5 ms·
I disagree on a number of points. I understand that it's a difficult subject, but to just point out one example: "The third important point is that not all spe
by sgrove 17y ago
I disagree on a number of points. I understand that it's a difficult subject, but to just point out one example:
"The third important point is that not all speech is equal. Some speech has direct, negative consequences. Few would argue that a person who yells “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, and causes a stampede that results in 5 deaths and 25 injuries, should not be prosecuted. As an even more immediate example, the words “Shoot him”, spoken to someone who holds a gun to your head, are obviously not good speech."
Free speech, as I have understood it, is about communicating ideas. These are not ideas - these are a different creature altogether. Both are communicated via words, but they are not the same.
The issue with facebook is that people are voicing ideas - the holocaust never happened (I assume from the referenced article, I haven't cared enough about this stuff to go to the source material), etc. That should not be curtailed. That should not be limited. (Apparently) Hateful, and (to me) simply stupid ideas should be discussed and discarded. In this case it's a simple argument to make - denying the holocaust makes little to no sense whatsoever given the evidence.
When someone says, "Kill the jews", then absolutely yes, an issue outside of free speech has been raised. They are no longer communicating ideas, they are advocating dangerous activities.
The line for some (especially those with more emotional involvement) may be thin between the two, but it's still crucial to differentiate between them. For one, the cure is relentlessly open and frank discussion, and for the other a more mundane policing.
- swombat 17y agoWhen someone says, "Kill the jews", then absolutely yes, an issue outside of free speech has been raised. They are no longer communicating ideas, they are advocating dangerous activities. For the record, if you click on the first link (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/15/facebook-employees-speak-their-mind-on-holocaust-denial/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/15/facebook-employees-spea...) and scroll down a bit, you'll see some extracts of the offending comments. One of them by one "Luke Andrews" from Wales, reads: "die jews die" This is an example of something that Facebook is refusing to act on.
- sgrove 17y agoWell, that's simply stupid. But Arrington specifically holds up examples of "Ezra Callahan on being a Jewish employee and supporting Facebook’s policy to not remove groups that deny the Holocaust." Which is not. He implies (well, even plainly says) that all of it must go. That's wrong headed - sweeping ignorance and hatred under the carpet won't solve anything. For what it's worth, I'm completely baffled by sentiments like "die jews die". I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would be so upset at something as abstract as a race of people.
- axod 17y agoA brilliant response to the idiocy is always comedy: "Throw the jew down the well" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo (If you don't know, this is Sacha Baron Cohen (Jewish), playing 'Borat')
- vollmond 17y agoIs the line, then, just between commands and non-commands? Are "all the Jews should be killed" or "Jews cannot be alive" significantly different from "Kill the Jews"?
- sgrove 17y agoI suppose, since I haven't studied law as much as I should have, that there is an already established set of guidelines. If I were coming up with an admittedly vague rule-of-thumb off the top of my head, I think the line would be speech advocating or intended to likely lead to the immediate harm of any individual or group would not fall under protected speech. And, looking it up on wikipedia, it seems that there is indeed already a set of guidelines. John Stuart Mill introduced "the harm principle": "John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."...However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Makes sense to me, and should be used as the guiding principle. As swombat pointed out below, there are cases where the replies were simply advocating hard to a group of people. That's easy enough to take off. Holocaust denial isn't so clear.
- youngian 17y agoHere's a nice rundown of US law on free speech: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=21677 http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=21677 "...Ohio law punished mere advocacy and failed to distinguish between abstract advocacy and true incitement to imminent lawless action."