ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th June 2020, 11:47 AM   #41
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Stop telling lies. I neither suggested nor implied any such thing.

Show me the actual words from the post you quoted where I "implied vigilante action is OK".



No, it IS the matter, in its entirety.

I'm not at all interested in your pompous, self righteous pontifications - I'm talking about what the LAW says!

Providers such as Google/Twitter/YouTube deny people such as Alex Jones, David Icke and Katie Hopkins a platform for their vile speech. They have banned "medical content" that contradicts the WHO's advice on coronavirus; they have banned content that promotes 5G conspiracy theories.
]Is it legal for them to do these things? Yes, it is.
There is no law that forces them to allow such content. Only the government can make laws in that regard.

Is it censorship for them to do these things? No, it is not.
No-one is preventing them from saying what they want to say.

Is it a denial of those peoples' right to free speech? No, it is not.
Those people are free to spread their BS. They are entitled to provide their own platforms or website for the content. No-one is stopping them from doing so.

Google/Twitter/YouTube etc are privately owned content platforms. Users use those platforms at the owners behest, under the terms and conditions laid down by those owners. NO-ONE has any "rights" whatsoever as regard to being allowed to have promoted content on those platforms.
Its pretty scary to think that such a law could be passed. What then? No one can terminate a business relationship due to speech they find abhorrent or fictitious until such a time as the government rules that in this specific case its "bad enough" in their view to terminate the relationship.
lobosrul5 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 01:11 PM   #42
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I have news for you. Individuals can't make such laws either.

Combined with the fact that the government isn't required to provide individuals a platform for airing their views and your attempt to label freedom of speech a "GOVERNMENT restriction" only is just a pure nonsense.
Fail, again

You are trying to reinterpret what I said to mean the OPPOSITE if what I meant, in order to argue against your reinterpretation... you know what sort of fallacy that is, don't you!?

Vigilantism is defined as "law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people" What Google et al do by banning hate groups from their platforms is NOT vigilantism, because they are not even enforcing any laws, let alone, without authority. The binding by 1A of the government applies only to the government - it specifically, and emphatically does not bind its citizens.

You seem to make a lot of effort to protect white supremacists' right to spew their bile. Are you a white supremacist? Perhaps not - and even if you are not, the fact that you advocate for the protection of their right to spew hate speech makes you just as bad IMO.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 26th June 2020 at 01:26 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 01:19 PM   #43
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Its pretty scary to think that such a law could be passed. What then? No one can terminate a business relationship due to speech they find abhorrent or fictitious until such a time as the government rules that in this specific case its "bad enough" in their view to terminate the relationship.

Indeed.

The world psion10 would have us all live in is one where racists and white supremacists would be allowed to demand and get the right to legally force internet platforms to host their hateful content and to force news outlets to report their news, and where it would be illegal to take that content down.

I find that kind of world terrifying; not one I would like my grandkids to grow up in
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 01:59 PM   #44
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,845
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Indeed.

The world psion10 would have us all live in is one where racists and white supremacists would be allowed to demand and get the right to legally force internet platforms to host their hateful content and to force news outlets to report their news, and where it would be illegal to take that content down.

I find that kind of world terrifying; not one I would like my grandkids to grow up in
If they are exercising editorial control, they are no longer a platform and are now a publisher and lose the safe harbor of a platform. Opens them up to all sorts of lawsuits.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 02:17 PM   #45
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
If they are exercising editorial control, they are no longer a platform and are now a publisher and lose the safe harbor of a platform. Opens them up to all sorts of lawsuits.
Publisher definition: a company or person that prepares and issues books, journals, or music for sale.

Internet content platforms do not do these things, so they are not publishers.

Publisher definition (North America) a newspaper proprietor.

Internet content platforms are not newspapers, so they are not publishers

As for editorial control, that is a red herring. The editorial staff of a broadcaster or newspaper can accept or not accept certain advertisers and not be subject to lawsuits, at least not one that will stand up in court (but if Bobby Joe Redneck wants to take on Google in court - let him try. It will be fun watching him getting an arse whooping, and I know who will run out of money first.

Internet content platform owners can accept or not accept what anyone will be allowed to promulgate on their platform. They own the platform, they set the terms and conditions for the use of that platform. If you don't want the abide by the T&Cs, you don't get to use it, if you undertake to abide by the T&Cs and then breach them, you get kicked off, with no recourse..... it really is that simple.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 02:32 PM   #46
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,547
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Just to add... this is the sort of thing that the allowing of hate speech to continue unabated, will inevitably lead to..

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/motors...-bubba-wallace

Personal threats against people oppose hate speech. How long will it be before someone actually acts on this sort of threat and murders someone for supporting a ban on Confedrate iconology

I hope NASCAR find whoever did this, and bans them for life.
This is not an example of what will inevitably occur if hate speech remains unabated. It was an attempt by the media to fabricate a narrative that turned out to be factually false.

It also exemplifies the perceptual error of the prejudices that humans attribute to others' behaviors. In this instance, Bubba took notice of a rope in the shape of a noose as a personally directed threat to his safety. If surveyed, he would indicate that he felt singled out because of his race or ethnicity. Around 15 FBI agents investigated this alleged hate crime against Bubba. With the support of photographic and video evidence, the FBI determined that this rope had been present long before Bubba. Therefore, it could not have been a threat of hate directed towards him.

This incidence engenders the variance of black peoples experience of prejudice in the US. Most surveys of black individuals result in 55 to 65% of them reporting perceived prejudice as a result of their race. That means an estimated 40% of blacks whom have not experienced this type of discrimination. How can we account for this stark difference in self-reported discrimination? That is the question that keeps my interest in this topic.

Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
So now you want to restrict their free speech?
At no point did I advocate for any rule or laws to restrict NBC's freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Wrong! Again!

Wrong! Again!

Quite the opposite in fact

What I mean is that individuals are not bound by the Law the way the US Government is bound. This is a fact and it is very specifically laid down in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

"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."

This prevents the US Government, and only the US Government from restricting the free speech of its citizens. It in no way bars US citizens from deciding what they will or will not allow to be said on their behalf - it is why YouTube can kick Alex Jones off its platform, its why Twitter can ban Katie Hopkins, its why this forum can restrict what you say and ban you if you do not comply with the MA.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with vigilantism!
If an employers restriction on employees speech is found to affect certain groups of individuals (protected classes), it may be an illegal act of discrimination. Do you know that in Washington political affiliation is a protected class?

Employers are not allowed to restrict the speech of employees speech regarding collective bargaining (Labor Unions).

These are some examples of the universal protection of Freedom of Speech that does not involve what the Government can do, but what speech individuals are allowed to do.

The types of restrictions you believe do not exist, actually exist.
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
...
Show me a law that says an information provider is not allowed to restrict the information that is promulgated on its own platform. What was that you said? You can't? Well of course you can't because no such law exists!
...
That is precisely what we are discussing, whether a law should exist. Regulation of speech can either be granted, restricted, or unregulated. As it stands, a law was passed to grant immunity to platforms.

If platforms are found to restrict the voices of New Zealanders, would you accept that as a fair and just restriction? After all, a few months ago most agreed that foreigners should not be meddling in a sovereign nations election. If you are influencing how American's vote, you are certainly interfering in their elections.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 03:01 PM   #47
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 2,176
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
If they are exercising editorial control, they are no longer a platform and are now a publisher and lose the safe harbor of a platform. Opens them up to all sorts of lawsuits.
Content has been managed since day one of the web. Web services have always created and enforced their terms as they saw fit. I don't see what's changed. Anyway, if all hateful speech is discouraged, there's no bias, no matter how some on the right would try to politicize this.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 03:16 PM   #48
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
If platforms are found to restrict the voices of New Zealanders, would you accept that as a fair and just restriction? After all, a few months ago most agreed that foreigners should not be meddling in a sovereign nations election. If you are influencing how American's vote, you are certainly interfering in their elections.
If those voice are voices for hate speech and white supremacy, then yes, I would be happy to see them restricted by the platform owners.

In New Zealand, we deplatform this sort of vile scum whenever we can...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12084381


.. and I am happy to see that trend continue!
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 03:33 PM   #49
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
The types of restrictions you believe do not exist, actually exist.
That is precisely what we are discussing, whether a law should exist. Regulation of speech can either be granted, restricted, or unregulated. As it stands, a law was passed to grant immunity to platforms. .
Do you mean this law? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

What it does is prevents the owner of a content platform (ie social media, or we forum) to be held personally liable for something a user posts. I've seen all over the place it misconstrued as if censoring one thing by the platform owner means they are no longer a "common carrier" and the law no longer applies. There is no such proviso. And without it the "web 2.0" as we know it would probably cease to exist.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 26th June 2020 at 03:36 PM.
lobosrul5 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 03:38 PM   #50
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
If an employers restriction on employees speech is found to affect certain groups of individuals (protected classes), it may be an illegal act of discrimination. Do you know that in Washington political affiliation is a protected class?
Political affiliation is not a protected class Federally. Neither Zero Hedge or The Federalist are employees of Google's. Google Ad-service still works with them even though they are right-wing websites. They didn't even threaten to ban them for their political affiliation, hate speech on their comments section is not the same thing.
lobosrul5 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:01 PM   #51
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,547
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If those voice are voices for hate speech and white supremacy, then yes, I would be happy to see them restricted by the platform owners.

In New Zealand, we deplatform this sort of vile scum whenever we can...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12084381

.. and I am happy to see that trend continue!
Considering that you previously stated that, "All scumbags are on far right websites," it sounds like you only want to censor speech of certain ideologies. That is not very impartial of you. I'd prefer to advocate for laws that apply equally to all and avoid ethnocentrism by targeting a particular sect. I'm happy that you're happy with the laws pertaining to limitations for freedom of speech in the country you live in. Do you have any concerns that prohibiting these 'scumbags' would only cause their resentment and ranks to grow? Censoring them won't make them disappear or change their hearts and minds.

I noticed that you didn't comment on most aspects of my post you quoted. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on how we can account for the stark difference in self-reported discrimination? Is the cohort that didn't report racial discrimination just unaware of the cold and cruel world they live in? Or is the cohort that reported discrimination suffering from psychosis? Neither option feels satisfactory or accurate.

Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Do you mean this law? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

What it does is prevents the owner of a content platform (ie social media, or we forum) to be held personally liable for something a user posts. I've seen all over the place it misconstrued as if censoring one thing by the platform owner means they are no longer a "common carrier" and the law no longer applies. There is no such proviso. And without it the "web 2.0" as we know it would probably cease to exist.
I was not advocating to exempt them from the common carrier classification. You'd have to read the exchange of posts to obtain context for the reason we were discussing this law.

Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Political affiliation is not a protected class Federally. Neither Zero Hedge or The Federalist are employees of Google's. Google Ad-service still works with them even though they are right-wing websites. They didn't even threaten to ban them for their political affiliation, hate speech on their comments section is not the same thing.
I agree that the law against discrimination based on political affiliation isn't a federal statute. It is part of the DC Human Rights Act of 1977. smarkcooky claimed that no such law existed in the united states. That is factually false.

Earlier I asked if anybody had heard of Google enforcing terms of service in this manner before. Nobody has provided any information about that. I was unable to find any news stories when searching the web. It would appear that Google has unequally applied this rule thereby targeting certain groups in a discriminatory manner.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:59 PM   #52
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,384
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
What Google et al do by banning hate groups from their platforms is NOT vigilantism, because they are not even enforcing any laws, let alone, without authority. The binding by 1A of the government applies only to the government - it specifically, and emphatically does not bind its citizens.
What rubbish! Do you really expect us to believe that the US government can't exercise editorial control over a web site platform it provides?

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You seem to make a lot of effort to protect white supremacists' right to spew their bile. Are you a white supremacist? Perhaps not - and even if you are not, the fact that you advocate for the protection of their right to spew hate speech makes you just as bad IMO.
I am not a white supremacist but your labeling me "bad" just for not believing that obnoxious speech should be criminalized is a badge that I am proud to wear.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The world psion10 would have us all live in is one where racists and white supremacists would be allowed to demand and get the right to legally force internet platforms to host their hateful content and to force news outlets to report their news, and where it would be illegal to take that content down.
Now who is making false accusations?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 26th June 2020 at 11:03 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 11:03 PM   #53
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,384
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Content has been managed since day one of the web. Web services have always created and enforced their terms as they saw fit. I don't see what's changed. Anyway, if all hateful speech is discouraged, there's no bias, no matter how some on the right would try to politicize this.
That's the scary part.

If you don't like what somebody says you can label it "hateful speech" and have it "discouraged".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 03:10 AM   #54
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Considering that you previously stated that, "All scumbags are on far right websites," it sounds like you only want to censor speech of certain ideologies.
What these internet platforms do is not censorship. They are exercising their right not to be associated with the promotion of ideologies who support violence, discrimination against and the genocide of a group based on their protected attributes of race or skin colour.

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
That is not very impartial of you. I'd prefer to advocate for laws that apply equally to all and avoid ethnocentrism by targeting a particular sect.
So do I, but my particular pet dislike is white supremacists and racists. I will never apologise for that.

This is not a game of equivalences where one has to balance out who they are against.... that is Trump "good people on both sides" talk. There are NO good white supremacists. The extreme left, I let someone else worry about, although last time I looked, I haven't seen any extreme left groups hell bent on discrimination and violence against people based on protected attributes such as skin colour. If they want to beat up on white supremacists, good on them. Let them have at it!

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
I'm happy that you're happy with the laws pertaining to limitations for freedom of speech in the country you live in. Do you have any concerns that prohibiting these 'scumbags' would only cause their resentment and ranks to grow? Censoring them won't make them disappear or change their hearts and minds.
Nope, because their ranks don't grow the way you imagine. What helps them grow is giving them aid and comfort - emboldening them by letting them get their hateful message out and then letting them promote race based violence without any consequences.

It used to be that they were a very limited bunch. They got their message out with low-circulation typed and photocopied newsletters - their reach was limited to a few dozen people. Then came the internet and their reach expanded to millions.

People who advocate for their right to spread their message of hate are, IMO as bad as the people actually spreading that message. They may not be racists and white supremacists, but they might as well be, because they do just as much damage.

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
I noticed that you didn't comment on most aspects of my post you quoted. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on how we can account for the stark difference in self-reported discrimination? Is the cohort that didn't report racial discrimination just unaware of the cold and cruel world they live in? Or is the cohort that reported discrimination suffering from psychosis? Neither option feels satisfactory or accurate.
Not interested, and in any case, off topic for this thread. The subject here is the removal of hateful content from internet content providers.

The thread about "self-reported discrimination" is thataway-------->

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
I was not advocating to exempt them from the common carrier classification. You'd have to read the exchange of posts to obtain context for the reason we were discussing this law.

I agree that the law against discrimination based on political affiliation isn't a federal statute. It is part of the DC Human Rights Act of 1977. smarkcooky claimed that no such law existed in the united states. That is factually false.
You are misrepresenting what I said, as usual.

I said

"Show me a law that says an information provider is not allowed to restrict the information that is promulgated on its own platform. What was that you said? You can't? Well of course you can't because no such law exists!"

The law you are talking about does not do that. Lobosrul5 linked to it and explained that to you

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Earlier I asked if anybody had heard of Google enforcing terms of service in this manner before. Nobody has provided any information about that. I was unable to find any news stories when searching the web. It would appear that Google has unequally applied this rule thereby targeting certain groups in a discriminatory manner.
discrimination definition: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Refusing to host white supremacists and racists is not "discrimination".
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 03:22 AM   #55
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What rubbish! Do you really expect us to believe that the US government can't exercise editorial control over a web site platform it provides?
Go away and learn the difference between a "website platform", an "internet service provider" a "content provider" and a "search engine". Then, when you come back, you will know what you are talking about, and you can have a meaningful discussion with the adults

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I am not a white supremacist but your labeling me "bad" just for not believing that obnoxious speech should be criminalized is a badge that I am proud to wear.
So you aren't a white supremacist, but you openly advocate for their right to spread their message. For mine, that is a distinction without a difference.

To my eyes, that makes you a collaborator, and no different from them.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 27th June 2020 at 03:24 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 04:08 AM   #56
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,384
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Go away and learn the difference between a "website platform", an "internet service provider" a "content provider" and a "search engine". Then, when you come back, you will know what you are talking about, and you can have a meaningful discussion with the adults
I think that I can have a meaningful discussion with adults regardless of how you define a website platform, internet service provider, content provider or search engine.

There is no prospect of having a meaningful discussion with you however.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
So you aren't a white supremacist, but you openly advocate for their right to spread their message. For mine, that is a distinction without a difference.

To my eyes, that makes you a collaborator, and no different from them.
When somebody who has the delusion that they alone have the moral authority to decide what others may say calls me a "collaborator" then that is something to be proud of.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 08:21 AM   #57
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 2,176
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That's the scary part.

If you don't like what somebody says you can label it "hateful speech" and have it "discouraged".
Sure, we can forbid choices because some might lead to something that you imagine could scare you. This wouldn't be the high water mark of freedom, though, would it?

I think it's important to stick to specifics. It's not a matter of liking something or not. Hatefulness can be defined. Inciting violence can be defined. Criticizing your rose bush most likely isn't hateful, nor with any luck does it incite violence. So what scares you, not vaguely and abstractly, but specifically?
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 09:49 AM   #58
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,384
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
So what scares you, not vaguely and abstractly, but specifically?
What scares me is that it is impossible to define hate speech in any way other than "vaguely and abstractly". The definition shifts constantly and new examples of "hate speech" are constantly being added to the list - retrospectively!

For example, what would happen if "fat shaming" suddenly became an example of unacceptable hate speech? What if cracking fat jokes became as disgusting as uttering the N-word? Suddenly a lot of people would become targets for retribution based solely on things that they said years ago.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 10:17 AM   #59
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,796
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What scares me is that it is impossible to define hate speech in any way other than "vaguely and abstractly". The definition shifts constantly and new examples of "hate speech" are constantly being added to the list - retrospectively!

For example, what would happen if "fat shaming" suddenly became an example of unacceptable hate speech? What if cracking fat jokes became as disgusting as uttering the N-word? Suddenly a lot of people would become targets for retribution based solely on things that they said years ago.
They already can and should be targets for retribution. Jerks are not a protected class.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 02:00 PM   #60
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What scares me is that it is impossible to define hate speech in any way other than "vaguely and abstractly".
That's just BS.

Hate speech definition: "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".

Just because you are incapable of understanding this definition does not make it "Vague and abstract"

Do white supremacists...

...express hate?

... encourage violence?

Do they do these things toward a protected class?


Ticks all the boxes. Nothing vague or abstract about that, yet you still think they should have the right to demand that they be allowed to express their views on a public platform and have that platform pay them for doing so (because that is exactly what you appear to be supporting right now).

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The definition shifts constantly and new examples of "hate speech" are constantly being added to the list - retrospectively!
Back this up with sources!

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
For example, what would happen if "fat shaming" suddenly became an example of unacceptable hate speech? What if cracking fat jokes became as disgusting as uttering the N-word? Suddenly a lot of people would become targets for retribution based solely on things that they said years ago.
Protected classes are people sharing a common trait who are legally protected from being discriminated against on the basis of that trait. Classes include race, gender, age, and disability. Notice anything about those traits - they are aspects inherent to the person that are out of their control.

Fat people are not a legally protected class and never will be. Nor are jerks.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 27th June 2020 at 02:12 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 04:56 PM   #61
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 2,176
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What scares me is that it is impossible to define hate speech in any way other than "vaguely and abstractly". The definition shifts constantly and new examples of "hate speech" are constantly being added to the list - retrospectively!
Are you talking about legal definitions or your Aunt Martha's definitions? This is not a philosophical puzzle.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
For example, what would happen if "fat shaming" suddenly became an example of unacceptable hate speech? What if cracking fat jokes became as disgusting as uttering the N-word? Suddenly a lot of people would become targets for retribution based solely on things that they said years ago.
Some already consider it hateful to fat shame. So what?
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 11:42 PM   #62
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
I found this on XKCD.

I have found XKCD to be pretty good at paring away all the irrelevant bollocks and cutting right to the chase.

It pretty much sums up this thread, and my opinions about the topic.



(NOTE: I have made alterations to comply with the MA)
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 27th June 2020 at 11:45 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 06:25 AM   #63
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,384
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I found this on XKCD. .....
Can individuals arrest you for what you say?
Does the government have to listen to your bullcrap - or host while you share it?
Are members of the government not allowed to criticize your speech?
etc.

Your idea of "consequences" (turning somebody's life upside down) is remarkably similar to vigilantism.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 01:05 PM   #64
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Can individuals arrest you for what you say?
Does the government have to listen to your bullcrap - or host while you share it?
Are members of the government not allowed to criticize your speech?

etc.
See, you even misrepresent XKCD

It seems you will lie about and misrepresent anything anyone says, that you don't agree with.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Your idea of "consequences" (turning somebody's life upside down) is remarkably similar to vigilantism.
If I own a speaking venue and I choose not to allow you to hold a speaking engagement there because I don't like what you stand for, that is not vigilantism, that is me exercising my legal right not be associated with your bollocks.

If I own an internet forum, and I choose not to allow you to express your views on it because I don't like what you have been saying, that is not vigilantism, that is me exercising my legal right not be associated with your bollocks.

If I own a web platform and I choose not to host your website because I have seen its content and don't like it, that is not vigilantism, that is me exercising my legal right not be associated with your bollocks.

In each one of these examples, I have not "turned your life upside down". You do not, never had, and never will have, any rights with regard to my venue, my website or my platform. Same applies to Google, Twitter, Facebook etc. You have no rights there - if the owners don't like what you say, they are perfectly within their legal rights to show you the door. This is not censorship or vigilantism or turning peoples lives upside down - this is them, exercising their rights. If you thought that you did have any of those rights, then you are a "Kevin" - your own, false sense of entitlement has resulted in your life being turned upside down. That's down to you!

Its not censorship because you are still within your rights to make your own search engine, or content platform to host your website - no-one is infringing on your right to do that. Its not suppression of free speech for the same reason.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 28th June 2020 at 01:16 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 09:25 PM   #65
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,384
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
See, you even misrepresent XKCD
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 09:32 PM   #66
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You did, you misrepresented what it said. This is what you always do when you have been argued into a corner; you try to fudge your way out of it with smileys.


Care to to address the rest of my post? Perhaps you don't really have an answer - you know I'm right but do not have the courage to admit it.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 10:36 PM   #67
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
 
Doghouse Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,396
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
See, you even misrepresent XKCD

It seems you will lie about and misrepresent anything anyone says, that you don't agree with.



If I own a speaking venue and I choose not to allow you to hold a speaking engagement there because I don't like what you stand for, that is not vigilantism, that is me exercising my legal right not be associated with your bollocks.

If I own an internet forum, and I choose not to allow you to express your views on it because I don't like what you have been saying, that is not vigilantism, that is me exercising my legal right not be associated with your bollocks.

If I own a web platform and I choose not to host your website because I have seen its content and don't like it, that is not vigilantism, that is me exercising my legal right not be associated with your bollocks.

In each one of these examples, I have not "turned your life upside down". You do not, never had, and never will have, any rights with regard to my venue, my website or my platform. Same applies to Google, Twitter, Facebook etc. You have no rights there - if the owners don't like what you say, they are perfectly within their legal rights to show you the door. This is not censorship or vigilantism or turning peoples lives upside down - this is them, exercising their rights. If you thought that you did have any of those rights, then you are a "Kevin" - your own, false sense of entitlement has resulted in your life being turned upside down. That's down to you!

Its not censorship because you are still within your rights to make your own search engine, or content platform to host your website - no-one is infringing on your right to do that. Its not suppression of free speech for the same reason.
Do you believe that AT&T or any other phone service should have the right to cancel someone's phone service because they don't like the things that person says on the phone, even if it is legally protected speech? If not, how are these services different than giant monolithic Internet platforms for which no viable alternative exists? If so, that's scary. Do you believe electrical utilities should be allowed to cut off someone's power to prevent them from using the electrical grid to tap into the Internet to promote their ideologies? Would you tell someone to just make their own phone company if they get banned from cellular providers? Or their own electrical utility?

At this point in time, Google, Twitter, and YouTube are so monolithic and vast, and benefit so much from publicly funded infrastructure, that an argument can be made that they should be considered part of the public square, and the public square can't legally be restricted based on speech content. For you to say, "Oh, they can just go make their own platform if they're banned from Google" is equivalent to saying, "Oh, they can just go make their own public square somewhere else in the wilderness."

It is scary and wrong that these giant companies have so much power in terms of regulating and directing legal public discourse and which ideas are heard and which ideas aren't. It's incredible to me that someone wouldn't find it alarming, regardless of political affiliation or philosophy. It has nothing to do with hate speech or racism, and everything to do with the fact that these gigantic companies have accumulated massive amounts of power and now virtually control which ideas are heard and which aren't.

Last edited by Doghouse Reilly; 28th June 2020 at 11:12 PM.
Doghouse Reilly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 11:20 PM   #68
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
Do you believe that AT&T or any other phone service should have the right to cancel someone's phone service because they don't like the things that person says on the phone,
What is said on the phone is not for public consumption, so it doesn't apply

However, if a organisation is found to be using their telephones as a means to promote hate speech publicly, then yes, I would support AT&T terminating their account.

.. but nice attempt at a strawman anyway

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
If not, how are these services different than from Internet platforms?
FTFY

Comminations on a telephone service is private
Internet platforms are public

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
If so, that's scary. Do you believe electrical utilities should be allowed to cut off someone's power to prevent them from using the electrical grid to tap into the Internet to promote their ideologies?
Now you're just stretching beyond the point of stupidity.

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
At this point in time, Google, Twitter, and YouTube are so monolithic and vast, and benefit so much from publicly funded infrastructure, that an argument can be made that they should be considered part of the public square, and the public square can't legally be restricted based on speech content. For you to say, "Oh, they can just go make their own platform if they're banned from Google" is equivalent to saying, "Oh, they can just go make their own public square somewhere else in the wilderness."
So, comrade, you want to nationalise a private company now? Make Googleski and Facebookevich subject to the whims of the proletariat?

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
It is scary and wrong that these giant companies have so much power in terms of regulating and directing legal public discourse and which ideas are heard and which ideas aren't. It's incredible to me that someone wouldn't find it alarming, regardless of political affiliation or philosophy. It has nothing to do with hate speech or racism, and everything to do with the fact that these gigantic companies have accumulated massive amounts of power and now virtually control which ideas are heard and which aren't.
Google, Twitter, Facebook etc do not frighten me in the slightest.

White Supremacists, on the other hand, scare the living crap out of me - and I'm not even black
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 11:32 PM   #69
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,332
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Another one who casually tosses around the term "Freedom of Speech" without having any idea what it actually means.

Freedom of Speech is a GOVERNMENT restriction, not a private one.
No. The first amendment is a government restriction. Freedom of speech is a broader concept than just the first amendment.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 11:58 PM   #70
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,384
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You did, you misrepresented what it said.
If your purpose in posting that XKCD was to demonstrate that freedom of speech is a government issue only then my questions are 100% relevant and blow your argument out of the water.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Care to to address the rest of my post?
There is nothing to address. It goes without saying that any content provider may choose what content he considers permissible on his platform. Only you think that this is a blinding revelation.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 12:05 AM   #71
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
 
Doghouse Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,396
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
What is said on the phone is not for public consumption, so it doesn't apply

However, if a organisation is found to be using their telephones as a means to promote hate speech publicly, then yes, I would support AT&T terminating their account.

.. but nice attempt at a strawman anyway
It wasn't a strawman, it was a serious question, which you answered. Thank you. I disagree with you, but I can at least understand why you think they're different.


Quote:
Now you're just stretching beyond the point of stupidity.
I feel like you're just avoiding the question, because I don't think it's even coming close to the point of stupidity, I think it's a valid query.


Quote:
So, comrade, you want to nationalise a private company now? Make Googleski and Facebookevich subject to the whims of the proletariat?
Not at all, but I do think they're big enough to be declared either public utilities or monopolies.


Quote:
Google, Twitter, Facebook etc do not frighten me in the slightest.

White Supremacists, on the other hand, scare the living crap out of me - and I'm not even black
Why can't it be both? I find it incredible that you aren't disturbed by the amount of power wielded by these non-governmental entities.
Doghouse Reilly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 01:07 AM   #72
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
It wasn't a strawman, it was a serious question, which you answered. Thank you. I disagree with you, but I can at least understand why you think they're different.
I don't just think they are different, I know they are.

Telephone Companies provide communications
Electric Companies provide electric power
Internet platforms host information services that are not their own.

Any similarities between them are at most trivial, and are certainly not relevant to a discussion about information content.

Please answer the following question (and limit you answer to "yes" or "no")

Do you believe that any entity providing a service should be entitled to set terms and conditions for provision or use of that service (provided of course, those terms are legal), and should they be allowed to terminate a user if such user should breach those terms and conditions?

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
I feel like you're just avoiding the question, because I don't think it's even coming close to the point of stupidity, I think it's a valid query.
I don't think its a valid question at all, and I do think its stupid. If you are going to start sliding down that slippery slope, where do you stop?

Should the shareholders tell the electric company to shut off/not shut off the power?

Should brokers refuse to trade in shares of the company unless they do/do not shut off the power?

Should the banks that finance the brokers withdraw their services from the brokers if they trade in the shares of the company that do/do not shut off the power?

Should the banks' customers pressure the banks to withdraw finance from brokers who trade in shares of the electric company that will or will not shut off the power?

Should the employers of the customers of the banks pressure them to close their accounts if the bank doesn't pressure the brokers to not trade in the shares of the electric company who do/do not shut off the power

Where does it end?

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
Not at all, but I do think they're big enough to be declared either public utilities or monopolies.
Fair enough, but that would not prevent them from terminating users who violate their terms and conditions.

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
Why can't it be both?
Do reason why it can't be both. Whatever floats your boat.

Google, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook do not scare me one bit.

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
I find it incredible that you aren't disturbed by the amount of power wielded by these non-governmental entities.
What power? What can they do to me? Are they going to send Men in Red/Blue/Yellow/Green to terrorise me?

I find Google a very useful tool

I have Facebook only because my family has it, and my feed is strictly limited only to family and a couple of friends.

I am not on Twitter because they are nowhere near strict enough squashing racism and hate speech
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 29th June 2020 at 01:10 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 02:00 AM   #73
MortFurd
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,010
@Smartcooky: This is freedom of speech:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

What you describe is "freedom of speech is that you can say anything I approve of."

Do you see the difference?
MortFurd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 02:14 AM   #74
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
Originally Posted by MortFurd View Post
@Smartcooky: This is freedom of speech:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

What you describe is "freedom of speech is that you can say anything I approve of."

Do you see the difference?
Yes I see the difference, but again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are talking about here.

When a platform bans a user from their platform, they are NOT, repeat NOT infringing on that user's freedom of speech. That user is free to say whatever it is they want to say elsewhere.

What they ARE doing is exercising their absolute right to not have their platform associated with what the user is saying.

Do you see the difference?


ETA: example, Alex Jones and YouTube.

Alex Jones/Infowars was banned from YouTube.

Did that silence him? No it didn't, he still has his website, and he still spouts his vile rhetoric, ergo, it is an irrefutable, demonstrable fact that being banned by YouTube did not infringe his free speech rights! End of story.

ETA2. If the Government were to issue a gag order on Alex Jones for what he says, then that would be an infringement of his freedom of speech, and I would object to that!
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 29th June 2020 at 02:24 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 02:34 AM   #75
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
 
Doghouse Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,396
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Y
ETA2. If the Government were to issue a gag order on Alex Jones for what he says, then that would be an infringement of his freedom of speech, and I would object to that!
Just to clarify for my own understanding, would you actually object? My impression is that you don't have a problem with legal prohibition of speech that you consider hateful or otherwise vile towards others. I'm not accusing you of lying, but it seems a contradiction.
Doghouse Reilly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 03:41 AM   #76
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,633
Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
Just to clarify for my own understanding, would you actually object? My impression is that you don't have a problem with legal prohibition of speech that you consider hateful or otherwise vile towards others. I'm not accusing you of lying, but it seems a contradiction.
I have a problem with any legal prohibition (and therefore government prohibition) of ordinary speech.

I have no problem with legal prohibition (and therefore government prohibition) of hate speech as defined by most statutes, which are usually long the lines of "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation" and other categories of speech under the protected speech section of the First Amendment

My sympathies lay with the victims of hate (always have, and always will), not those who spout it. That is why I strongly defend anyone's right to not be associated with it, and therefore, why I strongly defend Google, Twitter, Facebook et al, when they decide to remove those people or organisations that spread hate and harm to others.

For clarification, while Alex Jones' rhetoric is disgusting, vile and racist, it falls short of defined hate speech because he does not, for example, implore or encourage his listeners to go out and lynch black people. As much of a lowlife scumbag as he is, he is also not a complete fool and he usually exercises sufficient judgement to not step over that line. His judgement failed him with regards to his rantings on Sandy Hook.

NOTE: If you and psion10 want to talk about "turning people's lives upside down" look no further than how Jones' rantings deeply affected the lives of those parents, whose lives had already been destroyed by the murder of their children.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/u...andy-hook.html

I don't expect psion10 to address this kind of issue - I doubt he has the courage to do so, because it will undermine the absolutist and idealist fantasy world he lives in. Perhaps you will.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 29th June 2020 at 04:39 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 07:39 AM   #77
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 2,176
Today's freeze peach news:

Free speech app Parler is already banning leftists [Daily Dot]
Quote:
“We’re a community town square, an open town square, with no censorship,” Matze told CNBC. “If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler.”

Unfortunately that appears not to be the case. Left-wingers who have joined the site in recent days are claiming they’ve already been banned.
Of course they can do whatever they want, but it's still funny.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.