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?
If not, is there any legal way such changes can be forced by some form of arbitration or legal action?
Some Libertarian you are. Are you really looking for a government regulatory solution?
Maybe you can sue them for slander. Do libertarians believe in slander?
Did anyone bother to check it out? I don't see any indication Surf Control is censoring it -- they don't even have it logged!
/. page into the categorization/test page at SurfControl and it didn't even recognize the site name.
I typed in the url for the site mentioned (more precisely, I copied and pasted the link in the story for Liberty Forum from the
How can they filter it if it isn't in their database and catagorized?
"www.libertyforum.org/ is in our list and categorized as Hate Speech"
Seems like it's in there...
Hasn't it occurred to anyone that this filtering services *also* have a right to say what they think is good and bad? That they have first amendment rights too?
And if people choose to use those services, shouldn't they have a right to select from a variety of independent, somewhat autonomous services, rather than a bunch of sites that only censor what the government says they're allowed to censor?
What kind of libertarian buys this rubbish?
If your site gets blacklisted by some company, tough crap for you. If they blacklist you and catch crap for it from the public, tough crap for them. But let's not get into this pansy liberal government regulation nonsense. Nobody's constitutional rights are being violated. Sheesh.
Got Rhinos?
He doesn't seem to want any kind of government involvement. That would be hypocritical.
:)
But I think it is enough for him to question his allegiances a bit.
The whole situation is funny in an ironic kind of way
After discussion with a few, the answer is "yes" unless you also happen to be a libertarian.
FWIW, a quick browse of the site suggests that the Libertarian posters to the site are an odd mixture of a group of people expressing a basic good-sense take on what's going on in the world and another group of people too right-wing for the Republican party.
This isn't really too surprising, since a moment's reflection will reveal that the Republican and Democratic parties are also coalitions of strange bedfellows. I wonder whether any Libertarian watcher would like to share his/her thoughts on the major coalitions that make up the Libertarian party and its supporters in 2002? (Please, no ideological fluff of the sort you'd get if you asked a Democrat or a Republican the same thing about their own party. I'm looking for someone that has watched and read and put some reasonably unbiased thought into it.)
Also, if anyone cares to venture so far off topic, I'd like to hear some opinions about the pros and cons of parliamentarian governments vs. what we practice in the USA. I have some thoughts on this, but I'll hold them to see whether the discussion gets off the ground. (I ask because a parliamentarian government would presumably break up the two-party system and let Libertarians and other "fringe" groups have more direct representation in government.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
Mod Parent Up! [clueology.com] by CmdrTaco (Score: 4) 02:41 PM
Why do you feel the need to add the "Mod Parent Up!" crap as your sig?
Isn't your viewpoint strong enough to stand up on its own without you having to attract the attention of moderators who aren't eagle-eyed enough to spot your shenanigans?
Perhaps you're just one of those people who feels that they need to be noticed. Perhaps Mommy didn't pay enough attention to you when you were a kid. I'm sure you've got some whacko reason for being the way that you are.
I don't know whether to feel disgusted at you or sorry for you. I do know this though: you need help.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
It seems you don't have any recourse, or more precisely, the same recourse as spammers do. This is exactly what many in the /. community have been fighting for in regards to "spammers list". The company has a right to block any site it wants with it's software (just the same way an email server can block any address/domain it wants to). They have no obligation to let anyone using their software see your site. This seems one of those ironic cases of fighting to get the right to block something (spammers in this case) and then other people using that same right against us.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
You never need even the slightest reason, with our court systems, to sue someone. Let 'em have it!
"God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
Here's an idea: create a proxy filter that sits before the web filter. Every time someone tries to access a web site, the proxy will examine what the web filter returns. If it's blocked, then the proxy will add the URL to a list. A web server will then display that list, updated in real time. Eventually, you'll have a pretty accurate list of what the proxy blocks, and everyone will be able to see it.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I have a friend who can't access gnu.org from work because it's listed as an 'activist' site. I'm not sure what they're using for software though...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
I sent this site over to a friend of mine at the Southern Poverty Law Center. They have an Intelligence Project that monitors Hate groups and Hate sites on the internet. I am still waiting on a reply, but for those wanting to know how to define 'hate' -- at least in the legal sense -- and free speech, this is the site to learn from.
Sig? What's a Sig?
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
Fraud is currently illegal.
I've yet to see a libertarian advocate for fraud being legalized.
Somehow, I suspect what you're talking about wasn't fraud, but something else.
Fraud is just a nicer word for you to use, makes you sound more rational doesn't it?
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.As an ex-SurfControl employee, let me tell you that the database engine doesn't list sites as blocked/unblocked depending on where you come from- but... (and this is why I'm posting anonymously) the servers are down more than they're up, and the data isn't always synchronized.
Thought you'd like to know.
Do you have such an easy explanation for this story on the site? Eh? (quote:
) This comes at the end of an article whose second half is a claim that ``there were no mass exterminations at Auschwitz'' and ``concentration camp conditions couldnt have been that harsh at all''I'd provide quotes of some of the really nasty, hateful stuff which was in the story I linked to above, but the editors of the site seem to have yanked it after it was pointed out here....
Face it -- this site is chock full of anti-semitic nonsense. I see no problem at all with the fact that a (voluntary, independent) rating service classed it as `hate speech'.
Greetings,
I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said... Particularly "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".
But, while I agree with what you say here, some people take this one step further... They think that because they don't want their kid looking at X then nobody should be allowed to look at X.
You can't keep kids wrapped in pink cotton wool all of their lives, eventually they are going to go out, skin their knees, and get experiences in the "Real World" (TM)...
When that happens they will come across Sex, Drugs (and hopefully Rock and Roll)... The "Bad Things" (TM) that you have tried to keep them away from. The best that you can do is teach them to think for themselves, to act responsibly, and to keep out of trouble.
The problem I have with censorship services (we use one here at work) is that they don't work. When you are looking at the TV listings do you look at the listings for every channel for programs for your 4 year old? I doubt it... "Hey, there's an educational program about Womens clothing through the ages on the Playboy Channel. They're doing a special on lingerie today." Or do you look at the listings for only those channels that you "know" will be relevant.
At work I can get to the NRA website. I can't get to the website for Buck Knives (I own a multi-tool made by them). I assume that Buck Knies are considered to be promoting violence. I doubt that I can get to the playboy website, but I'm sure that their blacklist does not include every possible porn site out there.
I know that I can view the text of banned sites using babelfish or the Google Cache. So if it's information I'm after I can usually work my way around the filter.
Comparing this to your TV analogy one last time. The filter that we use is like an incomplete TV listing. It lists some things as being "Bad", the rest it doesn't mark in any way. If it's not listed it is by default "Good" but new programs and channels are popping up all of the time. So the brand new "Axe Murderers Orgy" Channel is "Good" until someone decides that it isn't.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be all that happy about my kids watching that Channel.
Z.
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
Quite an accomplishment, displaying unbounded ignorance in only three lines of text.
Yes. You'll notice that I was talking about "libertarian philosophy", not "my philosophy". I mostly agree with the libertarian principle: that it is wrong to initiate the use of force against others, and that use of force includes both physical harm and misappropriation of property. There are some areas, though, where the LP falls short in my view:
I'm sorry I can't be more confrontational about it; I'm genuinely interested in good answers to these questions, so I'm likely to do a bad job of providing a typical Slashdot throwaway remark about them.
Did you bother to read the whole thing? If so, you should read it again and actually think about what it is saying.
I would agree that it is extreme, definately controversial, but hate speech? Only to someone with poor reading comprehension.
The article is definately anti-racist, including the type of racism promoted by affirmative action programs. I happen to disagree with him on a practical level (I don't see a better way to have acheived what we have acheived than affirmative action, although I do think it's time for it to fade away), but on an intellectual level he presents some valid arguments.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Sheesh... Holocaust denial, Christian supremacy? Props to SurfControl for blocking this one.
Why are we sitting around debating this. Just ask SurfControl to change the categorisation.
Just go to their 'test-a-site' page", enter www.libertyforum.org, and yes, it does indeed come back as "Hate Site". Now, all you have to do is click on "Submit a site" and you can ask for the category to be changed. I set it to "Lifestyle & Culture" , but you might chose something else.
Matt
I think the answer they will give is that the employees entered into a contract with the employer and are free to leave.
However it seems that this means a government can do anything it wants as long as people are free to emigrate and it would be ok with libertarians. I don't think that is true, so yes they have to explain this a bit.
I have a hard time seeing political discourse being listed as hate speech
A lot of people *hate* the government to some extends though, and this often goes a bit too far in discussion (as the same as many slashdot rants).
The actions of a few tarnish the reputations of many - phorm
laws to help the rich get richer, faster, at the direct expense of the masses.
Of course, in this country a tax cut that cuts the taxes on the poor by %50 and the taxes on the rich by %2 is considered exactly that kind of law. At least, thats what the liberals said about the republicans tax cut, that did EXACTLY THAT.
Funny with all this concern about the poor, you'd think you'd want their taxes cut.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Your Friend,
Calvin Handanderfanson
Comprehension? I read the article and the replies did you go that far or did you stop after the FAQ. There are others and I still stand behind the statement this site should be blocked. I'm all about social devience for intelectual gain but I think this site is extremist and doesn't constitue a grass roots movement on the grounds that his site has been classified as a site containing hate speech. I also find it a bit judgemental that you would question my comprehension given you missed the racial epithets on the very page I posted.
I read the article and the replies did you go that far or did you stop after the FAQ.
I did indeed read the replies, all 4 pages of them. There were a few comments that could be considered racist if you took them totally out of context and ignored their obvious satirical nature. By and large, though, it was an intellectual discussion on the roots of racism.
There was certainly nothing there I would characterize as hate speech. I absolutely would not catagorize the site as one promoting hate, any more than I would categorize slashdot as a hate site based on the comments of a few trolls (the worst of the comments I read on the site in question didn't even compare to some of the things I've read while metamoderating here).
I stand by my assesment of your reading comprehension.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I wouldn't recommend anyone believe the hype that these are `fire and forget' services. OTOH, they do have their uses, combined with knowing what your kids are doing, and helping them find good things to do.
Anyway, tell us more about the company you run. :-)
Ah, thanks for getting the newspaper name. I thought that was pretty odd to have the same name as al-jazeera, but I just assumed it must be arabic for "the post" or something pretty generic.
I don't see the problem with attributing this to the Saudi state, they are the ones who took on the role of censors.
I don't know exactly which thought crimes are considered hate speech, but when it comes to politics open discussion is usually a good thing. I guess the generally accepted definition of hate speech is vocalizing an opinion that is seen as immoral or dangerous by the majority. Opinions and morals change, and having open forums for discussing ideas that may currently be seen as dangerous creates a way to evaluate the future of ideas.
Imagine a country where most of the citizens believe in a God that created species as we know them. Now imagine that saying evolution exists is a personal assault on people's personal beliefs and is considered a hate crime. In this imagined environment, you would find it nearly impossible to do scientific research into the mechanisms of evolution. I don't think this example is excessively contrived, to call out a strictly dogmatic religion as imbecilic and to call it's followers misguided simpletons could quite likely be considered hate speech. Here's a fun homework assignment, try that above example with the USA and the Roman Catholic religion.
There was plenty there that falls under the direct definition. People like you make me fel like slashdot is no longer a geek site and is to be no and forever more run by those who resort to name calling and insults to make them feel better about the points they are trying to make. I'm sorry your experience in racism, hate speech or your personal agenda precludes you from understanding what you read. The site in question can in fact be classified as hate speech and if you represent the interests here I suggest you take them to court for libel. Slashdot is able to avoid this type of label by providing moderation for user posts that would rank those deemed inappropriate or racist. I wouldn't think I would have to explain the intricacies of this given your steadfast position on the topic but I guess even the holy have their flaws.
I'm sorry your experience in racism, hate speech or your personal agenda precludes you from understanding what you read.
It's interesting thet you should be the one leveling this accusation at me...
One might even call it ironic.
Slashdot is able to avoid this type of label by providing moderation for user posts that would rank those deemed inappropriate or racist.
I agree, but for the site in question to use moderation would be in opposition to everything for which it stands, namely libertarianism.
I wouldn't think I would have to explain the intricacies of this given your steadfast position on the topic but I guess even the holy have their flaws.
Please feel free to cure me of my apparent ignorance. Show me an example of a comment from the article you linked which could be classified as hate speech without taking it out of context or ignoring its satirical nature, and please explain why it is still hate speech.
Unless you can do that, your continued arguement on this topic merely proves that you have not comprehended what you have read. Comprehension is the ability to derive meaning, and meaning is dependent on context and intent.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Irony is when you question my comprehension of a site and you haven't read it. It's obvious you have something going here above and beyond simply insulting me it doesn't take more than a scan of the first page to see exactly what I'm talking about. I tried to reason with you about it and you aren't hearing it the only one who can help your self-proclaimed ignorance is you. I can only suggest you read both the site and a dictionary. What you do of course is up to you.
I'm going to go ahead and post you an example of what one would consider hate speech even though I feel it's probably wasting my time. First I'll define hate speech for you so you will be on the same page here.
t /g oodspc.htm
o ar d=news_lf&Number=241803&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t= 0#Post241803
Hate speech can generally be defined as words so outrageous that they would be considered fighting words. I have a source here from UCB so you know I'm not just blowing smoke at you.
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatmen
I would consider the phrase on the site and I quote here "Nuke the Raghead" rather inflammatory to the point of fighting. Let me clarify here that I am a White Anglo American so you don't form some undo stereotype.
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&B
or how about some others you might be able to argue for but are still considered "fighting words"
"The world's biggest racists are the Jews" direct quote from the site. "And whatever else they are, the Jews are not non-achievers" another directly from the site. There are more but I think this is enough to get you past the first page with the two people talking back and forth to each other in jest which I can only assume was what you were talking about.
Why you would deny this language is used throughout this site is beyond me unless you have an agenda. I'm done responding to you until you can see that this site contains hate speech I feel like I'm spinning my wheels with some kid who doesn't know the difference between comprehension and what it means to derive meaning from a reading. There is a huge difference between understanding and being able to come to an understanding.
For clarification I find the term used to describe the site within reason for the fact there is no way for the site to be moderated or the moderators choose not remove this type of speech. My personal bias is I find the site devoid of any real meaning. Many of the postings present views that are socially deviant and while provocative don't offer any new perspectives on anything but do offer inflammatory views on various topics that can and will spark uneducated discussions that can have and will resort to name calling and other more elevated forums of hate speech.
What do you think of turn-of-the-century mining towns where the company owned all the land that all the houses were on and paid everybody with company scrip? I guess I still don't see the difference. Outlawing such companies requires a government to outlaw them, and then that government probably has the power to outlaw other things.
Hate speech can generally be defined as words so outrageous that they would be considered fighting words
And the rest of the sentence is:
provocations sufficiently serious to elicit a violent reaction
A few paragraphs down:
First, hate speech can be very hard to precisely define. Statements which some people regard as hateful, others may regard as an honest effort to raise the tough issues. Hate speech prohibitions can also be used as a basis for the suppressing dissent and harassing people. It is almost always possible to accuse people raising difficult issues of hate speech crimes... They can also have an extremely chilling effect upon efforts to honestly discuss the tough issues which underlie most conflicts.
Yes, I think that some statements made in the discussion you linked origionally are treading that line. The statements above, however, and indeed the large part of the Good Speech article, seems to imply that many of these borderline cases are in fact legitimate and that leveling the Hate Speech accusation can often be destructive in and of itself by preventing necessary discussion of real, if controversial and potentially offensive, issues. I believe that is the case here.
Remember that reading comprehension thing we were talking about? Were you hoping I wouldn't actually read the article, or did you not actually read it yourself?
Being able to seperate myself from the innitial emotional shock of seeing something like "Jews are the biggest racists" and think critically about the arguements presented in that and related posts, I didn't find anything particularly inflamatory. I did, however, find a great deal of intelligent discussion on the nature of racism, its roots, and effort to dispel many of the common myths about racism, such as that racism is exclusive to redneck trailer-trash.
The statement that "The world's biggest racists are the Jews" is definately extreme. I wouldn't say "the worlds biggest", but I have studied various religions including Judaism, and there are definately some racist aspects to Jewish tradition and history. The current Isreali regime is absolutely racist, and I would say the history of the Isreal/Palestine conflict reads like a study on racism on par with our own eviction and oppression of Native Americans.
Nothing that was said in support of this statement was untrue, feel free to research it yourself. Additionally, many of the people involved in that discussion were very careful to point out that they weren't trying to bash Jews, but rather dispelling the myth that poor white America has a monopoly on racism by providing a counter example.
How you can say that "And whatever else they are, the Jews are not non-achievers" is hate speech, however, brings back the question of your comprehension skills. How exactly does saying that a particular race has accomplished a great deal qualify as hate speech? Am I somehow bashing the Romans when I say that they were great engineers who built roads and aquaducts that have withstood the ravages of centuries all over Europe? I think not.
"Nuke the Raghead" I'll give you, I guess, even though it is in a completely different discussion and, again, taken totally out of context. You seem to not understand that context effects meaning, and that is the root of my questions about you comprehension skills. Personally, I thought the comment was an unfortunately worded indictment of the current national attitudes and the current administrations pining for the days of the Gulf War, when "Nuke the Raghead" was widely considered a perfectly acceptable thing to say. It was clearly a comment about how sites get classified by webfilters, implying that there would be a setting that would allow hate speech directed at Arab extremists only in accordance with the wishes of the current administration.
Why you would deny this language is used throughout this site is beyond me unless you have an agenda.
Ah, yes. It couldn't possibly be that your arguements are fallacious and your "proof" weak, it must be that I have an agenda!
I feel like I'm spinning my wheels with some kid who doesn't know the difference between comprehension and what it means to derive meaning from a reading
There is no difference. Read comprehension is the skill of deriving meaning from reading. They are one and the same.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
It is true that the companies employed the government to crack down on worker revolts. This would be a good argument to make: if there was not a government with a military willing to obey the company and funded by taxing many people (and thus having a larger source of funds than the company has access to) perhaps they could not crack down on the worker's revolt. It is possible that trying to fund a military of their own would not be cost-effective for the company.
I kind of figured it was a waste of my time pointing out specifics for you. Even when it is in front of your face you deny it or excuse it. Bottom line the site was blocked for hate speech after looking it contains what is considered hate speech end of story. I'm sure you can argue yourself in circles but when it comes down to it your wrong. Sorry, I'm not the one who hopped on slashdot and decided to insult someone without at least checking things out first. I'm sorry you have yet to learn the difference between comprehending and deriving meaning. Just because the meaning I derived is different that what you did doesn't have anything to do with anyone's lack of comprehension. What it does show however is intolerance on your part going directly to attacking my comprehension rather than taking a look at the facts. This shows you have a bias towards allowing hate speech. The question now is, are you a hate filled racist or simply someone who is so paranoid about loss of free speech that you will try and protect it even if it means you are standing up for hate filled racists?
Even when it is in front of your face you deny it or excuse it.
I haven't denied anything. I agree that there are several words and phrases that, individually, would constitute hate speech. Where I disagree is that this makes the whole site a hate site. Every one of those potential hate statements is in a context where it becomes highly questionable whether they in fact constitute hate speech, and the vast majority are used in an intellectual discussion dealing with issues of racism.
Remember that Good Speech article you offered the URL to? You should really read it again, because you apparently have completely missed the point of it.
If I were to point out the fact that inner city black youth are trying to reclaim the word "nigger" and remove it's negative connotations, at least within their own social circle, would you respond by calling me a racist because I said "nigger"? If so, then you are the one here who has an agenda, not me. The fact that this is exactly what you are doing with regards to this site says a lot.
I hope my little example has served to point out to you the importance of context to meaning, since you still don't seem to get that.
Just because the meaning I derived is different that what you did doesn't have anything to do with anyone's lack of comprehension.
Yes it does, actually.
Many years ago I took a class in college called "Advanced Composition and Critical Thinking". We spent a great deal of time in that class annalyzing text and deriving the difference between what they meant and what they actually said when you pull it apart into it's component pieces. Doing that was quite a revelation. It's shocking how often people say things and everybody understands what they meant, yet when annalyzed in detail the actually said the exact opposite. People understand what they meant only because of context. Context makes all the difference, and if you don't understand that then you have no real comprehension of what you read.
Sorry, I'm not the one who hopped on slashdot and decided to insult someone without at least checking things out first.
As I've already stated, I read the article you linked in your origional post, including all four pages of comments, before I ever responded to you.
I'm sorry you have yet to learn the difference between comprehending and deriving meaning.
Again, there is no difference. Go look it up, or even better, go ask an English teacher.
Perhaps you actually mean something like "derive meaning other than what is actually there by taking individual statements completely out of context"? Your right, that isn't comprehension, and that's exactly why I keep calling yours into question.
The question now is, are you a hate filled racist or simply someone who is so paranoid about loss of free speech that you will try and protect it even if it means you are standing up for hate filled racists?
I'm intelligent enough to recognize that stifling any speech, especially speech which is deemed destructive in nature, is damaging to a free society, and to the democratic process upon which all of our other freedoms depend. As soon as you say "you can't say that" it sets a precedent, and that precedent makes it easier to say "you can't say that either", and before you know it I'm not allowed to criticize the Attorney General for trying to turn the US into the same kind of police state that the Soviet Union was. When it's illegal to speak your mind you have no other rights. That's why it's called a "slippery slope", and that's why freedom of speech is far more important than the hurt feelings of a few individuals, or even groups.
Am I paranoid? No, because the definition of paranoid stipulates that a paranoid fears something that isn't actually happening. Our rights are being erroded as we speak. USA/PATRIOT has severely abridged our Constitutional rights to privacy, a speedy trial, legal representation, and freedom from illegal search and seizure. Granted that's only if I'm a suspected terrorist, but who's a suspected terrorist? Potentially anyone who disagrees with the government.
So, to quote both Benjamin Franklin and Voltaire, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
And I'll add a little something from Eleanor Roosevelt: "A mature person is one who is does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally..."
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Let me try one more time to make it clearer to you why I feel surf control was correct in their assessment of the site and maybe in the process convince you that the comment you made was not only uncalled for but wrong. The site in question libertyforum.com contains comments, which can be considered hate speech. The site lacks the ability or simply does not want to censor these comments. This is their choice and is perfectly fine. Surf control has this to say, "www.libertyforum.org is in our list and categorized as Hate Speech." Now should I choose to use them and rely on their judgment to deny access to controversial materials on the net to my employees that is my choice. Now you may claim that is censorship but as the employer it is my right to deny access to whatever I choose on the internet. Otherwise the internet becomes a haven for undesirable content much like it already has. It becomes more of a distraction than a tool in the. Then it is a liability and becomes extinct in the office space. No one is claiming that the site should be taken off the net or that they shouldn't be allowed to discuss even the most outlandish topics but seeing as how surf control blocks potentially offensive sites not individual pages of content I think they did the right thing here. As for the article you read about destructive speech did you skip the first and last paragraph and go straight to the legislating aspects of hate speech. The article I posted was there to help define the stance I was taking, not roll you out on a tangent about the legalese of hate speech and get you going on censorship and our rights as Americans eroding away. It's also a prime example of your arguments strategy. Bring into question the intelligence of your opponent then discount any comments with the same question of intelligence it is a passive aggressive way of dealing with opposing views. Which if you read the article is used as an example of hate speech. I try and play it down with you and allow you to strengthen your argument but in the end your argument is I'm smart and your not. I'm beginning to find it regressive to participate in that portion of the discussion and it is starting to overshadow the main point of the sites classification. So if you would like to continue the discussion on why they are classified as containing hate speech then I'm willing. If you are still stuck on questioning my comprehension then I am done as there is no point continuing with this any further.