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?
"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?
Ok ... assuming this wasn't an attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor ... please pay attention to the formatting.
The submitter, "John Deere", who is the libertarian and is quoted in italics, did not ask for legal recourse.
Cliff, the /. person who actually posted the question and in normal non-italicized text, mentioned legal action.
...
Note that Cliff also mentioned arbitration, which might appeal to some libertarians as a non-governmental solution (though many libertarians rail against the term arbitration since it has come to be synonymous with "mandatory arbitration" as is used in many legal contracts to revoke a contractor's rights).
...
Most Libertarians I know (and if I were to classify myself, I would probably be a moderate Libertarian ... but that in and of itself is an oxymoron to most people) are against government interfering in private life but are quite willing to have government be involved in law enforcement and regulating business. So even if "John Deere" had asked for a legal resolution, it would not have contradicted his Libertarian views.
See libertarian.org for more information. A very generalized summary would be:
Liberal = left-wing social and economic views
Libertarian = left-wing social views, right-wing economic views
Conservative = right-wing social and government views
Authoritarian = right-wing social views, left-wing economic views
Of course each group has moderates and radicals.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
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.
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"
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
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
The libertarian movement is made up of three groups.
1) The kooks that every third party gets almost by default for being "non mainstream" enough. A small proportion.
2) Ex-Repubulicans who realized that the republican party doesn't really support liberty (even economic) like they say. And a few hardline ex republicans who think the republican party doesn't go far enough in cutting taxes and spending.
3) Ex liberals who were liberals because they believed in free choice, human rights, and all that but who recornized that the democratic party opposes all of these things. Who realized that alle the "anit-corporate" and rich bashing was a form of hate speech, and that if you really want free choice, then that includes not just the choice to be a home maker, or marry who you want, but to work where you want and to keep your money. (Yes. I'm a member of this group.)
3) Anarchists. There are anarchists who share only the description with the 1334 idiots on college campuses who just really wanted a cooler way to say "slacker". These types have noticed that every government is corrupt and that the smaller the government, necessarily the more free the people, and so they have thought a lot about just how small you can make a government and have a safe free society. They tend to get into lots of arguments with the ex republicans and democrats.
4) Objectivism. Because Objectivism is a philosophy that has libertarianism as its political component, all Objectivists are Libertarians. (Unfortunately, there are a lot of "objectivists" who actually aren't objectivists, and are really 1334 slackers who wanted a cooler name. This includes the Ayn Rand Institute.)
The biggest problem in the libertarian party is that since they draw from so many groups the groups spend too much time noticing that they came from different places and not enough time going to the people in the groups they left and pointing out to them how their groups are failing them.
Personally, I lean to a parliamentarian government. But I don't think that would solve the problem of liberty in the US. The problem of liberty in the US will not be solved until a majority of people in this country realize that:
1) There are human rights.
2) Human rights are worth fighting for.
3) If you believe in human rights, you will take up arms to defend them.
Since we have most people convinced by the two major parties that 1 is false, we don't even have the bill of rights anymore. So, we're a long way from liberty.
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.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'.