[Godstud]

I do not think there has to be a balance in terms of free speech because words do not threaten others.

individual words don't hurt others, but when you put them into sentences that call for violence against people, or threaten them, then they do.

Man is intelligent enough to decide what is right and come to the proper conclusion, right? This is the basis of representative government.

Yes, and even those representative governments then determine that what some people say causes harm to said society. That is why we impose limits. eg. Yelling, "Fire" in a packed theatre, or "Bomb", on plane, or calling for violence against people or inciting riots, etc.

[Verv]

:?: individual words don't hurt others, but when you put them into sentences that call for violence against people, or threaten them, then they do.

I do not support those sorts of things and while i am something of a free speech extremist, I do believe in the traditional interpretations which have some limits...

Like, concerning threats...

In legal parlance a true threat is a statement that is meant to frighten or intimidate one or more specified persons into believing that they will be seriously harmed by the speaker or by someone acting at the speaker’s behest. True threats constitute a category of speech — like obscenity, child prnography, fighting words, and the advocacy of imminent lawless action — that is not protected by the First Amendment.

True Threats in the First Amendment Encyclopedia

I have no problem preventing words that are threatening, promise imminent violence, or are "fighting words," but people have a right to express themselves in any way they want besides these.

Yes, and even those representative governments then determine that what some people say causes harm to said society. That is why we impose limits. eg. Yelling, "Fire" in a packed theatre, or "Bomb", on plane, or calling for violence against people or inciting riots, etc.

The basis of having representative government is coming to that consensus through free dialogue, right?

We illegalize words that hint at imminent violence, literally precipitate fights, or cause a panic...

But we cannot illegalize the bad opinions of people of people you do not like.

[Godstud]

But we cannot illegalize the bad opinions of people of people you do not like.

Opinions of people are not illegal. If they are trying promote hatred, however, that can lead to violence.


Indeed, you are an extremist of Free speech, but that's as silly as banning all speech.

[Verv]

If you were arguing about promoting violence directly, I think this would be a really interesting discussion because I can totally see how someone that is saying "All x should be killed" but provides no imminent threat may actually be said to be directly advocating for violence, right.

But you are suggesting that promoting hatred can lead to violence, right? This seems really broad. Would you like to narrow it a little or do you like it to be this broad?

[Godstud]

Even in many countries where they have hate speech laws, they generally don't bother with them if they overly broad. When it specifies particular people, or groups, is when the hate speech laws might apply.

eg. Canada
Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/act ... n-319.html

[Drlee]

What is missing from this discussion is the nature of the platform. You tube is open to people of all ages. It does not control its audience. So while I believe that it is generally fine to discuss just about anything between consenting adults, youtube and Facebook cannot effectively control who sees this stuff. And that is the rub. Right?

Godstud and I could have a great conversation about Cowboy Soi but it probably would not be appropriate for kids. Now if the alt right wants to put itself behind a paywall or carry an adults only, login required warning then I have no problem with the far right being there.

The deal is that everyone who uses youtube is looking for a free audience. Youtube has a business interest in keeping its playground safe for the maximum number of people. Banning people who are bad for business is just fine with me.

And, back to my previous point. Youtube is private property. The first amendment does not give on the right to say anything they want to on someone else's property.

Finally. And perhaps most importantly.... Banning this group does NOT block their right to free speech. They have every right to build their own platform and put as much hate and discontent on it as they want to withing certain limits. (Such as those Godstud is referring to.) And those rights are a moveable feast. What is good in the US may not be good in China.

By the way, net neutrality is quite another thing. I support it wholeheartedly. It is the internet that ought to be regulated like a public utility, not some shop on it.

[maz]

What is missing from this discussion is the nature of the platform. You tube is open to people of all ages. It does not control its audience. So while I believe that it is generally fine to discuss just about anything between consenting adults, youtube and Facebook cannot effectively control who sees this stuff. And that is the rub. Right?

Wrong, at least for YouTube. However both Facebook and YouTube have staff on hand to censor videos that are in violation of the law.

Age-restricted content

Sometimes content doesn't violate our policies, but may not be appropriate for all audiences. In these cases, our review team will place an age restriction on the video, or remove the thumbnail, when we're notified of the content.

Age-restricted videos are not visible to users who are logged out, are under 18 years of age, or have Restricted Mode enabled.

And furthermore, I know that you had to be at least 13 years of age to only an account on YouTube.

Youtube has a business interest in keeping its playground safe for the maximum number of people. Banning people who are bad for business is just fine with me.

This is somewhat true, but "safe" is a relative term. Are videos encouraging parents to take their children to libraries to frolic with big hair men dressed in drag considered "safe"? Apparently it is, even if some of those men may have convicted for sex crimes against children.

Also, you know which content creator that YouTube thought was safe for their community, even after being outed for at least three years by many other content creators on YouTube?

Austin Jones. Go and search his name on Google/YouTube, and configure your search if you can for the 2016 time frame.

As you read about him, do keep in mind that many on the so-called alt-right, including Alex Jones were banned from YouTube before YouTube finally banned Austin Jones. I don't remember when his account was finally banned, but it was after he had gotten arrested in 2017 and shortly before his sentencing in 2019.

YouTube star Austin Jones gets 10 years in prison in child porn case

YouTube star Austin Jones gets 10 years in prison in child porn case
By Sophie Lewis
May 4, 2019 / 11:42 AM / CBS News

Former YouTuber and musician Austin Jones has been sentenced to 10 years in prison "for enticing several underage girls, some as young as 14 years old, to produce sexually explicit videos of themselves," the Justice Department said.

In February, 26-year-old Jones, who is from Bloomingdale, Illinois, pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, the Justice Department said in a news release Friday.

"Jones admitted in a plea agreement that in 2016 and 2017 he chatted with six underage girls on Facebook and enticed them to produce pornographic videos of themselves and send them to him," the release said. "Jones told some of his victims to send him the videos as a way to 'prove' they were his biggest fans. He also told some of his victims that the videos were part of a modeling opportunity, and that he could assist them in gaining followers on Instagram."

Jones also admitted to using Facebook around 30 other times to try to persuade minors to send him "sexually explicit" videos and photos, according to prosecutors.

[blackjack21]

I have no problem with them banning whomever they please. Facebook is a private company. It is not responsible to "the people". It is responsible to "the customers". My default position has always been that a private company can do whatever it likes if it does not harm people. But also that it should be responsible for what it does. However.

Yes, but Alphabet is a publicly-traded company, and that imposes obligations. YouTube is not merely a place where people post whatever ideas they want, it is also an income-producing opportunity. So YouTube is in effect saying some people get to post content and make money, but others do not. Their standards are rather arbitrary and capricious.

In order to do that it must remain a place where advertisers choose to go. It is a very fine line.

The "woke" boycotts aside, most advertisers care primarily about impressions/views/clicks/click-through-to-purchase. The "woke" types assert that if an advertiser decides to put an ad on some popular content that it hasn't monitored itself, it can be deemed to be endorsing the content. So marketers trying to prevent any damage to their brand from the "woke" types find themselves leery of posting ads to some channels.

Having said that, though, it's just as easy to categorize a channel as it is to ban it. Alphabet has a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value, and is choosing not to do that.

She could have sued him for libel. She did not.

Of course she wouldn't. That would give Trump grounds to subpoena her records.

Why can't I sue Facebook for publishing it to the world? Why are they able to duck responsibility when a newspaper is not?

Because they do not create the content themselves. The newspaper would win a lawsuit if Hillary sued them, because they would only be stating what Donald Trump said about Hillary Clinton. If they accused her of being crooked themselves, that might be a separate matter. However, she is also a public figure and the standards change dramatically as a result.

But if they did nobody would want to go there anymore.

I don't use facebook anymore, because of all the political shit there.

Youtube has a right to ban anyone on their servers. It is a privately owned company after all.

Once a company trades on a public stock exchange, it's no longer simply private. There are obligations imposed by law. That's why a grocery chain cannot refuse to sell groceries to black people, for instance.

Youtube's ban may backfire. It can be a marketing mistake.

Well, it has created a market opening for Minds, Gab, BitChute, etc. I still use YouTube, but primarily because I'm not a millenial. I want to watch videos on my big screen TV, not on some tiny screen on my phone.

There is sometimes a statue of Lady Justice in front of a court. She carries a balance. The intent is to strike a balance between competing rights and interests.

Themis is a titaness said to represent justice. The name Themis ultimately implies a divine justice, which is probably why she's not in every court house as atheists reject divinity. Since the 16th century, she's often depicted hoodwinked to imply impartiality.

The pendulum is swinging the other way, at least here it is. We had midterm elections in 2018, and Dems won big.

The Republicans gained seats in the Senate. You read too much into an off-year election. Look at what happened in the UK in the last election. Look at what's happening in Hungary for example.

Trump is always in the 40s, meaning most Americans aren't happy about the crap he pulls. Unless Republicans steal the election, he loses.

He won with 37% approval. People don't have to like the choice when making a choice.

Lets not delude ourselves this has absolutely zero to do with a commercial company responding to commercial pressures. This is about pressure from the deep state.

We seem to have a new outrageous Cultural Marxist lie being fostered, that Trump was pushed on America by the establishment. I admire their ability to state the most bare faced lies with a straight face. The deep State are deeply angry with social media for allowing Trump to get elected. The Liberals have a totalitarian regime in their sights beyond the wildest dream of George Orwell. As far as the Liberals are concerned the big social media companies can be partners in that totalitarian regime. They can continue to reap huge profits, as long as they obey the cultural Marxist dictates.

Yes, they seem to be in league with the Chinese Communist Party. Trump, perhaps unwittingly, used cultural Marxism to his own advantage--a sort of political judo. The deep state does not seem able to adapt well to him. Their ends-justifies-the-means approach to getting rid of Trump has thoroughly destroyed their credibility.

It depends how far the loony bin they have moved. If they are spouting blatant conspiracy theories then yes, it was right to bann them.

Then you have the problem of inequal application of the rules. If conspiracy theories were the taboo, most elected officials and bureaucrats would probably get banned. Anyone remember the phony Steele dossier?

I agree with this. Anti Feminism is not about denying people basic human rights. Racism is.

So is preventing people from expressing their political views freely in a republic, including racist views.

Women do get paid less than men do.

Obama paid women working for him less than men. It's common. Women work less than men.

We just had the anniversary.

Timothy McVeigh certainly got what he thought was payback.

If you think the average human being can't decide right from wrong, why believe in democracy?

That's a point you cannot repeat enough times. Ultimately, they are saying that they do not believe in freedom of thought and freedom of expression.

If they are trying promote hatred, however, that can lead to violence.

Do you mean people like John Brown, who was trying to stir people to violence against slaveholders? Battle of Black Jack

Even in many countries where they have hate speech laws, they generally don't bother with them if they overly broad. When it specifies particular people, or groups, is when the hate speech laws might apply.

Yes, but when the "identifiable group" becomes a political faction, oppressors, etc., and you build up case law to protect every "identifiable group", you may find to your suprise that you are supporting laws that protect the very people you are fighting against.

The deal is that everyone who uses youtube is looking for a free audience.

YouTube was traditionally advertiser drive, but they are trying to get their slice of that Netflix subscription revenue. Yet, they aren't creating a premium space for Mark Dice, Sargon of Akkad, Alex Jones and the like. Just the opposite. They are violating their fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value to further the interests of a political faction.

And, back to my previous point. Youtube is private property. The first amendment does not give on the right to say anything they want to on someone else's property.

I disagree. Your cell phone provider is "private property," and also publicly traded. The courts have ruled that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using your phone. What if they buffer your calls and start censoring things you are saying to another party, because they don't like what you are saying? That will be technically feasible sooner than you think.

[Drlee]

Blackjack. You can do better than that. You are really off your game tonight. I don't want to play.

And MAZ did not read my posts. Or rather did not understand them at all.

[late]

I do not think there has to be a balance in terms of free speech because words do not threaten others.

So, you are saying threatening isn't threatening.

And reality isn't reality...

[JohnRawls]

@blackjack21

I don't see a point there. The Dossier is a weird argument since it was published by a private person and not youtube and picked up by media and not youtube. We are talking about youtube here.

[Political Interest]

If you read the first post, the original poster was actually talking about one specific YouTuber, not the entire "alt-right" whoever they are.

He's whining about one specific YouTuber was apparently making music parody videos, not someone who was calling for violence or anything. By the way, I had never heard of this particular YouTuber the OP is whining about.

Can you imagine being so pathetic that you take all this time going out of your way looking for content from YouTubers you don't like, making a shitty video about how great it was that they were banned, and then posting your own shitty video on internet forums just to get views?

I think all of these new far left and far right movements are very dangerous, just as their predecessors were a hundred or so years ago. We need to be careful to prevent the rise of extremism.

What :?: Are you saying that only intellectuals can be racists?

As far as I am aware, those doctors were suggesting that the vaccine be tested in Africa because conditions are more severe there.

I do not think those are racist comments. They did not mention testing it on black people or on those of African descent.

[ThirdTerm]

The New Zealand mass shooting in 2019 was a turning point. Brenton Tarrant from Sydney, the lead suspect in the New Zealand mosque terror attacks, livestreamed it on Facebook, then reposted his video on YouTube without the intervention of tech companies and law enforcement. Years after the company first dismissed fears it was empowering extremists, Facebook permanently banned the British National Party (BNP), the English Defence League (EDL) and Britain First, within a month after the Christchurch massacre. Subsequently, YouTube announced that it would prohibit “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.” The deplatforming was implemented across the globe and a lot of accounts were removed as collateral damage. But I guess it is essentially an Australian problem which needs to be dealt with locally. Australian politicians established a link between this dramatic event and the intercommunity tensions present in Australia. Brenton Tarrant, the instigator of the Christchurch attack, is born in New South Wales and still holds the Australian nationality. Could we assume that a racism inherent to the country has influenced the shooter?

It has been put to One Nation leader Pauline Hanson that her party's "anti-Muslim rhetoric" drives extremist attacks such as the Christchurch massacre, in which the alleged Australian gunman killed 50 people praying in two mosques on Friday.

Appearing on Seven's Sunrise on Monday morning – on which she has been a long-time contributor – Hanson was asked by host David "Kochie" Koch if she felt "complicit" in the deadliest mass shooting in New Zealand's modern history.

"This terrorist manifesto almost reads like One Nation immigration and Muslim policy. Do you in any way feel complicit with this atrocity?" Koch asked.

Hanson was quick to reject the idea that she and her party should be held partly responsible for the attack.

"I feel for these people," she said. "I feel for the families that have lost lives. The same [happened] just across the road from here when you had the Lindt cafe massacre ... We have problems but you've actually got to discuss it and debate the issues. Why do we have terrorist attacks in this country? Why is it happening around the world?"

"Most of the terrorist attacks are [carried out by] right-wing white supremacists that are egged on by your comments, by your anti-Muslim comments, saying 'they don't deserve to be here', that 'they will take over our country'," Koch said.

Koch reminded Hanson of her second maiden speech in 2016 in which she claimed Australia was "in danger of being swamped by Muslims" with its people "living under sharia law and treated as second-class citizens" if urgent changes weren't made to immigration policies. She had also called for the burqa to be banned and the construction of mosques to be halted.

The Queensland senator also said during the program on Monday that she would abstain from voting to censure former One Nation party colleague Fraser Anning, because it won't "prove a damn thing".

[Verv]

So, you are saying threatening isn't threatening.

And reality isn't reality...

Haha, no, you are jarring this out of its context a little.

Yes, threats do exist. Words can be assembled into a threat. There is a list of things not covered by the first amendment.

The standard was first started by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in 1919, who stated:

In applying the clear and present danger test in Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. observed: “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Holmes cited the example of a person who falsely shouts “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, causing a panic.

The precedent has been clearly established over the years, being cited in other places:


For instance, in Terminiello v Chicago in 1949, it stated that fighting words which can be policed are words that “produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance.” (Link)

The precednet has really remained to be this way, and there are half a dozen other cases you can find back at the hyperlink for the Holmes quote.

But people advocating silly things does not really constitute a threat or anything to worry about.

If it did, it would be illegal.

I agree with the precedent we have in America.

[Wulfschilde]

Let me tell you what modern media (including YouTube) and academia have never said to anyone: "I respect your intelligence, so educate yourself by considering dissenting viewpoints and then form your own opinion."

These guys are full of contradictions. They say they want all this liberal debate stuff but are openly in favor of censorship. A debate where you can only say approved things is a sideshow.

[Godstud]

Even most of your die-hard liberals are against hate speech, and speech that condones violence against minorities. These are reasonable limits, mind you, and not the crazy censorship that the right-wingers would have you believe.

The typical equating left-wing with liberals is childish and ignorant.

[Verv]

Even most of your die-hard liberals are against hate speech, and speech that condones violence against minorities. These are reasonable limits, mind you, and not the crazy censorship that the right-wingers would have you believe.

If somebody is basically being "Alt Right"/ "racist" / "Islamophobic" etc., but doesn't promote violence, is it still "hate speech?"

If it is "hate speech," should it be punishable?

[Wulfschilde]

Even most of your die-hard liberals are against hate speech, and speech that condones violence against minorities. These are reasonable limits, mind you, and not the crazy censorship that the right-wingers would have you believe.

The typical equating left-wing with liberals is childish and ignorant.

no they aren't. can you define liberal?

[Godstud]

A supporter of liberalism, a political philosophy founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

[late]

I agree with the precedent we have in America.

Precedent now includes restrictions on hate speech...

"As a sociologist and legal scholar, I struggle to explain the boundaries of free speech to undergraduates. Despite the 1st Amendment—I tell my students—local, state, and federal laws limit all kinds of speech. We regulate advertising, obscenity, slander, libel, and inciting lawless action to name just a few. My students nod along until we get to racist and sexist speech...

Legally, we tell members of traditionally disadvantaged groups that they must live with hate speech except under very limited circumstances. The KKK can parade down Main Street. People can’t falsely yell fire in a theater but can yell the N-word at a person of color. College women are told that a crowd of frat boys chanting “no means yes and yes means anal” is something they must tolerate in the name of (someone else’s) freedom.

In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies.

These negative physical and mental health outcomes — which embody the historical roots of race and gender oppression — mean that hate speech is not “just speech.” Hate speech is doing something. It results in tangible harms that are serious in and of themselves and that collectively amount to the harm of subordination. The harm of perpetuating discrimination. The harm of creating inequality."

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-nielsen-free-speech-hate-20170621-story.html