Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

Post by XorNot » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 4:55 AM UTC

afuchs wrote: post #553

orthecreedence wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you considered that we see the growing use of Nazi lingo because the amount of violence being committed by neo-nazis is rising? I think the rise in calling other people Nazis is more a symptom of political polarization than of a resurgence of violent national socialist gangs. To that end, I think the media itself is vastly more culpable than r/the_donald or gab. Are they organizing and rallying more? Yeah, it…

There has been a large increase in hate crimes in the United States in the last few years. The issue of censorship is deeply nuanced (i.e. the paradox of tolerance). On one hand, there is the problem of "what if the tables are flipped," and how different marginalized groups are treated. Unfortunately, giving fringe viewpoints platforms and openly debating them actually encourages people to support those viewpoints de…

Post by Fjolsvith » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 5:04 AM UTC

kristofferR wrote: post #602

fao_ wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to rephrase this to: "If you are only able to speak freely when no one is forced to listen to you - are you then allowed freedom of speech?" This isn't some guy shouting in the street or some other public place (who, funnily enough, everyone usually agrees with their removal), but someone shouting on what is effectively private property.

Shouting is a horrible analogy since shouting is forcing itself on others wether they want to listen or not. "Being available to be spoken/listened to" is more accurate. You also need to remember that the places we're talking about are de facto public spaces due to their practical monopolies on speech. They are private spaces legally and the companies who own them can be as discriminatory as they want in regards to w…

Post by TimothyBJacobs » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 5:07 AM UTC

ggreer wrote: post #585

grumdan wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the case of Patreon, there is a man who people want to give money to. He wants to accept that money. There is no criminal activity on either side of the transaction. Yet Patreon is preventing these people from doing what they want because Patreon dislikes one paragraph of the man's boorish utterances. Patreon isn't "preventing" the transaction, they are merely choosing not to facilitate it. Respecting individual…

> Patreon isn't "preventing" the transaction, they are merely choosing not to facilitate it. What is the distinction between these two terms? If Wells Fargo refuses to let me deposit checks because of something I said, are they preventing a transaction or merely choosing not to facilitate it? After all, I could open an account at another bank. If FedEx returns packages addressed to me because of something I said, are…

Post by ubernostrum » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 5:11 AM UTC

throwaway7312 wrote: post #616

ubernostrum wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Post by someguydave » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 5:15 AM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #185

jmull wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be too torn about this case. First of all, unless you're a free speech absolutist (who believes that literally nothing supercedes free speech) then recognize and accept that someone, somewhere has to draw a line across a continuum of grey. So we're already in the morass, whether you like it or not. You're right to worry about this question: > But then, who decides what's bad? But in this case, it's Patreon…

But in this case, it's Patreon, trying to look out for its own best business interests. It's almost ideal. I agree with most of your comment, but is Patreon really free to make the decision? Assume a hypothetical "free speech absolutist" version of Patreon, who decided they wouldn't bow to outside pressure. It seems likely that that as with their short-lived free-speech-embracing competitors, the outside forces are s…