Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Microsoft and more join in support of strict new EU hate speech policy - Polidicks

Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Microsoft and more join in support of strict new EU hate speech policy

55 replies, posted
In This Thread

We got laws that forbid "hate speech", basicly everything that doesnt fit the current leftist opinion. Then we got a tyranical president who said he would refuse to work with governments that are not part of the common left-center political spectrum. We should leave this sinking ship, not that the common citizen would ever have a vote on that though.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50431767]This melodrama about the world turning into 1984 anytime the topic of hate speech laws comes up is really very tiring.[/QUOTE]Could not give less of a fuck, "hate speech" is ambiguous and subject to whatever terms and conditions the government decides. Controlling speech is bad enough, but it leads to controlling [I]thought[/I] and that truly is abhorrent. [QUOTE]As far as I know there are no thought police in Canada, the UK and other countries with these laws.[/QUOTE]At any moment a G20 meeting could descend on a Canadian city and turn it into a totalitarian shithole, so using Canada as a bastion of liberty doesn't work. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50435489]In my eyes they're comparable to Islamic extremism.[/QUOTE]So? I'm probably one of the most vocal critics of Islam as religion on this site and a vehement opponent of Islamic extremism, but I don't support censoring them at all and in fact the thought disgusts me. [QUOTE]A friend of mine used to be a pretty reasonable libertarian guy. After watching bs on youtube and corrupting his mind with alt right bs he unironically believes there is a race war, supports eugenics and shooting refugees.[/QUOTE]Yes, your friend's virgin mind has been irrevocably tainted by [I]Youtube.[/I]

[QUOTE=Mattk50;50430805]Youll probably get a response like "their site their rules, fuck free speech on the internet" so im just going to preemptively respond that treating websites that are as huge as those mentioned in the OP as garage operations where dictatorship makes sense is very silly. These sites have become an integrated part in the world's communication networks and if they are allowed to, they will affect human discourse however it most benefits themselves with no fear of repercussion. And that is the set up to a dystopian scenario that could actually occur, if it hasn't already.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards"]Thank god that doesn't already exist.[/URL] [URL="https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311"]Yup, definitely doesn't.[/URL] [URL="https://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/communityguidelines.html#communityguidelines-line-crossing"]Nothing to see here![/URL]

I'm gonna report every "kill all whites" messages. I hope they include sexism as hate speech, gonna report so many "kill all men" posts.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50441976]Could not give less of a fuck, "hate speech" is ambiguous and subject to whatever terms and conditions the government decides. Controlling speech is bad enough, but it leads to controlling [I]thought[/I] and that truly is abhorrent.[/quote] Slippery slope fallacy imo. People can believe whatever they like and its not an action, speech is an action and can lead to further action or spread those thoughts. [quote] I'm probably one of the most vocal critics of Islam as religion on this site and a vehement opponent of Islamic extremism, but I don't support censoring them at all and in fact the thought disgusts me. [/quote] People aren't equipped to rationally cope with those views expressed. They are easily convinced to carry out actions or are tricked into believing something which isn't the truth. Look at islamic hate preachers, they prey on the weak minded and those seeking purpose and identity. People should be allowed to hold a belief provided they don't act on it or, more contraversially, knowingly propagate those beliefs to people they know will act on it or to convince others to act on it. Consider a preacher who finds some guy whos angry and looking for purpose, he convinces this guy he has some higher purpose and that its ok to kill infidels and that he should go out and convert other people to believe that, somewhere down the line either the guy or one of the people he converts goes on to blow up a building. At what point is it a thought, at what point is it speech at what point is it an act. Surely speech which insights violence or hatred should be comparable to that violence or hatred in itself? The boundry between thought and speech is clearly defined. The boundry between speech and action isn't quite so clear. [quote] Yes, your friend's virgin mind has been irrevocably tainted by [I]Youtube.[/I][/QUOTE] Legitimately is. Last night he said blacks were a difference race from whites whos evolution diverged before homo sapiens left africa, legitimately tried to argue that europeans evolved from neanderthals (absolutely insane.), his main arguement some nutty varg vargness vid. He's obsessed with stefan molenuex (serial liar and anarcho capitalist), Britain first, EDL, all sorts of nutty jewish conspiracy theories and black pigeon (some gutter tier reactionary ass). Honestly I believe they have have an influence on him for the worse. Maybe he secretly held these beliefs before but these past few months the views hes been expressing have certainly become concernedly more dark.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50442113]Slippery slope fallacy imo.[/QUOTE]Prove it's a fallacy, seems to me the steady assault on personal liberty is becoming more than a slippery slope. [QUOTE]People aren't equipped to rationally cope with those views expressed. They are easily convinced to carry out actions or are tricked into believing something which isn't the truth.[/QUOTE]Oh how typical, the one arguing for big brother to fix everything thinks people simply cannot handle adversity and potentially upsetting things. Using your logic I should be able to go on to any campus and yell, "let's all lynch some niggers and rustle up some sluts to rape!" and it will make everyone in earshot will turn into a pack of bigoted rapists. Give me a fucking break. I just read your argument for throwing the 1st Amendment out the window and all that's happened is it's made me lose respect for you, I wasn't at all influenced by your argument that could be construed as "anti-liberty extremism." Even if I were it wouldn't matter, you have every right to state your opinion and if it truly does affect my own view of the world then [I]maybe[/I] I didn't really have a strong enough belief in my position in the first place. If people commit violence because they hear from somebody else it's a great idea then [I][B]they[/B] committed a crime,[/I] not the person who said in passing, "damn it would be great if there weren't so many Mexicans around here." If I tell you to jump off a bridge and you're actually stupid enough to do it then I've done nothing wrong, and I'll tell you right now trying to convince me I have some culpability in your bad decision is a waste of time. You want to know at what point speech is an act? When it's a fucking act, committing a racially motivated act of violence is not synonymous with shitposting on 4chan. Maybe it's an American thing but I'm not seeing how this is at all unclear to you.

[QUOTE]If people commit violence because they hear from somebody else it's a great idea then they committed a crime, not the person who said in passing, "damn it would be great if there weren't so many Mexicans around here." [/QUOTE] And if people say "We should kill mexicans so we'd have less of them!" then that's illegal in a good chunk of countries for good reason. The whole "I'm just stating my opinion! Freedom of speech!" argument falls flat when you call for or encourage illegal actions.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50438955]This dude was harassing two women for months even after they blocked him so yeah that's pretty reasonable grounds to be subject to a criminal investigation and court charge. He was also found not guilty.[/QUOTE] Got any citations for this?

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50442190]Prove it's a fallacy, seems to me the steady assault on personal liberty is becoming more than a slippery slope. [/quote] Can't really say much about this. IMO slippery slope is in itself a fallacy but I guess its understandable your fear of the "steady assault on personal liberty" [quote] Oh how typical, the one arguing for big brother to fix everything thinks people simply cannot handle adversity and potentially upsetting things. Using your logic I should be able to go on to any campus and yell, "let's all lynch some niggers and rustle up some sluts to rape!" and it will make everyone in earshot will turn into a pack of bigoted rapists. [/quote] No that's disingenuous. Not all statements will make people think the same as you. However if you misrepresent reality, twists facts, lie, marginalise people, dehumanise people, use emotion to over come rationality and blame say an ethnic minority for problems actually caused by a crappy economy (for example) you will convince people that your thoughts are truth. Throw in something to galvanise these views eg "we're being oppressed" "the media won't express these views" "the government doesn't want you to know this" "political correctness stops you from expressing the truth" "the media refuse to print these stories" and it becomes very hard to convince the mislead person otherwise. At the same time as this you offer some solice and support, an explanation for things which you don't understand, even if its wrong you don't question it because you (not you but the audience) are ill equipped to think critically or see through the lies. [quote] Give me a fucking break. I just read your argument for throwing the 1st Amendment out the window and all that's happened is it's made me lose respect for you, I wasn't at all influenced by your argument that could be construed as "anti-liberty extremism." [/quote] No. Preaching hate and terrorism isn't necissary for islam. All the muslims I know don't believe in hatred. Stopping someone spreading hated != stopping someone from believing in a religion. I absolutely think people should have the right to believe what they like - I do infact think religion is necissary in society to some degree, we've had it for 10000s of years. As soon as someone tries to convince others that its ok to hate or murder someone then imo the needs of the state/people in the state over rule that persons right to share those particular views. Just so we're abundantly clear - belief in religion != spreading hate. [quote] Even if I were it wouldn't matter, you have every right to state your opinion and if it truly does affect my own view of the world then [I]maybe[/I] I didn't really have a strong enough belief in my position in the first place. If people commit violence because they hear from somebody else it's a great idea then [I][B]they[/B] committed a crime,[/I] not the person who said in passing, "damn it would be great if there weren't so many Mexicans around here." If I tell you to jump off a bridge and you're actually stupid enough to do it then I've done nothing wrong, and I'll tell you right now trying to convince me I have some culpability in your bad decision is a waste of time. [/quote] Look at cults, look at extremist preachers, look at the nazis. People are easily convinced to do awful things. And imo the person doing the convincing should be equally guilty if they did the convincing with that intention in mind. Free speech shouldn't protect such a person, they are willfully causing terror and suffering and using free speech to protect themselves. [quote] You want to know at what point speech is an act? When it's a fucking act, committing a racially motivated act of violence is not synonymous with shitposting on 4chan. Maybe it's an American thing but I'm not seeing how this is at all unclear to you.[/QUOTE] Shitposting on 4chan has no bad intention behind it, its just a guy posting a pic of hitler because, in that context, its amusing. A neo nazi convincing people that jews are subhuman and need to be removed has bad intention behind it. Actually that said even stuff where its said ironically like "niggers always steal" people say it for humour impact on 4chan, but it does propagate a damaging stereotype and in a way marginalises and dehumanises. Like if you joke about women driving badly, you might not mean bad by it but it's not really helping anyone; and one might argue that you are profiting (making a funny) from causing disadvantage (spreading hurtful/damaging stereotypes) to others - but imo that sort of issue, though it shouldn't be dealt with legally, should perhaps be discouraged sort of like bad manners. Maybe it is an american thing to value free speech over all else, if I'm totally honest the whole 1st and 2nd amendment only seems to apply when people want it to apply. People use it as an argument to stop others from practising their religions (a guy on fox argued that a mosque shouldn't be built because 1st amendment), or getting married. Or in the case of the 2nd amendment people get unhappy when blacks exercised their rights to carry firearms in the same way that some whites did. I know the constitution means a lot to many americans but I think the way its applied and looked to as some irrefutable final word is... interesting.

[QUOTE=uber.;50442304]And if people say "We should kill mexicans so we'd have less of them!" then that's illegal in a good chunk of countries for good reason. The whole "I'm just stating my opinion! Freedom of speech!" argument falls flat when you call for or encourage illegal actions.[/QUOTE]No it doesn't, if you cannot function as a society without regulating the speech of citizens then you have failed as a society. I'll take a thousand bigots over a million slaves, at least I know where those motherfuckers stand on things. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50442370]Can't really say much about this. IMO slippery slope is in itself a fallacy but I guess its understandable your fear of the "steady assault on personal liberty"[/QUOTE]I have precedence on my side, whenever a free speech argument comes up people inevitably bring up "well what about personal threats???" and use that as a justification for further restriction. Then when those are in place, "inciting violence is illegal!" it becomes something else, "spreading hate is bad, it should be banned." Fuck all of that shit. We've drawn the line at directed, personal threats between individuals in this country and frankly I'm barely comfortable with that. Honestly I could be completely comfortable with that if it wasn't used as fucking leverage for more shit. [QUOTE]No that's disingenuous. Not all statements will make people think the same as you.[/QUOTE]Yup, that's my entire point. [QUOTE]However if you misrepresent reality, twists facts, lie, marginalise people, dehumanise people, use emotion to over come rationality and blame say an ethnic minority for problems actually caused by a crappy economy (for example) you will convince people that your thoughts are truth.[/QUOTE]Oh, so what the left-leaning people in my country do? Or was it the right? Or maybe that's everyone with an opinion and a hefty helping of emotion? So where is that line? What's okay and what's not in this scheme of speech regulation of yours? Political affiliations are fine, but race isn't? What if your political affiliations are race-related? When I've said, "yes, there are circumstances where armed revolution in this country would be a prudent course of action," what would that count as? I'm speaking of a hypothetical that could potentially turn real, so what exactly would happen there? Free speech is protected here because all of the ambiguous "what ifs" are functionally no different, when people marginalize and dehumanize people with other political ideologies they are doing the same things as a religious extremist and a racist bigot; they just happen to be part of a protected class given a special privilege. [QUOTE]Throw in something to galvanise these views eg "we're being oppressed" "the media won't express these views" "the government doesn't want you to know this" "political correctness stops you from expressing the truth" "the media refuse to print these stories" and it becomes very hard to convince the mislead person otherwise.[/QUOTE]You've just described the Civil Rights Movement. [QUOTE]At the same time as this you offer some solice and support, an explanation for things which you don't understand, even if its wrong you don't question it because you (not you but the audience) are ill equipped to think critically or see through the lies.[/QUOTE]You've just described organized religion. I hope you realize what you're saying, I really shouldn't have to explain what's going on in my head right now. [QUOTE]Stopping someone spreading hated != stopping someone from believing in a religion.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Just so we're abundantly clear - belief in religion != spreading hate.[/QUOTE]As you can see above there truly isn't a difference, you tried to paint a picture of the process of converting an at-risk individual to extremism and you managed to describe civil rights activism and organized religion. [QUOTE]Shitposting on 4chan has no bad intention behind it, its just a guy posting a pic of hitler because, in that context, its amusing. A neo nazi convincing people that jews are subhuman and need to be removed has bad intention behind it.[/QUOTE]How the fuck do you know what their intent is, exactly? Somebody posting "gas the Jews racewar now" on 4chan may very well fervently believe that Jews are responsible for the world's woes and need to be exterminated, but meanwhile that Neo-Nazi may just be a White Nationalist and simply wants to resettle everyone else far, far away. Both are ethnic cleansing but one is specifically violent and the one is a bigoted attempt at coexistence; you've given the blood-thirsty antisemite a pass while you gave the benign paperback philosopher a jail sentence. Much like with religion and extremism it's not only wrong to draw a line but it's also simultaneously counter-productive. [QUOTE]Maybe it is an american thing to value free speech over all else, if I'm totally honest the whole 1st and 2nd amendment only seems to apply when people want it to apply. People use it as an argument to stop others from practising their religions (a guy on fox argued that a mosque shouldn't be built because 1st amendment), or getting married.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Or in the case of the 2nd amendment people get unhappy when blacks exercised their rights to carry firearms in the same way that some whits did.[/QUOTE]Yeah, let me tell you about something I've learned over the years. People who want to strangle the rights of other people? Doesn't matter the right, be it speech, guns, education, what have you, they're largely one of three types of people: the hateful, the fearful, and the ignorant. Those people that hate others? They cannot fucking stand the fact that their peers also have rights, it drives them up the goddamn wall to be in every way legally their equal. These people would love to see all their enemies locked up for simply being who they are, and they would love to see it done in the most cruel of ways. That guy who incorrectly tried to use the 1st Amendment as reasoning against a mosque being built? Yeah, that's the type. Those turbo leftists who would like to see gun owners shot by cops? Yep, they [U]love[/U] that thought, they're also the ones who constantly say penis-related comments because for them it's about power. Penis is power, that phallic imagery is what they imagine their enemies doing to their fantasy of a perfect society: raping it until it is no more. Frankly, the gun grabbers and various other statists truly do love dicks. Then on the other hand you have the fearful, people who were cursed with an overactive imagination. These people look at the rights of others and bite their lip and think, "but they could use that for bad things..." Their mind is full of terrible scenarios, worry about people inciting riots and using their legal protection to protest in front of government buildings while a hundred suicide bombers run in with automatic rifles. I imagine their world is a terrifying world, these people decry the ability to speak freely as a double-edged sword that cannot be wielded by mere citizens. When they think of guns they cannot think rationally, immediately they imagine the violent act of shooting someone and think, "well if everyone has guns then everyone [I]can shoot!"[/I] They want rights restricted because society will never be free because they truly believe people are terrible and deranged. Then you have the ignorant. These motherfuckers hear what the fearful and the hateful say and they go with it; for them if it sounds right it's gotta be true. I'd argue that the hypothetical person who's vulnerable to extremism, seduced by anger and soothed by a sense of belonging, they're of the same pool of people as these folks. Ignorant people may argue for the position fed to them, they might even argue against the hateful and the fearful [I]but they're still ignorant.[/I] These people have not formulated their own opinions and are just pawns for everyone else, but the free flow of information is the most vital for them. While the hateful may need propaganda to hammer their views into your fucking skull, and the fearful need discourse to formulate a plan in great numbers, it's the ignorant who truly rely on the information available to merely function and are indeed in a temporary state. This was understood a long, long time ago, society is basically a mix of a handful of deep thinkers, some fistfuls of semi-independent minds, and a whole fuckload of dumb motherfuckers. We developed an entire system designed to elevate everyone over a certain threshold of knowledge, and with education we've done some truly good things. Society stagnates when that flow of information is pruned, and as far as I can see that's got to be because it's chock full of ignorant dumbasses. Just look at what's happened when the US education system declined, we're a fucking shadow of what we once were. We're all born in a state of ignorance about the world, and I absolutely fucking [I]refuse[/I] to accept that this condition is the default state of a human mind. No, the 1st Amendment (and 2nd) doesn't give us the right to speech, it codifies into law that right because the natural state of the human mind is to grow.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50442569]No it doesn't, if you cannot function as a society without regulating the speech of citizens then you have failed as a society. I'll take a thousand bigots over a million slaves, at least I know where those motherfuckers stand on things. [/QUOTE] There's pretty much rules and laws for everything. That's why we have them in the first place. To try and keep a balance between freedom and security. Huh. Slavery. Because not everything that comes out of your mouth should be legal? I guess that would also apply to someone calling someone else a nigger.

Imagine what kind of consequences this can have. Take for instance GamerGate. A movement that grew out of a growing resentment of disingenuous gaming media, and which by that media got spun into a mysoginist terrorist hate group. Imagine if all GamerGate discussions and people related to them got banned from all the social networking sites, based on a false narrative created by the media. That's why this is so dangerous. You think this will be limited to racists and bigots, but it will be taken advantage of to go after people who don't have the "correct" opinions. Censorship is always bad. If you believe this is a good thing, then you're incredibly naive.

[QUOTE=V12US;50442743]Imagine what kind of consequences this can have. Take for instance GamerGate. A movement that grew out of a growing resentment of disingenuous gaming media, and which by that media got spun into a mysoginist terrorist hate group. Imagine if all GamerGate discussions and people related to them got banned from all the social networking sites, based on a false narrative created by the media. That's why this is so dangerous. You think this will be limited to racists and bigots, but it will be taken advantage of to go after people who don't have the "correct" opinions. Censorship is always bad. If you believe this is a good thing, then you're incredibly naive.[/QUOTE] Rape threats are illegal. Death threats are illegal. I don't see how it is apparently so difficult to distinguish between communication. This whole slippery slope reeks of "If we allow gay marriage, next year we'll have to allow marriage between a guy and his lego bricks."

[QUOTE=OGMatador;50435448][url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/nazi-pug-man-arrested-after-teaching-girlfriends-dog-to-perform/[/url] [url]https://www.rt.com/uk/342513-dog-nazi-salute-arrested/[/url] [url]http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/09/man-arrested-after-teaching-pug-to-do-a-nazi-salute-when-it-heard-the-words-sieg-heil-5870354/[/url] “A 28-year-old man was arrested on Thursday 28 April in relation to the alleged publication of offensive material online (improper use of electronic communications under the Communications Act 2003). I guess all those Alt-Right/Conservative pages are going to go down under now. Facebook has already been "silencing" them by lowering their reach through the fb algorithms. (no major loss)[/QUOTE] Mind you xenophobia is relatively complicated and free spech (or to be more specific freedom of expression as that's the standard in europe) does actually apply. The difference is that unlike in the US you can't just say anything. Here's an example of what might be considered xenophobic and what not. A) fucking brown people are blood crazed criminals B) persons coming from the middle east have a higher than standard rate of committing crime, here's the numbers.

[QUOTE=uber.;50442778]Rape threats are illegal. Death threats are illegal. I don't see how it is apparently so difficult to distinguish between communication. This whole slippery slope reeks of "If we allow gay marriage, next year we'll have to allow marriage between a guy and his lego bricks."[/QUOTE] It has nothing to do with slippery slope.

Wait, if they're not allowed to say it, how are we supposed to know who the racist, antisemitic, hateful, and xenophobic people are? Implementing hate speech laws is the quickest way to get those wackjobs to subvert the message, allowing it to reach a wider potential voterbase, and thus give racists more power.

[QUOTE=Flug;50430590][url]http://thetechportal.in/2016/05/31/facebook-twitter-googles-youtube-microsoft-join-hands-support-eu-hate-speech-rules/[/url][/QUOTE] Article isn't that detailed to be honest. I agree that notions such as racism etc are not acceptable, but what if people are having a joke around? I could name a series of conversations between myself and friends, or other people that I have heard from, who would get prosecuted for having a joke. There's such a fine line for what's considered offensive, and tbh now a days, everything is considered as offensive. Will be interesting to see where this leads.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50442569] - snip most of post- [/quote] A fairly compelling arguement for freedom of speech. I feel that this section is relevant though. [quote] Then you have the ignorant. These motherfuckers hear what the fearful and the hateful say and they go with it; for them if it sounds right it's gotta be true. I'd argue that the hypothetical person who's vulnerable to extremism, seduced by anger and soothed by a sense of belonging, they're of the same pool of people as these folks. Ignorant people may argue for the position fed to them, they might even argue against the hateful and the fearful but they're still ignorant. These people have not formulated their own opinions and are just pawns for everyone else, but the free flow of information is the most vital for them. While the hateful may need propaganda to hammer their views into your fucking skull, and the fearful need discourse to formulate a plan in great numbers, it's the ignorant who truly rely on the information available to merely function and are indeed in a temporary state. This was understood a long, long time ago, society is basically a mix of a handful of deep thinkers, some fistfuls of semi-independent minds, and a whole fuckload of dumb motherfuckers. We developed an entire system designed to elevate everyone over a certain threshold of knowledge, and with education we've done some truly good things. [/quote] That hateful person can use speech to spread their hate to the ignorant and fearful and convince them, in such a way that they can't easily be unconvinced, who might be further convinced, through speech, to carry out violent acts. Speech can instigate violence and, in my opinion, peoples rights to safety should overrule the speakers right to instigate violence through speech. One of the principle roles of state is to protect its people. [quote] Society stagnates when that flow of information is pruned, and as far as I can see that's got to be because it's chock full of ignorant dumbasses. Just look at what's happened when the US education system declined, we're a fucking shadow of what we once were. We're all born in a state of ignorance about the world, and I absolutely fucking [I]refuse[/I] to accept that this condition is the default state of a human mind. No, the 1st Amendment (and 2nd) doesn't give us the right to speech, it codifies into law that right because the natural state of the human mind is to grow.[/QUOTE] you use education to argue your case for free speech. IMO a radical islamist preacher or neo nazi preaching hatred doesn't really contribute much to education, aside from "this is what you should not aim to be like" [editline]2nd June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=V12US;50442919]It has nothing to do with slippery slope.[/QUOTE] Jumpin jack said himself it was a slippery slope.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50443050] Jumpin jack said himself it was a slippery slope.[/QUOTE] I'm not Jumpin jack.

[QUOTE=uber.;50442725]That's why we have them in the first place. To try and keep a balance between freedom and security.[/QUOTE]Again, if you cannot function as a society without regulating the speech, the flow of ideas no matter how disruptive they may or may not be, then you have failed as a society. [QUOTE=uber.;50442778]Rape threats are illegal. Death threats are illegal. I don't see how it is apparently so difficult to distinguish between communication.[/QUOTE]Except there is a difference between a pointed threat directly at a singular individual and a blanket statement of ambiguous bigotry. Even if I laid out a detailed plan on how best to exterminate minorities it wouldn't matter because no one individual can act on such a scale, if I discussed the merits of the process and why society should do it I'm no different than the guy saying we should cut spending to every social program out there. Sure, one drops the pretenses and proposes directly that people should be killed, but the other is saying let nature take it's course and let the weak and stupid starve. Are you honestly advocating that hardcore libertarianism is [I]hate speech?[/I] [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50443050]That hateful person can use speech to spread their hate to the ignorant and fearful and convince them, in such a way that they can't easily be unconvinced, who might be further convinced, through speech, to carry out violent acts.[/QUOTE]Then those people who committed violent acts and their associates should be prosecuted [I]for breaking the law.[/I] Nobody held a gun to their head and made them commit violence, they were convinced of it's merit and acted on their own accord: they made their own bed even if it was somebody else who set out a stack of blankets. [QUOTE]Speech can instigate violence and, in my opinion, peoples rights to safety should overrule the speakers right to instigate violence through speech. One of the principle roles of state is to protect its people.[/QUOTE]Nobody's right to speech interferes with anyone's rights to safety, if somebody does commit an act of violence then [U]that[/U] is the crime. Once a state is utterly incapable of adequately protecting it's own people and turns to the restriction of basic rights then the state is a failure, it needs to be reformed or removed. [QUOTE]you use education to argue your case for free speech. IMO a radical islamist preacher or neo nazi preaching hatred doesn't really contribute much to education, aside from "this is what you should not aim to be like"[/QUOTE]Who are you to say what idea or concept contributes and what doesn't? Even as an inherently bad idea mocked and ridiculed, it serves a purpose and reinforces the merits of antithesis ideas which in this example would be tolerance and coexistence. [editline]2nd June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=V12US;50443637]I'm not Jumpin jack.[/QUOTE][I]or are you...[/I]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50446726]Again, if you cannot function as a society without regulating the speech, the flow of ideas no matter how disruptive they may or may not be, then you have failed as a society.[/QUOTE] You could say the same about locking your front door. Guns. Driving under influence. "If you can't leave your house without locking the door, then you have failed as a society." "If you can't buy guns in your local supermarket, then you have failed as a society." "If you can't drive after just drinking a little bit of whiskey, then you have failed as a society." The concept of boundaries, even if they're on a legal-basis, don't say the slightest thing about a society in general. The whole "You have failed..." is a knockout argument that isn't saying anything at all. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50446726]Except there is a difference between a pointed threat directly at a singular individual and a blanket statement of ambiguous bigotry. Even if I laid out a detailed plan on how best to exterminate minorities it wouldn't matter because no one individual can act on such a scale, if I discussed the merits of the process and why society should do it I'm no different than the guy saying we should cut spending to every social program out there. Sure, one drops the pretenses and proposes directly that people should be killed, but the other is saying let nature take it's course and let the weak and stupid starve. Are you honestly advocating that hardcore libertarianism is [I]hate speech?[/I] [/QUOTE] Oh, now there is a difference? I thought you said that anything you can say falls under free speech and thus should be legal? [QUOTE]No it doesn't, if you cannot function as a society without regulating the speech of citizens then you have failed as a society.[/QUOTE] I can't really say more than I have already said so this will be my last statement: Stop thinking that by regulating speech we'll create a second North Korea. Stop trying to make it a "all or nothing" debate. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions"]Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences.[/URL]

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50431696]But I've read that Vkontakte is spied on by the KGB! :O [editline]31st May 2016[/editline] Maybe we should all ditch our FB accounts and migrate to VK? :v:[/QUOTE] Can't Newpunch requires FB or Twitter and I don't use Twitter.

I don't really see what you guys are up in arms about. There's tons of pol-tier stuff on facebook and twitter, why would the removal of those messages bother you? Of course it's important not to stretch the definition of hate speech and censor legitimate comments, but I'm not going to outright be a complete pessimist and think that this would be used to silence reasonable users.

[QUOTE=uber.;50447640]You could say the same about locking your front door. Guns. Driving under influence.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I suppose technically you could say the same about anything. Apples. Oranges. [QUOTE]Oh, now there is a difference? I thought you said that anything you can say falls under free speech and thus should be legal?[/QUOTE]Is a pointed threat an exchange of ideas and concepts? Hm, how about... advocating a change in society? No? Then clearly there [I]is[/I] a difference, I guess you haven't been reading my posts very well. If you were trying to get me to admit that I think any and all restrictions aren't okay then sure, I'll admit that, I [I]begrudgingly accept[/I] the current caps but only because they're not so egregious that they require a drastic response. Stopping ambiguous "hate speech" under the guise of making a safe society? Yeah, no, that's too fucking far. [QUOTE]Stop thinking that by regulating speech we'll create a second North Korea. Stop trying to make it a "all or nothing" debate.[/QUOTE]Really? That's what you're going to go with? Stop trying to make it a slippery slope where one infringement leads to another, you [B]just[/B] pointed to a precedence for why [I]more[/I] restrictions are okay; you have effectively proven my argument with this: [QUOTE][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions"]Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences.[/URL][/QUOTE]Congratulations, in one breath you make a hyperbolic statement about how we won't "create a second North Korea" and then immediately undermine everything you've said by demonstrating how that's going to happen. [QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50447719]There's tons of pol-tier stuff on facebook and twitter, why would the removal of those messages bother you?[/QUOTE]For the exact same reason why I think burning tumblr down to the ground is a bad idea, right along with jailing any religious nutbar for whatever reason that's trumped up to silence them. I hate their messages, I think they're stupid sacks of shit who are too fucking dumb to see the forest through the trees, but they have every right to say the dumbest of shit. [QUOTE]I'm not going to outright be a complete pessimist and think that this would be used to silence reasonable users.[/QUOTE]I'd like to agree with you but Facebook has allegedly already shown that it's playing fast and loose with what's reasonable, [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/technology/conservatives-accuse-facebook-of-political-bias.html?_r=0]silencing conservatives[/url] and [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-trending-news-curators_us_5730c2c8e4b096e9f092103c]their posts.[/url] This is without complying with any bullshit regulations on a basic right, it's just their own agenda at play, so forgive me for being a pessimist for seeing the unfortunate reality of all of this. [editline]3rd June 2016[/editline] I think uber. has pretty much shown that in even a simple discussion on the internet the argument for more restrictions uses previous ones as justification. I think this effectively demonstrates that "a slippery slope" does exist in at least this situation, and indeed it has been used in actual fucking legislation so there's that too. I've made my argument to the best of my ability, and I've been given a shining example as to why my concerns are justified. I really don't think that I need to carry on with this any further.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.