51–60 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
for the record, "ISIS" changed their name to just "Islamic State".
Well, there seems to be an unfortunate naming collision then, because Islamic State was already reserved for a type of government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And radical Christian groups in the US aren't?
Maybe, I don't know, how is that relevant? What is your argument? You think if a radical Christian group posted videos of murders online Twitter wouldn't ban it? What? Who are these people commenting today? Where did they come from?
What I find more outrageous was that the reporter apparently was held captive for 2 years... without anyone (in the public) knowing. Bergdahl was held captive for 5 years and luckily was returned in a controversial exchange. What is going on that we are not able to protect and/or recover our people?
Seems to send a clear message that if you get captured by an extremists group like ISIS, the government won't come running in to save you, nor will the public even know you are missing -- fore the government doesn't want to stir public opinion into favoring some sort of military action. So, in essence -- you are all alone out there, potentially for years, or worse. -- That is outrageous to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To reiterate: * Freedom of speech is freedom of restriction from government. * Calls to violence and videos of murder are not covered by the 1st amendment.
Says who? If you believe the Supreme Court, calls to violence are core political speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware). I'm not even sure what law distributing videos of murder would break.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's "Freedom of Speech" (but only if we like it)?
To reiterate: * Freedom of speech is freedom of restriction from government. * Calls to violence and videos of murder are not covered by the 1st amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They gave people the power to post really offensive and harmful things, but that doesn't mean they have to be happy when it happens.
They gave people the ability to post things without threat of censorship. Whether or not they thought through the ramifications of all edge cases, how they feel about it, and what they do about is another matter entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like you're confused here. Freedom of speech is about citizens and their government, not citizens and private entities. Having said that, freedom of speech has never meant that you can say whatever you want, and the courts have supported this. Right now there are people in jail for threatening politicians on Twitter. So yes, freedom of speech is a limited right. It's not a right to encourage people to rape, mur…
Free speech is about humans expressing their thoughts, whether they be love or hate. That in many countries free speech is limited to prevent propaganda for 'dangerous' causes like rape, pillaging and terrorism is an evil deemed necessary by most. So yes, for a true believer in basic human rights it can be shocking that we have restricted ourselves (as voters in democracies) in our right of free speech, and can feel…
The video being "suppressed" is of the gruesome, intimidating murder of James Foley, a journalist who risked his life for a profession dedicated to 1st amendment principles. Being intolerant of intolerance is perfectly ok for me. Maybe not you, because you're kind of extreme and not really thinking through things in my opinion, but ok whatever floats your boat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To reiterate: * Freedom of speech is freedom of restriction from government. * Calls to violence and videos of murder are not covered by the 1st amendment.
Says who? If you believe the Supreme Court, calls to violence are core political speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware). I'm not even sure what law distributing videos of murder would break.
Calls to violence are generally not protected; though Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled that the call to violence must be likely to actually incite violence.
It seems odd to structure a project around freedom of speech, control of your own information, and dilution of central authority, and then act disappointed when it actually gets used for those purposes. If a group that posts videos of journalist executions can use it without getting shut down, it is certainly usable for any other group that may be unpopular with their local majority: Tibetan nationalists, Falun Gong,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, I don't know, how is that relevant? What is your argument? You think if a radical Christian group posted videos of murders online Twitter wouldn't ban it? What? Who are these people commenting today? Where did they come from?
I don't think anyone really takes issue with Twitter pulling down content -- they are a private company (as-in not controlled by the govt) -- but when a government starts censoring material (like in the UK were linking-to, or even viewing of this sort of material is considered illegal), that's where things get not-OK. What I find more outrageous was that the reporter apparently was held captive for 2 years... without…
Anyway my comments were a response to the idea that Diaspora should promote its decentralized platform on the wake of ISIS publicity, which is a really stupid idea. It had nothing to do with government censorship, although I have no problems with governments discouraging murder videos.