha 10mo ago
    > No. It serves as a defense for people to criticize government. It's why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag. > Theres different ways to protest. Being an obvious target isn't what I do. How do you reconcile those two statements?
    - lovich 10mo ago
      He is lying or suffering cognitive dissonance. A lot of people get angry when I call out people as liars, but sometimes these people are just fucking lying to everyone and you have to call a spade a spade.
    - mystraline 10mo ago
      Think of https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/... Pay close attention to section "General Interference with Organizations and Production" pages 28-32.
      - antonvs 10mo ago
        The point is that your statements here are completely contradictory. First you say: > "Its why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag." But then you say: > "But I also stay quiet publicly. Speaking out is a way to get the hammer." In other words, you're afraid to exercise your first amendment rights. You feel that you can't, in fact "insult and talk terrible of president Turnip" without unacceptable consequences.
        lovich 10mo ago
        I said it in the other comment to him. He is lying or suffering cognitive dissonance. You cannot rectify his statements in another way, beyond the third option that calls his mental faculties into question. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he’s mentally all there, but that leads to my aforementioned options for them.
        antonvs 10mo ago
        I agree, although I think lying is the least likely. It's more likely cognitive dissonance or simply cognitive limitations.
on_the_train 10mo ago
Even if that was true (it's not), freedom of speech is still more important than a few peoples lives
- asplake 10mo ago
  Well there’s an opinion not to take too far...
- razingeden 10mo ago
  that site routinely indulges in slander and defamation of its subjects .. which are civil rather than criminal matters .. nonetheless, not 1a forms of protected speech unless it has the affirmative defense of being truthful. in some cases it hosts published content that is criminal on paper (federally: non consensual intimate images under take it down act, or state charges: PII under californias anti doxing law just to name one. There are others), this simply has not been enforced or litigated successfully, nor defended on strictly 1a grounds yet. So far it has racked up multiple successful defenses hiding behind section 230, not 1a. There have been a couple of incidents where someone may have had standing to sue a poster (on any of the aforementioned grounds) who “could not” be identified. [0] At the present time 230 keeps KF itself from being a defendant. [0] The same guy who tells cops and courts that he shreds his logs after 30 days somehow finds a way to call out a user who has exclusively been using Tor for two years, (oh. Now he has logs going back several years.) but I digress.
belorn 10mo ago
I disagree. The core of freedom of speech is freedom of thought, conscience and belief, without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Die Gedanken sind frei is older and more fundamental than the right to criticize the government. Threats, assault, and murder is different since they represent real and substantial harm that is universal recognized. Thoughts are permitted, but the acts are not, which include threats. The line between thoughts and threats might be fuzzy, but the distinction is not. The legal question around Kiwi Farms has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with the legal theory of assisting, and platform liability.

jfengel 10mo ago

If you don't fear the gulag, you're not paying attention. He routinely attempts to put his political enemies in jail.

mystraline 10mo ago
Oh I'm paying attention. But I also stay quiet publicly. Speaking out is a way to get the hammer. Theres different ways to protest. Being an obvious target isn't what I do.
- Aloha 10mo ago
  > No. It serves as a defense for people to criticize government. It's why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag. > Theres different ways to protest. Being an obvious target isn't what I do. How do you reconcile those two statements?
  - lovich 10mo ago
    He is lying or suffering cognitive dissonance. A lot of people get angry when I call out people as liars, but sometimes these people are just fucking lying to everyone and you have to call a spade a spade.
  - mystraline 10mo ago
    Think of https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/... Pay close attention to section "General Interference with Organizations and Production" pages 28-32.
    - antonvs 10mo ago
      The point is that your statements here are completely contradictory. First you say: > "Its why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag." But then you say: > "But I also stay quiet publicly. Speaking out is a way to get the hammer." In other words, you're afraid to exercise your first amendment rights. You feel that you can't, in fact "insult and talk terrible of president Turnip" without unacceptable consequences.
      - lovich 10mo ago
        I said it in the other comment to him. He is lying or suffering cognitive dissonance. You cannot rectify his statements in another way, beyond the third option that calls his mental faculties into question. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he’s mentally all there, but that leads to my aforementioned options for them.
        antonvs 10mo ago
        I agree, although I think lying is the least likely. It's more likely cognitive dissonance or simply cognitive limitations.

on_the_train 10mo ago

Even if that was true (it's not), freedom of speech is still more important than a few peoples lives

asplake 10mo ago
Well there’s an opinion not to take too far...
razingeden 10mo ago
that site routinely indulges in slander and defamation of its subjects .. which are civil rather than criminal matters .. nonetheless, not 1a forms of protected speech unless it has the affirmative defense of being truthful. in some cases it hosts published content that is criminal on paper (federally: non consensual intimate images under take it down act, or state charges: PII under californias anti doxing law just to name one. There are others), this simply has not been enforced or litigated successfully, nor defended on strictly 1a grounds yet. So far it has racked up multiple successful defenses hiding behind section 230, not 1a. There have been a couple of incidents where someone may have had standing to sue a poster (on any of the aforementioned grounds) who “could not” be identified. [0] At the present time 230 keeps KF itself from being a defendant. [0] The same guy who tells cops and courts that he shreds his logs after 30 days somehow finds a way to call out a user who has exclusively been using Tor for two years, (oh. Now he has logs going back several years.) but I digress.

belorn 10mo ago

I disagree. The core of freedom of speech is freedom of thought, conscience and belief, without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Die Gedanken sind frei is older and more fundamental than the right to criticize the government. Threats, assault, and murder is different since they represent real and substantial harm that is universal recognized. Thoughts are permitted, but the acts are not, which include threats. The line between thoughts and threats might be fuzzy, but the distinction is not. The legal question around Kiwi Farms has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with the legal theory of assisting, and platform liability.