761–770 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
8chan being shut down because their server supplied stopped doing business with them isn't an issue of free speech. You're really arguing that the 1st amendment means businesses can't refuse a customer, and that's just silly.
My opinion is that freedom of speech is a fine ideal to strive for, but it relies on having a stable society with some minimum level of education (moral and philosophical too, not just the technical kind). It requires people who are able to fully parse the implications of what they are hearing to make sound and rational judgements on the rejection of an idea or the embrace of it. It creates a moral duty for the peopl…
But then, how does free speech apply to the internet? Unless you have servers in your closet, your site will always be hosted on someone else's servers, and even then it will be delivered through networks owned by private companies, etc...
Anyway, Cloudflare's blog post on this (which is really worth reading in full) is what made me think of this:
> We continue to feel incredibly uncomfortable about playing the role of content arbiter and do not plan to exercise it often. Some have wrongly speculated this is due to some conception of the United States' First Amendment. That is incorrect. First, we are a private company and not bound by the First Amendment. Second, the vast majority of our customers, and more than 50% of our revenue, comes from outside the United States where the First Amendment and similarly libertarian freedom of speech protections do not apply. The only relevance of the First Amendment in this case and others is that it allows us to choose who we do and do not do business with; it does not obligate us to do business with everyone. https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Popper's tolerance criteria, by contrast, seems clearcut What is that criteria? Because I can easily see people disagreeing on what is and is not intolerant. Would you agree that saying that a baker in Colorado must make a cake for a gay wedding is intolerant of the baker's belief? Because I'm certain a sizeable proportion of the US population would agree that it is intolerant.
The criteria is pretty straightforward: you apply the "intolerance of intolerance" to the first intolerant action in the chain, i.e. the one that infringes unprompted on someone else.
My opinion is that freedom of speech is a fine ideal to strive for, but it relies on having a stable society with some minimum level of education (moral and philosophical too, not just the technical kind). It requires people who are able to fully parse the implications of what they are hearing to make sound and rational judgements on the rejection of an idea or the embrace of it. It creates a moral duty for the peopl…
[flagged]
I realize this may not be the best place to talk about it, but is there some good explanation for what seems to be a totally insatiable thirst for white supremacy in America these days? It seems to me like this is the real story here and, for the most part, it is not being covered in any real sense by either liberal, conservative or independent media.
They would never dare to write "black man" and most importantly, the expression "white man" was never used before in Italy, in such a context.
There is an international anti-white culture and I'm tired to pretend there isn't a problem.
99% of "alt-righters" who got interested in politics, have done so since gamergate, and before just wanted to play videogames and live a decent life and unlike progressives were truly color blind. I know this is difficult to understand for many, but that's the truth and I hope one day you'll see how much suffering you've caused to whites only because of the color of their skin.
I wrote this for a place of love of all the people of the world and a desire of peace. I'm really tired of this nonsense. Please wake up.
Edit: gonna specify that I don't endorse violence or even coercion through the State, I just want anti-white culture to go away
Can any free speech absolutists explain to me the legitimate public interest that is served by allowing terrorist breeding grounds like 8chan to continue to operate?
One man's terrorist rhetoric is another's glorious revolutionary thought. If you don't think that the precedents being set today won't affect leftist spaces which seek to alter America's failed state version of capitalism you are truly naive. Was the Patriot act and subsequent rights degrading laws about combating Islamic terrorism? Or was it about legalizing oppressive control and mass surveillance?
My opinion is that freedom of speech is a fine ideal to strive for, but it relies on having a stable society with some minimum level of education (moral and philosophical too, not just the technical kind). It requires people who are able to fully parse the implications of what they are hearing to make sound and rational judgements on the rejection of an idea or the embrace of it. It creates a moral duty for the peopl…
sounds like blaming free speech when basically a child can get AR-15.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I'm in agreement with Popper's view that societies should tolerate everything except intolerance. It draws a fine line between what's acceptable speech and what is not. And going by it, things like 8chan should get shut down. The line of thought you put forward, by contrast, rubs me in a very wrong way. It was used to justify, depending on the period and country, not allowing people to vote on the basis th…
Why should people tolerate things which they don't think it's in their interest to tolerate? If, for example, people believe it's harmful to their children to see people performing sexual acts in the street, why should they tolerate that behavior?
Which is why I don't understand why people think you can't be tolerant towards intolerance. There's plenty of room between what I think counts as intolerance and what I think should be forbidden by law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Popper's tolerance criteria, by contrast, seems clearcut What is that criteria? Because I can easily see people disagreeing on what is and is not intolerant. Would you agree that saying that a baker in Colorado must make a cake for a gay wedding is intolerant of the baker's belief? Because I'm certain a sizeable proportion of the US population would agree that it is intolerant.
Isn't that the key exception of not tolerating intolerance? That is, the baker's belief is not being tolerated because it is intolerant.
Also, I wonder if, as software devs, we'd feel comfortable being compelled to take on contracts we might object to on moral grounds, e.g. I refuse to engage in projects building weapons and surveillance systems. I'd be quite upset if I were to be taken to court for refusing the contract on those grounds.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the deaths of others your right to say it." How many free speech absolutists have "skin in the game", or whatever? Every alternative to censorship suggested always puts the burden on the victimized. Like, "if you debate it in public you will defeat these bad ideas". Few who are free speech absolutists roll up their sleeves and volunteer to take the action they presc…
Moreover 8chan posts, though vile, arguably do not fit the narrow free speech exemptions of the US such as true threat or incitement. The law and judicial precedent would require a reasonable reader to take it seriously. All that is moot though as the government has taken no action here.