Far right hate speech. What should be done?

[Common Soldier]

Define exactly what is "hate speech"? If one sincerely believes homosexuality is morally wrong, and truly believes that the have a homosexual person will go to hell if they don't repent, is that hate speech? If some on beleves abortion is truly murder murder, is I hate speech to express those views?

If someoGivenbias or and intolerance of those of the left for any views but their own, unless hate speech is very carefully and specifically defined, it will just be a tool to allow people to supress views they don't agree with. Climate Change spektics will be accused of hate speech, no doubt.


And banning the speech does not make those ideas and sentiments disappear, it just drives them underground. Unpleasant as it is, it is better that I in the open, where the hey can be combated and debated, and the flaws in the claims exposed. True, most of the people holding these ideas won't changge overnight, but overtime you might be surprised, KKK members have been known to change their views. We can demand that derogatory and offensive language be banned, and that appappl s to the left as well as the he right, but unless we allow people to express their opinions, how can we know what they are truly thinking, and address our arguments to those concerns?

[Heathen Hammer]

Their platform is their private platform. They shouldn't be forced at all to made it public just like newspapers and cable TV can't be forced to air or print your opinion.

You don't want a public platform. You just want to force people to hear what you have to say.

So basically you think that what can be said on the Internet should be determined by corporate oligopolies? So much for freedom of speech.

[Gaidin]

So basically you think that what can be said on the Internet should be determined by corporate oligopolies? So much for freedom of speech.

Here you go. Most countries free speech laws are to protect you from the government. Not corporate policy. You want to go this route you best be willing to have the government take full control of the platform in question.

Otherwise corporate and other private entities will just sling mud back and forth all day at each other in civil court. The government's not going to step in and the court's not going to say a thing about free speech until the government tries to interfere.

[Heathen Hammer]

Here you go. Most countries free speech laws are to protect you from the government. Not corporate policy. You want to go this route you best be willing to have the government take full control of the platform in question.

Otherwise corporate and other private entities will just sling mud back and forth all day at each other in civil court. The government's not going to step in and the court's not going to say a thing about free speech until the government tries to interfere.

So you are saying that allowing corporate CEOs to determine what can be said on the Internet is a good thing?

[Gaidin]

So you are saying that allowing corporate CEOs to determine what can be said on the Internet is a good thing?

I'm saying reality's a . You might want to change the wording of even the highest level free speech laws if you don't like it. Because, well, here's the catch. Free speech laws have extended to corporations the way courts have acted lately.

Move to the shill of a third world country and you might have a place willing AND able to crack down on a corporation that isn't cooperating with the government.

Otherwise at the moment you currently have a government bound by what the law says and how it is interpreted.

[The spartan]

I know there is a phrase for this...Nirvana fallacy? Perfect world fallacy? Something like that.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

Define exactly what is "hate speech"?

Well, a "hate speech" is when you make a speach about why you really really don't like something. Complain about a fly in your soup? Hate speech. Give a movie a bad review? Hate speech.

It's nothing complicated.

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm saying reality's a . You might want to change the wording of even the highest level free speech laws if you don't like it. Because, well, here's the catch. Free speech laws have extended to corporations the way courts have acted lately.

Move to the shill of a third world country and you might have a place willing AND able to crack down on a corporation that isn't cooperating with the government.

Otherwise at the moment you currently have a government bound by what the law says and how it is interpreted.

Which is my point - there is no need to give oligopolies right to deny anyone platform since their influence spreads too much. The only other alternative is to break up Facbeook, Twitter, Google, etc.

[Gaidin]

Which is my point - there is no need to give oligopolies right to deny anyone platform since their influence spreads too much. The only other alternative is to break up Facbeook, Twitter, Google, etc.

So? You're saying change the first amendment so the government is allowed to pass such laws?

Also, they're not really oligopolies when they have one major website that a crapton of people uses. The only real scary tech center you've named is Alphabet Inc. All the others, everything they're making is more to put forward an internet community everybody wants to use for all they then put a whole crapload of personal data online willingly. Not to research a whole bunch of unique stuff. I'm not sure you really are aware of what you're talking about.

[Heathen Hammer]

So? You're saying change the first amendment so the government is allowed to pass such laws?

Also, they're not really oligopolies when they have one major website that a crapton of people uses. The only real scary tech center you've named is Alphabet Inc. All the others, everything they're making is more to put forward an internet community everybody wants to use for all they then put a whole crapload of personal data online willingly. Not to research a whole bunch of unique stuff. I'm not sure you really are aware of what you're talking about.

Huh? Google and Facebook are oligopolies, they hold most of the audience of their respective type of media, willing or not is irrelevant. Therefore there is no need to give them a right to deny someone a platform, unless again, your end-game is to let corporations determine what can be said on the Internet.

[Aexodus]

The government has released a white paper under which online content that is not illegal will be censored if judged to be harmful, such as misinformation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47826946

Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group, said the government's proposals would "create state regulation of the speech of millions of British citizens".

Matthew Lesh, head of research at free market think tank the Adam Smith Institute, went further.

He said: "The government should be ashamed of themselves for leading the western world in internet censorship.

"The proposals are a historic attack on freedom of speech and the free press.

"At a time when Britain is criticising violations of freedom of expression in states like Iran, China and Russia, we should not be undermining our freedom at home."

And freedom of speech campaigners Article 19 warned that the government "must not create an environment that encourages the censorship of legitimate expression".

A spokesman said it opposed any duty of care being imposed on internet platforms.

They said that would "inevitably require them to proactively monitor their networks and take a restrictive approach to content removal".

"Such actions could violate individuals' rights to freedom of expression and privacy," they added.

What’s everyone’s thoughts on this?

[Gaidin]

Huh? Google and Facebook are oligopolies, they hold most of the audience of their respective type of media, willing or not is irrelevant. Therefore there is no need to give them a right to deny someone a platform, unless again, your end-game is to let corporations determine what can be said on the Internet.

Alphabet, Inc. is an oligopoly with google and a crapload of other unique things ranging from research to product development under it. Facebook is a website with a bunch of abilities tied into it that millions use. Eventually something will come along and mess facebook up and it will go the way of myspace. Or did you forget that myspace was just that big once upon a time? That's facebook's danger. They're functionally a single product.

Now answer the question. Should we change the first amendment so that the government is allowed to pass the kinds of laws you want. See Aexodus's post for reference.

[Beckitz]

This political question is no different from any other political issue active in the world, though I am only really aware of the West. Politics is in one aspect the need to define the relationship between people in society – a question: how should we relate to one another? How is it appropriate to approach that question? It used to be that the right-wing of the Western political spectrum was calling for society to insist on Christian values for the basis of our relationship to one another. But since the 21^st Century, the movement has deteriorated into an insistence that we don’t have to define a relationship to one another at all. How is this different from anarchism, a form of capitulating political activity? But I guess it could be that anarchism is better than politics in regards to the elimination of the oppressive/coercive/monopolistic role of the state.

So then anarchy – no particular guidelines specified for our relationship to one another – is the ideal asked for by the current right. That would place the burden of the success or failure of the society entirely on the shoulders of the individual’s conscience and their power of choice. In order to get what we have to presume is the good outcome desired by these right-wingers (personal freedom), we have to assume that the individuals in society will exercise (just among other things) a robust power of self-control and an active sense of respect for the privacy and individual rights of their fellow citizens. Do you think that after what you have said into the public sphere, after what you have claimed to like, after the indications you have made as to your degree of respect for your fellow human beings, after the wild and unjustified degree of wrath and mean-spiritedness you have often advertised toward provocations of a frankly mundane and ordinary severity – hardly different from what we would expect you to encounter walking down the street or going to work in this would-be anarchist society – still do you think that it seems believable that you have the power of self-control and respect for others that would be necessary to keep and enjoy the rights of personal freedom from politics? But anybody who saw you talk and act and consume products and services as you do could only reasonably predict that you are untrustworthy, malicious, immature, beneath the high standards of maturity and conduct that would be required to achieve a utopian political state of anarchy and freedom from mutual controls on one another for our safety and comfort.

If it be so plausible, good, and necessary to advance an anarchist agenda and repeal the political activity which establishes guidelines to our relationship to one another for the purposes of happiness and comfort, then why not you yourselves make some credible show or pronouncement to the effect that you are not just some joker or thinly-disguised barbarian, but actually somebody with a very serious degree of concern for the personal and emotional wellbeing of your fellow man? Then don’t you think that not only would many of the reservations against your anarchist political agenda be ameliorated, but indeed you would be speaking exactly to the tenor and content of so many of these genuine fears and concerns from your fellow citizens – people the disregard for whom is far and away the gravest signal of your mean-spiritedness and the inappropriateness of your wants and aspirations?

[Diocle]

Huh? Google and Facebook are oligopolies, they hold most of the audience of their respective type of media, willing or not is irrelevant. Therefore there is no need to give them a right to deny someone a platform, unless again, your end-game is to let corporations determine what can be said on the Internet.

The point is that being the social media companies based in the USA, they should respect the first amendment, but in this way they would become like any publishing company, with the same rights but also with the same duties, and possibly this is no good to anyone.

[Heathen Hammer]

Alphabet, Inc. is an oligopoly with google and a crapload of other unique things ranging from research to product development under it. Facebook is a website with a bunch of abilities tied into it that millions use. Eventually something will come along and mess facebook up and it will go the way of myspace. Or did you forget that myspace was just that big once upon a time? That's facebook's danger. They're functionally a single product.

Now answer the question. Should we change the first amendment so that the government is allowed to pass the kinds of laws you want. See Aexodus's post for reference.

But as of now facebook is still an oligopoly. And your question was answered above - there is no need to allow oligopolies deny anyone platform, since it is effectively gives non-elected entities political power. Americans didn't elect zuckerberg, they chose to use Facebook for convenience of website itself, and not for his ideology, which he is effectively trying to force via censorship. In the long run, I'm okay with sacrificing rights of corporations in favor of individual's rights.

[Aexodus]

Well actually corporations are just private entities, they aren’t in some third category.

The only problem with Facebook, legally, is that they claim to be a platform and are legally classified as such, but act as a publisher by choosing what to publish based on subjective criteria.

[Heathen Hammer]

Essentially we have big tech corporations that de-facto gain tremendous political influence without going through hoops and ladders any democratically-elected politician would to gain such. It is a dangerous situation and maybe it is time to re-evaluate whether giving de-facto political power to corporate CEOs is a good thing.

[The spartan]

Essentially we have big tech corporations that de-facto gain tremendous political influence without going through hoops and ladders any democratically-elected politician would to gain such. It is a dangerous situation and maybe it is time to re-evaluate whether giving de-facto political power to corporate CEOs is a good thing.

Since when were you a Leftist?

[Gaidin]

The point is that being the social media companies based in the USA, they should respect the first amendment, but in this way they would become like any publishing company, with the same rights but also with the same duties, and possibly this is no good to anyone.

The First Amendment is meant to stop the government from interfering with a private entities rights. It doesn't interfere with private entities getting in all manner of spats and throwing mud at each other.

[Aexodus]

Essentially we have big tech corporations that de-facto gain tremendous political influence

and we willingly gave them that influence