Slashdot Mirror
Internet Filters - Libertarianism is Hate Speech?
John Deere asks: "Just went live with a libertarian web-based discussion site a few days ago and today one of our members posted that our news and political discussion site has been listed as a 'Hate Speech' site by SurfControl ("details)
Needless to say, some of our slacker members are now unable to access the site, due to blocks at their places of employment. Now, I don't mind our site being blocked by employers who want to keep their employees working instead of arguing objectivism vs. utilitarianism. It does concern me, however, that it appears to be quite easy to be listed as a 'Hate Speech' site, and not have much recourse. My questions are, has anyone been successful in changing the categorization of their site by one of these filtering services, from negative to neutral or positive? How much pressure was required and how long did it take?" It would be interesting to note how many GOP and Democratic sites are also listed under the same tag at SurfControl. I have a hard time seeing political discourse being listed as hate speech, but maybe this is a case of a single comment or post getting the entire site banned. Has anyone been able to negotiate a change of status with the various filtering services out there? If not, is there any legal way such changes can be forced by some form of arbitration or legal action?
the heading of the story that you speak of:
A columnist from the state-controlled Saudi newspaper Al-Jazirah recently re-asserted the claim that Jews use human blood in baked goods when preparing for holiday celebrations, according to a translation of the column by the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, an independent, nonprofit organization that analyzes the media of the Middle East.
The story was about a Saudi newspaper article. The opinion of jews held by the arabic countries is actually pretty important, as you may be aware, israel is mostly jewish and is locked in a cultural, economic, and sometimes military struggle with it's arabic and islamic neighbors.
Anyway, I read through the posts curious as to what the hell you were talking about, and the major discussion was about the importance of the newspaper and the validity of the translation. And then the discussion shifted to sausages and hot dogs. The mention of the allegation of jewish involvement in the 9/11 attacks was to highlight another case of xenophobia.
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension and read whole sentances instead of just the smaller phrases.
The problem here is that the site in question is (presumably) not hate speech. I don't think there is a problem labeling a true hate speech site as such, but here, SurfControl has essentially slandered the site by calling it a hate site. It would be as if I went to all my friends and said that zpengo is a racist, hate-mongering son-of-a-bitch and none of his posts should be viewed. Since this is a false statement that I would have told to other people, we're two thirds of the way to slander. Now, you probably wouldn't care that much, since that statement doesn't really hurt you. But what if it did? Then, there would be damages, and you could sue me (or course, IANAL, but that's the general idea as I understand it).
For the site in question, they already have the first two parts -- SurfControl has publicly slandered them (I guess, technically, it would be libel since it's written). The hard part would be to prove damages. Sure, some people can't get to their site from some places, but is that enough to constitute damages? Perhaps just the damage to their reputation is enough? That's where real lawyers and the court system come into play.
Also, some people have commented that it seems contradictory that a Libertarian would be seeking government redress. While I'm not a Libertarian and I don't know all of their policies, I don't think it would necessairly be against their views. Libertarians seem to stand less government intrusion in our lives. When two people have an honest conflict (such as the site and SurfControl), or a crime has been committed, the courts get involved to deal with the situation. If that's incorrect, then I guess I've seriously misjudged the Libertarian party.
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
What do you expect from slashdot?
Thats why I call gnu "Free as in totalitarian"... in this crowd when they say "Free" they're talking about such bastions of "freedom" as stalin, marx and lenin.
Mention that someone made some money in the 90s and you get pages and pages about how they should be propping up dictatorships in east africa by sending them food to withhold from the starving in their country because "we all should care for each other, especially care for those nice brutal dictators that work so hard to keep people oppressed."
You'd think people running linux would be libertarian, or would at least understand libertarianism. But you'd be wrong.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
I was going to say something about how you should actually talk to some libertarians...
But then I realized that yeah, I hate anyone who advocates putting a gun to my head.
I hate anyone who says I should be their slave.
I hate anyone who says that two men can't marry, or that a guy and two girls (or a girl and two guys) can't live together.
I hate anyone who thinks that I should not be allowed to be secure in my life and in my house from unreasonable search, seizure.
I hate anyone who says I cannot hire someone, merely because of the color of their skin, or because of their religious ideology.
I hate anyone who says I MUST hire someone, merely because of the color of their skin, or because of their religious ideology.
I hate anyone who says that I have to give half of my money to them, at gunpoint, and while I'm at it I have to collect a third of my employees money for them.
I hate anyone who expects me to work for them without compensation.
And since the Liberal, Conservative, Democratic and Republican movements ALL subscribe to ALL of those ideas, then, yes, I guess in a sense I hate them.
But usually I see them as misguided-- if only they'd see the light and support human rights, it would be that much easier for me to exercise my human rights.
So hate isn't the right word-- I'd defend with force and my life and my rights, but those who merely talk about taking them away, I don't have hate for. Just pity.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Interesting. So, let me ask you a question? When you are looking through TV Guide (or your Tivo directory, or whatever), and trying to decide what to watch, do you read the descriptions of the shows/movies you are considering?
Because that's what these rating sites are. They are automated summaries of the type of content a site contains, for use by viewers who are interested in seeing some types of content but not others.
Speaking as a parent, I see a big difference between my four year old being exposed to some of the really nice kid-friendly stuff that's out there and some of the really nasty stuff [no link provided, use your damn imagination] that's out there. If you don't, well, let me say, as politely as I can, that `we disagree'.
And yes, this does indeed mean that:
- some things are objectively bad
- children should be shielded from some things
- it's not only `okay' for a parent to exercise some control over what their child is exposed
to, it's their responsibility to do so
That's part of what being a parent means -- something you will, I hope, understand long before you get there.