611–620 of 1001 posts
All of these HN comments are defending shouting "Fire!" falsely in a theater under the guise of it being a slippery slope before all speech is lost. I have lost a lot of respect for these slippery slope arguments because they are easy to make and ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech. Many people, both anarchists and non-anarchists, would strongly disagree with that statement. And not all of those people are uneducated edgelords whose main argument is that it's a slippery slope.
This isn't really true. You won't be allowed on most anarchist servers unless you agree not to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
I find it ironic that the same people who question whether or not Facebook should be allowed to do this seemingly have no problem with the moderation on Hacker News. Trump’s account would have been restricted within days here after repeated warnings. And yet few seem to question that @dang’s moderation is precisely how we continue to (mostly) have high-level, thoughtful discussion around these topics. Fewer still question HN’s right to perform moderation in general.
And yet when it comes to Donald Trump’s calls—from a seat of power—to overthrow the results of free, fair, and democratic elections so that he can stay in office, we’re supposed to simply throw our hands up in the air and accept it? When he uses thinly-veiled (and sometimes completely open) language encouraging his supporters to use violence to achieve his goals, we’re supposed to accept that there’s just nothing to be done?
Anyone making this argument should be deeply, deeply ashamed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. Even Bill Barr just came out >Former Attorney General William Barr said Thursday that President Donald Trump inciting a violent insurrection on Capitol Hill the previous day was a "betrayal of his office and supporters." https://www.businessinsider.com/former-ag-barr-trump-betraye... But go ahead and hide behind "well he never ACTUALLY said it!!"
Quote the wording you think Trump used to organize an insurrection. Juxtapose that with the wording you would be okay with him using to organize a protest. Then try to tell me that the difference between them is "insurrection".
If Trump gave that speech this morning, with full knowledge of what transpired, you would have a strong case that he incited to "imminent lawless action." However, that key context isn't necessarily present yesterday morning when Trump actually gave his speech. You can make a case that a reasonable person should have known that a portion of the crowd would react in "imminent lawless action" (which would meet the bar). Likely, the courts would have judged that it's just "politicians saying things they don't mean" and dismissed it on the side of caution. However, the knowledge that imminent lawless action did occur as a result may persuade some people that a reasonable person really should have been able to predict this outcome, and thus that the speech actually meets the bar for incitement. It definitely is not a slam-dunk violation, but the fact that it isn't slam-dunk clear really should give you pause.
[1] 18 USC §2384 is the statutory definition of sedition. The mob yesterday meets all elements: "two or more persons" who "conspire[d]" to "by force" "delay the execution of any law of the United States." It isn't hyperbole to say that their act was sedition, it was literally sedition yesterday.
I know Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and all the rest don't count as broadcast media but I feel like we got here in part because the 1987 elimination of FCC's fairness doctrine slowly allowed a shift in how we communicate with each other. We went from specious claims and conspiracy theories being the subject matter of newsletters to their public broadcast to millions via talk radio ~and Fox News~, thus allowin…
You can't be fair when you only blame Fox for fact-free content when the same fact-free content(just inverted) is peddled by all the other mass media outlets. They just cater to a different bubble.
"No reasonable viewer would think Tucker Carlson is news." The media barons believe their consumers are idiots, and treat them accordingly.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fox-news-lawyer-suggest...
You're going to have a hard time finding an equivalent statement from the progressive media.
This is about clash of fundamentally incompatible moral systems - one in which one group would like to operate entirely above the law on the superficial basis of skin colour and inherited wealth by appealing to lies and fantasy and the basest and most distorted human instincts, and another which wants humans, politics, society, business, science, and art to be better than that.
All of these HN comments are defending shouting "Fire!" falsely in a theater under the guise of it being a slippery slope before all speech is lost. I have lost a lot of respect for these slippery slope arguments because they are easy to make and ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.
Yes, people are not seeing the big precedent being set here, If US President's voice is being shut down, one can only imagine how powerful the biased censorship on social media platforms is. We either need to find/create alternate platforms or set strict rules for everyone and not at the whims/moods of these CEO's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So uh, who's going to be the arbiter of what exactly constitutes intolerant or harmful speech? You? Me? Facebook? The government? Twitter? Whoever gets the power to define what's acceptable and not acceptable speech is given too much power. You might trust that arbiter now, tomorrow, but do you honestly believe their incentives will always remain pure?
I’m always confused by this opinion because this applies to literally every single instance where collective decision making is required or desired. Who gets to decide how much we pay in taxes? You? Me? The Government? Bloomberg? Like if you think deciding what constitutes hate speech is too much power then the people who decide the conditions someone is locked up must be gods.
I think the fundamental misconception is that speech "cannot infringe other's freedoms" like physical actions can, so no tradeoffs of individual's freedoms have to be collectively decided for speech.
The idea of words propagating beliefs, drowning out others and inciting actions is just subtle enough to weasel out of whenever convenient in this world view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As was said, this is just a slippery slope argument. Which is especially odd considering the platforms already have all the power they need. There is no more power to give.
> There is no more power to give Ability to censor top level politicians, deciding what constitutes acceptable and what needs to be censored is not the kind of power they used to have. Edit: bit clarification
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there is any reason to exaggerate. People have a will and a right to protest against their perceived injustice at a state or federal level. A coup also usually involves the military and a taking of government by force, neither of which happened yesterday. If this were a coup then the BLM "protests" over the summer were also a coup, and they were causing significantly more damage to small business with d…
When did BLM protestors force their way into a capital building with the express goal of overturning the results of an election?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I always feel that the "fire in a crowded theater" is too specific to convince people. Why not use more "every day" examples? * I can't say I earned $0 last year --> tax fraud * I can't say "fuck you" to a judge --> contempt of court * I can't say my software will make you pretty --> advertising fraud * I can't say you robbed me yesterday --> libel I know this is a very European attitude, and always gets A…
Free speech exists in the public square, not on a W2 (you could claim you earned $0 last year all you want, just not to the IRS). In the cases of fraud/libel, the specifics matter. > it seems obvious that free speech is not absolute We agree on this, but disagree on where to draw the line. Limiting free speech is an endorsement of the government limiting what I am legally permitted to see, read, and hear. I am unwill…