The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

[Aexodus]

What are you on about? Making a racial insult means there's de facto a differentiation between race x and race y, with a qualitative superiority/inferiority implied. The whole purpose of insulting a race is based on this differentiation. Do you claim it's not?!

It should be legal to make racially discriminative remarks because they don’t harm anyone. Am I not allowed to say the word ‘black’ or ‘white’ because that’s differentiation? Am I not allowed as a matter of principle to say one race is superior? Really? That’s not what human rights are.

[Kritias]

It should be legal to make racially discriminative remarks because they don’t harm anyone. Am I not allowed to say the word ‘black’ or ‘white’ because that’s differentiation? Am I not allowed as a matter of principle to say one race is superior? Really? That’s not what human rights are.

It's human rights, so its right up there in the title. It's not white people's rights - nor it should have ever been. Making racial discriminative remarks does harm people because they recycle the foundations where they stem from, namely scientific racism. You're allowed to say 'black' and 'white'. You're not allowed to infer some superiority/inferiority between the two categories because it's racist. And while you are allowed to say that any one race is superior, I am equally allowed to say that this argument is bigoted and not standing up to scientific review. As are other people who may or may not want to take legal action against you. The laws are there; and they are there not because we suffer from 'naivety' or are currently descending to leftist madness but because historically these arguments have caused unimaginable suffering to the receiving part.

@Ep1c_Fa1l,

No, it not. If it were, there wouldn't be profanity laws that can punish me for cursing at someone.

@Infidel,

Do you mean to say that the whole media hysteria of loosing the rights of free speech isn't the reason Dancula's story took such huge proportions? Also, if you think I insulted someone go ahead and report me. I didn't mean it to either of my interlocutors, and you know it.

[Aexodus]

You're not allowed to infer some superiority/inferiority between the two categories because it's racist.

Are you seriously saying that you would make that illegal? What happened to freedom of speech?

[Kritias]

Are you seriously saying that you would make that illegal? What happened to freedom of speech?

How can you possibly think that freedom of speech is allowing you to say someone is inferior to you because of their ethnicity, color, religion, culture? Anywhere in the world freedom of speech carries with it special duties and responsibilities and is subject to restrictions. The form of freedom of speech you advocate for doesn't exist. This is just fact.

[Aexodus]

Bahahah freedom of speech exists in the United States of America, where you can indeed make racist statements if you so wish. Free speech certainly does exist in at least one country.

[Cope]

@Ep1c_Fa1l,

No, it not. If it were, there wouldn't be profanity laws that can punish me for cursing at someone.

Laws prohibiting the use of profanity are inappropriate.

[Infidel144]

@Infidel,

Do you mean to say that the whole media hysteria of loosing the rights of free speech isn't the reason Dancula's story took such huge proportions? Also, if you think I insulted someone go ahead and report me. I didn't mean it to either of my interlocutors, and you know it.

I did not say anything about Dancula.
I asked a question.
If I said you were losing your mind, would that be "insulting" or "offensive"?

[Kritias]

I did not say anything about Dancula.
I asked a question.
If I said you were losing your mind, would that be "insulting" or "offensive"?

Go ahead and report me. I didn't say that to my interlocutors and you know it. What I said is that the media hysteria has whipped us into blowing a handful of cases way, way, way out of proportion. And I don't think there's a reason for people to lose their minds over what is essentially an outrage piece of news. Is this insulting, or offensive to you?

@Ep1c_Fa1l,

Is anything on the legal system to your liking? Because this is the second thing you don't agree with.

@Aexodus,

Well, newsflash.

[Cope]

@Ep1c_Fa1l,

Is anything on the legal system to your liking? Because this is the second thing you don't agree with.

I like this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Infidel144]

Go ahead and report me. I didn't say that to my interlocutors and you know it. What I said is that the media hysteria has whipped us into blowing a handful of cases way, way, way out of proportion. And I don't think there's a reason for people to lose their minds over what is essentially an outrage piece of news. Is this insulting, or offensive to you?

Again, I asked a question. I did not say anything about your interlocutors. I did not say anything about Dankula. I asked a question about something you said.
One more time. Is it insulting to say to a person 'you are losing your mind'?
Are you going to answer the question or are you just going to keep dancing around it?

[Kritias]

Again, I asked a question. I did not say anything about your interlocutors. I did not say anything about Dankula. I asked a question about something you said.
One more time. Is it insulting to say to a person 'you are losing your mind'?
Are you going to answer the question or are you just going to keep dancing around it?

I said people are losing their minds over the media hysteria. I did not say "you are losing your mind" to anyone. So I don't need to answer anything. Because you're misrepresenting what I said. Why is that?

[Infidel144]

Since Kritias is just going to keep dancing and dodging around, what he said was
"There's no reason for people loosing their mind over what everyone must have learnt by the time they left kindergarden: it's not okay to insult other people. Period."

When questioned in various forms, Kritias response has been has been he was not referring to forum members (his interlocutors) and to report him (since he was not insulting forum members it would be pointless obviously), but that suggests he considers it an insult, something he says is not okay, and should have learned that by the 'time he left kindergarden'.

Now, in Kritias world, what would the legal punishment be for insulting other people?

[Kritias]

Since Kritias is just going to keep dancing and dodging around, what he said was
"There's no reason for people loosing their mind over what everyone must have learnt by the time they left kindergarden: it's not okay to insult other people. Period."

When questioned in various forms, Kritias response has been has been he was not referring to forum members (his interlocutors) and to report him (since he was not insulting forum members it would be pointless obviously), but that suggests he considers it an insult, something he says is not okay, and should have learned that by the 'time he left kindergarden'.

Now, in Kritias world, what would the legal punishment be for insulting other people?

I haven't forgotten about you, Infidel.

This is the second time you come in a thread I'm debating and try to disrupt it by misrepresenting what I say, what you say, what the entire context is. It seems what I say here annoys you; good. Why else would you undertake this little crusade of yours?

For the record, I replied to your opening shot here:

If I started telling people here they were losing their minds, would I get infracted for insulting others?

You obviously framed this question as if I deserved an infraction from the admins for what I had just said. I replied to you twice based on your question and in the spirit of that first question. So, everything else you say afterwards is a gross misrepresentation of the conversation we're having.

Case in point, when I pointed out that I hadn't breached the ToS in any conceivable way you switched gears to implement your little plan here,

I did not say anything about Dancula.
I asked a question.
If I said you were losing your mind, would that be "insulting" or "offensive"?

The first post and the second post have only words in common. The meaning and context is entirely different.

The degree of dishonesty by which you entered this debate, and what you tried to do is telling of your motivation here. And it's not going to work. I'm unsuprisingly debating for the legal status quo. Nothing I just said isn't covered in laws either in Europe, the US or internationally, and I provided ample examples of that. This little stunt of yours stands in clay feet.

This is going to be my copy-paste answer to you should you insist on peddling this story. I will not waste another second trying to reason with you, or reply to your provocations.

You can keep posting out-of-context 'clips' of what I have said, write about me in the third person, and continue this sharade of an argument. It's not going to work.

@Ep1c_Fa1l,

I like this:


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Of course you like the first ammendment. Has it crossed your mind that since legislation on Hate crime exists in the US, it's therefore not in conflict with the first amendment otherwise the supreme court would have ruled against that particular conflict? Your freedom of expressions stops when you cuss or swear against somebody; this is legislation on profanity. Similarly, and from a legal standpoinit wierdly, using racial insults that would probably be more suited under profanity laws gets you in hot water due to Hate speech laws.

Whether you say that you think it's okay to insult others, which is not, or that freedom of expression in the case when someone is dropping racial slurs left and right trumps the basic human right of a person to live their lives with dignity protected from such slurs and what follows them is of no concequence. The law is the law. You don't get to decide what applies and what doesn't.

[Cope]

@Ep1c_Fa1l,





Of course you like the first ammendment. Has it crossed your mind that since legislation on Hate crime exists in the US, it's therefore not in conflict with the first amendment otherwise the supreme court would have ruled against that particular conflict? Your freedom of expressions stops when you cuss or swear against somebody; this is legislation on profanity. Similarly, and from a legal standpoinit wierdly, using racial insults that would probably be more suited under profanity laws gets you in hot water due to Hate speech laws.

Whether you say that you think it's okay to insult others, which is not, or that freedom of expression in the case when someone is dropping racial slurs left and right trumps the basic human right of a person to live their lives with dignity protected from such slurs and what follows them is of no concequence. The law is the law. You don't get to decide what applies and what doesn't.

There is a difference between hate crimes and hate speech. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment in the United States. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Infidel144]

I haven't forgotten about you, Infidel.

This is the second time you come in a thread I'm debating and try to disrupt it by misrepresenting what I say, what you say, what the entire context is. It seems what I say here annoys you; good. Why else would you undertake this little crusade of yours?

No. The context is 'would it be insulting'. Obviously it is considered insulting. Hence the defense of it not being directed at fellow members.
The only question left is what should the legal punishment be.

Has it crossed your mind that since legislation on Hate crime exists in the US, it's therefore not in conflict with the first amendment otherwise the supreme court would have ruled against that particular conflict? Your freedom of expressions stops when you cuss or swear against somebody; this is legislation on profanity. Similarly, and from a legal standpoinit wierdly, using racial insults that would probably be more suited under profanity laws gets you in hot water due to Hate speech laws.

There are no hate speech laws in the US. Even the wiki link you posted for Aexodus notes that:
"Hate speech in the United States is not regulated"
"The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment."

Here is the Federal Hate Crime law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249

notice nothing about speech.

[Kritias]

There is a difference between hate crimes and hate speech. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment in the United States. You don't know what you're talking about.

I quote,

Of course you like the first ammendment. Has it crossed your mind that since legislation on Hate crime exists in the US (1), it's therefore not in conflict with the first amendment otherwise the supreme court would have ruled against that particular conflict? Your freedom of expressions stops when you cuss or swear against somebody; this is legislation on profanity. Similarly, and from a legal standpoinit wierdly, using racial insults that would probably be more suited under profanity laws gets you in hot water due to Hate speech laws. (2)

I'm sorry for the confusion because this is two arguments, not the same argument. I'm trying to answer you and Aexodus' reservations at the same time and there's differences between your two countries. Also, speaking of freedom of speech you must note there are limitations to it; first and foremost in USA, I quote

[In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[1] only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government.[2] However, laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary with coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.

So, firstly - no. You can't impose US laws on the rest of the world, just because you don't like it; the rest of the world, as obvious from your own cropped picture, thinks differently. Second, I highlighted all manners where freedom of speech is protected; in the case of Meecham, (1) any individual could take him to court if this had happened in the US and won since freedom of speech does not extend to disputes between individuals or businesses, only when one side of the litigation is the state of the federal government. (2) if Meecham was in America and not in Scotland, he wouldn't have been taken to court by the procurator fiscal since this is a peculiarity in Sctoland's legal system where all prosecutions go through that legal process and not some extraordinary event where the government limited someone's freedom of speech.

Also, the US government imposes three very specific parameters that would make Meecham's actions viable for prosecution. (1) Time, place and manner restrictions, (2) the related public forum doctrine and (3) private actors and content of speech. Shall we see them one by one? Good.

(1) As you can see by this case [or this, or this], limitations have been imposed on the manner, time and place where americans can exercise their freedom of speech. Restrictions are always valid provided that they are "justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information". You can see another case here where limitations on freedom of speech were imposed by the Supreme Court. It's also interesting that the Supreme Court always intervenes when one side of the litigation is the state apparatus.

(2) The related public forum doctrine means that you can't go about and 'free speech' wherever you like; I quote

"The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one's views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired. A state may therefore impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place or manner of constitutionally protected speech occurring in a public forum.[33]"

Since, as you well know YouTube is not considered a public forum but an enterprise of a service, you can't really speak of freedom of speech breaches. I quote what public forums mean for your benefit,

Traditional public forums include public areas, such as parks and sidewalks. These areas have the strongest protections under the First Amendment. Although, traditional public forums are still subject to traditional time, place, and manner restrictions, meaning restrictions must be content-neutral, serve a significant governmental interest, and allow for ample alternatives. A designated forum is usually public property the government opens for public expression, such as theatres and state schools. The difference between traditional public forums and designated public forums is in a designated public forum the government may limit access to the area to only certain groups, speakers, or subjects, so long as their rules are consistent. Designated public forums are subject to the same restrictions as traditional public forums, meaning the time, place, and manner restrictions must be content-neutral, serve a governmental interest, and allow ample alternatives. Restrictions in a designated forum can be seen in cases such as Widmar v. Vincent (1981) and City of Madison Joint School District v. Wisconsin PERC (1976). Nonpublic forums include airport terminals and internal mail systems. In these areas the government has significant control over the speech they allow in these forums because the government acts like a private owner here. This means the government may restrict any speech, as long as the restrictions are reasonable, and do not come in to play because a public official wants the speech restricted. Therefore, content may be restricted because of the subject or the speaker. However, the restrictions must align with the purpose of the area and be viewpoint neutral. This doctrine has been applied to cases such as Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983) and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988).

(3) This is straight out of the same wikipedia page you provided,

Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech,[71] the text of the amendment only prohibits the US Congress (and, by extension, those that derive their powers from Congress) from doing so.[72] A major issue in freedom of speech jurisprudence has been whether the First Amendment should be interpreted to merely run against state actors, or whether it can run against private actors as well. Specifically, the issue is whether private landowners should be permitted to use the machinery of government to exclude others from engaging in free speech on their property (which means balancing the speakers' First Amendment rights against the Takings Clause). The right of freedom of speech within private shopping centers owned by others has been vigorously litigated under both the federal and state Constitutions, notably in the cases Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) and Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980).

Some observers have decried an erosion of free speech due to widespread use of the Internet and social media, which has allowed large groups of people who disapprove of particular speech have been able to swarm upon certain speakers and harass them with death and rape threats, send SWAT teams by making false reports to police, trigger boycotts of businesses, and in at least one case[73] motivate a shooting.[74] Targets have included a Massachusetts businessman who was seen in a photo apparently supporting Donald Trump,[75] female video game designers and commentators,[76] a diner where an anti-Trump employee made a negative comment to a pro-Trump customer,[77] a public relations executive who tweeted an offensive joke before boarding a plane,[78] and even victims of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting accused by anti-gun-control activists of faking the event.[79]


President Trump himself was criticized for using private parties to circumvent the First Amendment by for example demanding that the National Football League fire players protesting racism during the national anthem, or by exploiting the reactions of his many followers to his comments on social media.[74]


President Trump in 2019 was censured by the U.S. Congress for using racist language in certain tweets to criticize four U. S. Congress persons. This was followed at a North Carolina political rally by openly using the words "they can go back" [to where they came from] and encouragement of a predominantly all-white crowd who chanted "send them back."

So, again as you see a) freedom of speech even in America is confined only to litigation between the state and individual or businesses, b) it carries a lot of limitations, c) in non-public forums the government can limit whatever kind of speech it wants and d) private actors can and do limit the freedom of speech in their property if they want and can get people to court for it. Similarly companies may limit through their terms of service, or the stacking laws are as called by lawyers, any kind of speech under the law. Sorry.

So, it appears I do know what I'm talking about. On the contrary, it seems its you guys who want to widen the definition to suit the purpose.

@Infidel, please redirect any further arguments about the 'people loosing their minds' sharade here. Thank you.

[Cope]

I quote,

I'm sorry for the confusion because this is two arguments, not the same argument. I'm trying to answer you and Aexodus' reservations at the same time and there's differences between your two countries. Also, speaking of freedom of speech you must note there are limitations to it; first and foremost in USA, I quote

I have never argued that speech is limitless by law.

So, firstly - no. You can't impose US laws on the rest of the world, just because you don't like it; the rest of the world, as obvious from your own cropped picture, thinks differently.

I don't care.

Second, I highlighted all manners where freedom of speech is protected; in the case of Meecham, (1) any individual could take him to court if this had happened in the US and won since freedom of speech does not extend to disputes between individuals or businesses, only when one side of the litigation is the state of the federal government. (2) if Meecham was in America and not in Scotland, he wouldn't have been taken to court by the procurator fiscal since this is a peculiarity in Sctoland's legal system where all prosecutions go through that legal process and not some extraordinary event where the government limited someone's freedom of speech.

Also, the US government imposes three very specific parameters that would make Meecham's actions viable for prosecution. (1) Time, place and manner restrictions, (2) the related public forum doctrine and (3) private actors and content of speech. Shall we see them one by one? Good.

(1) As you can see by this case [or this, or this], limitations have been imposed on the manner, time and place where americans can exercise their freedom of speech. Restrictions are always valid provided that they are "justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information". You can see another case here where limitations on freedom of speech were imposed by the Supreme Court. It's also interesting that the Supreme Court always intervenes when one side of the litigation is the state apparatus.

(2) The related public forum doctrine means that you can't go about and 'free speech' wherever you like; I quote

Again, I never argued that speech was limitless. All of this is irrelevant.

Since, as you well know YouTube is not considered a public forum but an enterprise of a service, you can't really speak of freedom of speech breaches. I quote what public forums mean for your benefit,

The Meechan video hasn't been removed from YouTube. In any case, this debate isn't about the policies of social media platforms, its about the state criminalizing people for being "offensive".

(3) This is straight out of the same wikipedia page you provided,

So, again as you see a) freedom of speech even in America is confined only to litigation between the state and individual or businesses, b) it carries a lot of limitations, c) in non-public forums the government can limit whatever kind of speech it wants and d) private actors can and do limit the freedom of speech in their property if they want and can get people to court for it. Similarly companies may limit through their terms of service, or the stacking laws are as called by lawyers, any kind of speech under the law. Sorry.

So, it appears I do know what I'm talking about. On the contrary, it seems its you guys who want to widen the definition to suit the purpose.

You claimed that the First Amendment had hate speech limitations. That was a lie. Now you're prattling on about the fact that the US has speech codes which exist outside of the First as if they're somehow relevant. They aren't.

[Kritias]

I have never argued that speech is limitless by law.



I don't care.



Again, I never argued that speech was limitless. All of this is irrelevant.



The Meechan video hasn't been removed from YouTube. In any case, this debate isn't about the policies of social media platforms, its about the state criminalizing people for being "offensive".




You claimed that the First Amendment had hate speech limitations. That was a lie. Now you're prattling on about the fact that the US has speech codes which exist outside of the First as if they're somehow relevant. They aren't.

I said freedom of speech doesn't constitute the right to speak your bigoted misconceptions whenever and wherever you like; the limitations in time, space, manner, and public forum proves this assessment. You simply can't go about and do it and that's by law, period. If you obtain a permit to go and make a rally, that's another issue entirely. If you're not on a public forum (1), on the wrong time (2), space (3) and by the wrong manner (4) then you're going to be prosecuted by the law. I'm pointing this out because your misconception on what you can and cannot do may potentially land you in trouble. So, please read the legal statures and understand what you can and can't do.

I also specifically said that there's hate crime legislation in the US and then I moved the argument on to Europe. There's no uniformity of law between these two regions, and thus any argument needs to take both into account. I also pointed it out for you in the last post so calling it a lie now is dishonest.

If you don't care then don't raise the argument in the first case. Or is it maybe you cannot legally support it, so you say you don't care? Either way, this is not an argument but an admission of defeat. Thank you for that.

[Cope]

I said freedom of speech doesn't constitute the right to speak your bigoted misconceptions whenever and wherever you like; the limitations in time, space, manner, and public forum proves this assessment. You simply can't go about and do it and that's by law, period. If you obtain a permit to go and make a rally, that's another issue entirely. If you're not on a public forum (1), on the wrong time (2), space (3) and by the wrong manner (4) then you're going to be prosecuted by the law. I'm pointing this out because your misconception on what you can and cannot do may potentially land you in trouble. So, please read the legal statures and understand what you can and can't do.

Don't bore me with this sophistry. You insisted that the philosophical concept of free speech didn't cover "bigotry", demanded that I cited a law which I found agreeable and then lied about the First Amendment having hate speech restrictions when it doesn't. Now you're trying to argue that because the First Amendment isn't unlimited (which no one claimed it to be in the first place) that you were right all along.

I also specifically said that there's hate crime legislation in the US and then I moved the argument on to Europe. There's no uniformity of law between these two regions, and thus any argument needs to take both into account. I also pointed it out for you in the last post so calling it a lie now is dishonest.

You said that the First Amendment didn't cover hate speech. You were wrong. Stop wasting my time.

If you don't care then don't raise the argument in the first case. Or is it maybe you cannot legally support it, so you say you don't care? Either way, this is not an argument but an admission of defeat. Thank you for that.

What I don't care about is the fact that the "rest of the world thinks differently" from the US. The First Amendment is correct; European cry-bullying about "offensive" speech is authoritarian garbage.

[Infidel144]

Also, the US government imposes three very specific parameters that would make Meecham's actions viable for prosecution.

What US law did Meecham violate that would make his "actions viable for prosecution"?