3 ms·

> There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech Why? I understand that if I run a blog I may not want to be

> There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech Why? I understand that if I run a blog I may not want to be associated with some comments people leave, so I have an incentive to police the comment section. But why should I be required to remove comments that other people may find offensive? Even comments that can only be taken as offensive? First, if people feel a need to advertise ignorance, intolerance, immaturity, etc. I see no reason to keep them from doing so. It makes life a lot easier for the rest of us when we need to determine who to associate with. Second, in the US, the accepted solution for speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. Don't silence your enemies; destroy their arguments. Show how they're immature, intolerant, ignorant, etc. I prefer to win the debate by having the better argument instead of by silencing critics.

marak830 11y ago
This, im tired of having to worry if some speech will upset someone. HN has a fairly decent system of hiding oncw downvotes, arstechnica does as well. Maybe its time some people began acting like adults, and engaging in debate, or even just ignoring it completly. Someone called your company shit? So freaking what. Your a company, not a holy relic, suck it up and keep going, it wont matter in 3 minutes.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The discussion was about hate speech; calling some company shit is not hate speech under any legislation I know of. Let's not fall into arguing against strawmen.
  - marak830 11y ago
    Sorry i should have specified, i mean in a more generalised manner. But even then, do words really effect people that much? If the community has the power to downvote/hide idiotic comments, and to argue through rationalised speech, theres no need to get your panties in a bunch.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Yes, words really affect people that much, but not in the way you're thinking. The problem that these laws are trying to address isn't (only) that some people might get their "panties in a bunch", but that those comments are often posted with the intention of promoting underground political movements with roots in the hateful ideologies that have provoked much of the violence in the past century. This isn't dead history, it's very much alive and growing, particularly since the crisis. Now, I personally think free speech is a crucial value, and besides I don't think these laws will help much with the real problem, but I don't think it's helpful to characterize this is just some easily offended people trying to avoid reading bad words.
      - autokad 11y ago
        hateful ideologies is subjective. nor should it be illegal in any country that claims to have free speech. furthermore, forcing them underground really doesn't help anyone. personally, i think its in companies best interests to promote the best arena for users to interact, they don't need the governments sticky fingers in the mess, nobody does. it can also be used as a way of taking out competitors, just keep posting things with fake accounts and keep requesting the government to ask them to remove the comments or get shut down.
        icebraining 11y ago
        I completely agree; that's exactly what I meant in my last paragraph. I just dislike the trivialization of the problem.
      - mikerichards 11y ago
        but that those comments are often posted with the intention of promoting underground political movements with roots in the hateful ideologies Ouch...do you see where you might want to re-think that. Hint..."underground political movements". Any regime can call something "intention of promoting underground political movements with roots in the hateful ideologies that have provoked much of the violence" in order to quell dissent. I see a lot of hate speech that "could" promote violence from the Social Justice Warriors, but just because I disagree with their ideology doesn't mean I want to shut down their forums.
learnstats2 11y ago
> in the US, the accepted solution for speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. Although, I respect the argument you have made here, you may find that this is a cultural difference between the US and the EU. In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think about the message Fox News is sending out, they control the message that people hear. In general, the media controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way are their opponents able to speak? A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted control over what speech people actually get to hear. This happens on scales large and small - it's notable that cults are protected by the First Amendment. And, this is the public's loss. It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least we can prevent a television station or media baron or cult leader from broadcasting hate speech.
- stvswn 11y ago
  Are you suggesting that Fox News should be censored? And how do you decide what is a cult vs. what is a religion? "Hate speech," btw, has no legal definition in the US judicial system. The term doesn't exist in First Amendment jurisprudence. How does the EU define it? I'm quite happy to be thus reminded of our freedoms in the U.S.; Lord help us if we go down this route.
- autokad 11y ago
  "powerful elites have unrestricted control over what speech people actually get to hear" they are called college professors.
- mikerichards 11y ago
  Whatever you might think about the message Fox News is sending out, they control the message that people hear Like I control the message that my co-worker or anybody else hears when I'm speaking to them? In what way are their opponents able to speak? As in opponents, you mean MSNBC, CNN, all the networks, all the major newspapers, all the cultural HBO shows, and tens of thousands of websites?
- maxlybbert 11y ago
  I recognize it's a cultural difference. Which, to be honest, was the reason I qualified the statement as "in the US, ..." > In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think > about the message Fox News is sending out, they control > the message that people hear. In general, the media > controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets > are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way > are their opponents able to speak? I would consider that more a question of Freedom of the Press, although it's certainly intertwined with Freedom of Speech. And there's an old quote that "Freedom of the Press only applies to people who have one [a press]." Luckily, it's been getting cheaper to get a message out to, potentially, millions of people. Occasionally, bloggers embarrass professional reporters. > A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted > control over what speech people actually get to hear. ... > > It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least > we can prevent a television station or media baron or > cult leader from broadcasting hate speech. I don't think the "at least" is something to be happy with. I realize that the governments currently running France, Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc. are more trustworthy than, say, the Russian government. But you have something of a guarantee that -- no matter how much you trust your current government -- eventually politicians you don't trust will take control. If a government has the authority to punish media owners or reporters, then eventually that authority will be abused.

marak830 11y ago

This, im tired of having to worry if some speech will upset someone. HN has a fairly decent system of hiding oncw downvotes, arstechnica does as well. Maybe its time some people began acting like adults, and engaging in debate, or even just ignoring it completly. Someone called your company shit? So freaking what. Your a company, not a holy relic, suck it up and keep going, it wont matter in 3 minutes.

icebraining 11y ago
The discussion was about hate speech; calling some company shit is not hate speech under any legislation I know of. Let's not fall into arguing against strawmen.
- marak830 11y ago
  Sorry i should have specified, i mean in a more generalised manner. But even then, do words really effect people that much? If the community has the power to downvote/hide idiotic comments, and to argue through rationalised speech, theres no need to get your panties in a bunch.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Yes, words really affect people that much, but not in the way you're thinking. The problem that these laws are trying to address isn't (only) that some people might get their "panties in a bunch", but that those comments are often posted with the intention of promoting underground political movements with roots in the hateful ideologies that have provoked much of the violence in the past century. This isn't dead history, it's very much alive and growing, particularly since the crisis. Now, I personally think free speech is a crucial value, and besides I don't think these laws will help much with the real problem, but I don't think it's helpful to characterize this is just some easily offended people trying to avoid reading bad words.
    - autokad 11y ago
      hateful ideologies is subjective. nor should it be illegal in any country that claims to have free speech. furthermore, forcing them underground really doesn't help anyone. personally, i think its in companies best interests to promote the best arena for users to interact, they don't need the governments sticky fingers in the mess, nobody does. it can also be used as a way of taking out competitors, just keep posting things with fake accounts and keep requesting the government to ask them to remove the comments or get shut down.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        I completely agree; that's exactly what I meant in my last paragraph. I just dislike the trivialization of the problem.
    - mikerichards 11y ago
      but that those comments are often posted with the intention of promoting underground political movements with roots in the hateful ideologies Ouch...do you see where you might want to re-think that. Hint..."underground political movements". Any regime can call something "intention of promoting underground political movements with roots in the hateful ideologies that have provoked much of the violence" in order to quell dissent. I see a lot of hate speech that "could" promote violence from the Social Justice Warriors, but just because I disagree with their ideology doesn't mean I want to shut down their forums.

learnstats2 11y ago

> in the US, the accepted solution for speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. Although, I respect the argument you have made here, you may find that this is a cultural difference between the US and the EU. In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think about the message Fox News is sending out, they control the message that people hear. In general, the media controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way are their opponents able to speak? A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted control over what speech people actually get to hear. This happens on scales large and small - it's notable that cults are protected by the First Amendment. And, this is the public's loss. It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least we can prevent a television station or media baron or cult leader from broadcasting hate speech.

stvswn 11y ago
Are you suggesting that Fox News should be censored? And how do you decide what is a cult vs. what is a religion? "Hate speech," btw, has no legal definition in the US judicial system. The term doesn't exist in First Amendment jurisprudence. How does the EU define it? I'm quite happy to be thus reminded of our freedoms in the U.S.; Lord help us if we go down this route.
autokad 11y ago
"powerful elites have unrestricted control over what speech people actually get to hear" they are called college professors.
mikerichards 11y ago
Whatever you might think about the message Fox News is sending out, they control the message that people hear Like I control the message that my co-worker or anybody else hears when I'm speaking to them? In what way are their opponents able to speak? As in opponents, you mean MSNBC, CNN, all the networks, all the major newspapers, all the cultural HBO shows, and tens of thousands of websites?
maxlybbert 11y ago
I recognize it's a cultural difference. Which, to be honest, was the reason I qualified the statement as "in the US, ..." > In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think > about the message Fox News is sending out, they control > the message that people hear. In general, the media > controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets > are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way > are their opponents able to speak? I would consider that more a question of Freedom of the Press, although it's certainly intertwined with Freedom of Speech. And there's an old quote that "Freedom of the Press only applies to people who have one [a press]." Luckily, it's been getting cheaper to get a message out to, potentially, millions of people. Occasionally, bloggers embarrass professional reporters. > A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted > control over what speech people actually get to hear. ... > > It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least > we can prevent a television station or media baron or > cult leader from broadcasting hate speech. I don't think the "at least" is something to be happy with. I realize that the governments currently running France, Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc. are more trustworthy than, say, the Russian government. But you have something of a guarantee that -- no matter how much you trust your current government -- eventually politicians you don't trust will take control. If a government has the authority to punish media owners or reporters, then eventually that authority will be abused.