Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, May 16, 2019, 6:09 AM UTC

Rapzid wrote: post #233

anigbrowl wrote: post #179

It'd be great if people who want to explore this as a free speech issue would engage with the question of what happens to the free speech (and other) rights of people who are killed by extremists, and whether they are more or less important than the rights of people who advocate such killings.

Free speech is just as much about those on the receiving end as on the producing. And, once the information passed into other hands your dealing with producing end again. Your thesis is a non sequitur as well; people sharing and receiving the information are not necessarily advocating the killings. In fact, just like with War footage from the past, they could be using it to the opposite effect.

Post by Taniwha » Thu, May 16, 2019, 6:12 AM UTC

asdf21 wrote: post #238

Taniwha wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, like child porn, watching snuff movies was already illegal in NZ before the alt-right terrorist attack, all the NZ censor did was confirm that the snuff movie fell under that category, it was essentially born illegal. No one passed any special new laws to make it so. It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US

>It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US I don't think that's correct. There are no federal obscenity laws. The U.S. government does not expressly prohibit obscene conduct. In fact, the U.S. government expressly protects some communications in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. https://legalcareerpath.com/obscenity-law/

Post by ramblerman » Thu, May 16, 2019, 6:16 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #57

BonesJustice wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness.

> What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness. No, it isn't. Inevitably someone like yourself will come into threads like these and attempt to start a slippery slope argument by trying to imply that the subject at hand is meaningless and, therefore, all attempts to address it are arbitrary. It really is strange how, for certain subjects, people just forget how English works…

Post by cf498 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 6:23 AM UTC

m0zg wrote: post #35

Yeah, this is not a slippery slope at all, no sir. And the real extremists will just use Tor.

Post by cf498 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 6:33 AM UTC

odiroot wrote: post #52

ausbah wrote: post #21

Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.

The bigger problem is how selective is stopping the extremism in many venues. This is really worrying. Here in Germany it's very popular to talk about, chastise and silence "Nazis" (be it real or assumed), which sort of makes sense knowing Germany's history. From my perspective -- of a Slav whose people were exterminated en masse by real Nazis. At the same time various, frequently militant, extremists (e.g. anarchist…