Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and then everything was fine–because "slippery slope" isn't actually an argument.
Why not? I've seen it with youtube and reddits censorship on Syria.
[deleted]
Why We Terminated Daily Stormer
831–840 of 1001 posts
Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer
#832Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just the latest in a string of examples like this. The Christian bakers / gay wedding cakes is one example. But people being booted off services like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Patreon are others. We ought to have the right to exclude people from our own private spaces, our own private clubs, and our own private businesses (freedom of association). However, at what point (and at what scale) does our priv…
The Christian bakers were sued and then forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because sexual orientation is a protected class. "Alt-right" or whatever Daily Stormer is, is not a protected class. "Political party" is a protected class, which puts Daily Stormer in a possibly fuzzy territory (I have never read Daily Stormer so I don't know if they count as a political publication).
Wasn't it because their service was custom messages on cakes? So they had to expect those messages would be often not to their liking?
Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer
#833Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have any sympathy for the Daily Stormer. I just don't see where this is stopping. What else needs to be taken down? /pol/? Who about Breitbart? Or maybe some 2nd WW Nazi propaganda? Or something from the US civil war? You guys seem to be ok with this very slippery slope being assessed by random private companies accountable to who knows. And then you have the nerve to call us who believes that limits of free…
Many European countries (like Germany etc.) have operated with free speech restrictions since the end of WW2 and the slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized. Slippery slope arguments are only valid if you believe that your jurisdiction doesn't have proper rule of law. Otherwise experience, at least in European countries, showed that courts are very well capable of recognizing the importance of fre…
> the slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized.
Very true. Well, except maybe for that one time when Germany became an open-air rape camp under the noses of police who did nothing for fear of being accused of racism. That kind of sucked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaul...
And, oh yeah, there was that time they threw a lawyer in jail for defending a Holocaust denier.
http://www.dw.com/en/german-neo-nazi-lawyer-sentenced-for-de...
But otherwise, sure, unqualified success. Great example.
Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer
#834For those making the "public company it's their right" argument, it's worth considering what that logic might imply. Does it mean food stores could deny selling you food, based on your associations/affiliations? Airlines deny you travel? Cell phone companies, deny you a phone? I think the reason we're seeing backlash here is that the internet is largely perceived as a utility now (I believe utility companies cannot d…
Generally agree. Potential distinction between content consumer and content producer though. E.g. it might be a right to consume electricity, but is it a right to produce it, say.. with solar panels?
Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer
#835Is anyone just taking the time to simply ask, WTF is going on? At the emotional frequency everyone is operating on, do you really think you'll win? No one will win because everyone will lose. Let me explain why. I think it's time everyone admitted their biases and that their biases if not TAMED will only serve to antagonize their political opponents. Before I go on, here are my biases... I'm a black libertarian(with…
Totally agree. If we focus on our differences we'll end up divided.
Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer
#836Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you operate on public infrastructure, like being granted public right of ways to lay fiber, I think you lose the right to discriminate. This feels good because Nazis are assholes but it sets a very dangerous precedent. This is why the ACLU has a long history of defending Nazis and their ilk. Because one day it will be you on the other side. We should all discriminate against Nazis by denouncing them, ignoring them…
You can talk about how things "should" be, about "precedents", etc, but the true guideline to measure these things is what the vast majority agrees to, because that's what public approval is all about. So all you can really do is try to convince the majority about what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.
> So all you can really do is try to convince the majority about what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.
Unless the people who own all the infrastructure disagree with you, and refuse to accept your money.
Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer
#837Earlier quoted context omitted.
Others have touched on this: the concept of a protected class seems odd when faced with the idea that all people are to be afforded equal protection under the law (14th amendment)
No, it isn't odd at all: societies are made up of people and people in large numbers do not always act in a way that protects those that are weaker or in smaller numbers so to avoid the tyranny of the majority protected classes exist in order to make sure that it is spelled out under what circumstances you can and can not discriminate against others. So yes, everybody is afforded equal protection under the law and pr…
> So yes, everybody is afforded equal protection under the law
This is contradicted by 'protected classes'.
Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer
#838Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They won't politely tolerate you. Deviants will be chastised, expelled/expatriated, jailed, or killed. If they have the power to? Yeah, in a heartbeat. But they're not the only ones, or the most powerful ones, just the most ostentatiously intolerant. > 1. Folks will gladly loan the hangman the rope that he will use to hang you, your family, and your neighbors — all because of "purity of belief" in free speech. If b…
A white supremacist killed someone at the weekend for protesting. If their free speech gives you supreme confidence , then you are simply wrong. The evidence is fresh. You will have free speech - as long as you only go to the right places, say the right things, wear the right clothes, have the right colour skin. Over time, supremacist movements reduce that free space in greater and greater amounts. This is what the e…
> The evidence is fresh. You will have free speech - as long as you only go to the right places, say the right things, wear the right clothes, have the right colour skin.
Applies to recent Google memo leak pretty well. Or other left-leaning cases. This is a problem with people who can't have a civil discussion and tolerate different point of views. Rather than left or right issue.
Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer
#839Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many European countries (like Germany etc.) have operated with free speech restrictions since the end of WW2 and the slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized. Slippery slope arguments are only valid if you believe that your jurisdiction doesn't have proper rule of law. Otherwise experience, at least in European countries, showed that courts are very well capable of recognizing the importance of fre…
> the slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized. Very true. Well, except maybe for that one time when Germany became an open-air rape camp under the noses of police who did nothing for fear of being accused of racism. That kind of sucked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaul... And, oh yeah, there was that time they threw a lawyer in jail for defending a Holocaust denier. htt…
I have nothing to say really about your first point where you do nothing but speculate about police motives, but the second one doesn't prove anything either.
The second case is not a slippery slope because it does precisely what's codified in German law, nothing more and nothing less. The lawyer herself denied the holocaust and that's punishable in Germany. So the law was correctly applied. That has absolutely nothing to do with the slippery slope discussion.
Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer
#840Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many European countries (like Germany etc.) have operated with free speech restrictions since the end of WW2 and the slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized. Slippery slope arguments are only valid if you believe that your jurisdiction doesn't have proper rule of law. Otherwise experience, at least in European countries, showed that courts are very well capable of recognizing the importance of fre…
> the slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized. Very true. Well, except maybe for that one time when Germany became an open-air rape camp under the noses of police who did nothing for fear of being accused of racism. That kind of sucked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaul... And, oh yeah, there was that time they threw a lawyer in jail for defending a Holocaust denier. htt…
> And, oh yeah, there was that time they threw a lawyer in jail for defending a Holocaust denier.
That's not an honest reading of the article you linked. From the article, "[the lawyer] also signed a motion during Zündel's trial with "Heil Hitler" and shouted that the lay judges deserved the death penalty for "offering succour to the enemy" -- leading the court to dismiss her." She was a neo-Nazi herself.