Slashdot Mirror
Reddit Continues To Protect Racist Language In Favor of Free Speech (digitaltrends.com)
In a thread about Reddit's 2017 transparency report, a user asked CEO Steve Huffman whether posts containing racism or racial slurs violate Reddit's terms. Huffman revealed that said speech are permissible on the site. "On Reddit, the way in which we think about speech is to separate behavior from beliefs," Huffman clarified. "This means on Reddit there will be people with beliefs different from your own, sometimes extremely so." Digital Trends reports: It's unclear if Huffman's comments are representative of Reddit's company policy, but protection of hate speech can -- and do -- lead to online harassment and cyberbullying. A recent study from Pew revealed that as many as 40 percent of Americans have experienced some form of harassment online. And even if hate speech may still be protected content on Reddit, Huffman was quick to point out that any threat of violence is not tolerated on the site. "When users actions conflict with our own content policies, we take action," he said. This distinction is consistent with Reddit's prior policies for enforcement. "Going forward, we will take action against any content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people; likewise we will also take action against content that glorifies or encourages the abuse of animals," the updated terms read, noting that "context is key."
Minus Threats and Causing a Panic, are PROTECTED.... Even VILE, UNCOMFORTABLE, and UNPOPULAR Speech.... Is PROTECTED! Long Live the FIRST!
So why are you making it sound like it's a bad thing?
So what? Free speech is preferable to censorship.
I've often wondered why governments suppress free speech -- free speech makes it much easier to identify the troublemakers :-).
Because it is the most repellent speech that MUST be protected, or 'freedom of speech' means nothing.
Adults understand that words only "hurt" people that allow them to.
(To be clear, Reddit's is their META policy; subreddits are allowed to have whatever policies their founders choose, really.)
-Styopa
Sounds like they don't want to implement a zero-tolerance policy, and want to give themselves the "context" excuse so they can still take action against people who are unruly and terrible. If only our schools and legislatures were run by these people.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
In America, "Hate Speech" and "cyberbullying" aren't illegal because they aren't codified as crimes.
There is no statute for hate speech to follow, likewise for cyberbullying.
Your expectation that a corporation or organization can somehow match up to your own personal definitions and expectations is completely childish and unproductive.
If you want these things to be stopped, talk to your members of congress and get a law passed.
Until then, kindly shut up about your pretend crimes.
Thanks,
The internet.
Is one of the stupidest concepts. Delete your shit and go anonymous or something if you're worried about getting cyber bullied. Back in my day there was just real bullying with physical implications. I once saw this guy get picked up in the locker room by a big football player and basically dry humped in front of everyone. That's a little worse than some 12 year old typing the n word a bunch at a bunch of other white kids.
Because itâ(TM)s hard to install fascism without having control of the media. Reddit stating that they will not participate with majority-approved only speech means they need to be crushed.
Free speech was kinda considered a big deal by some important people in the past. If you start cherry picking what is considered free speech based on you local ideology or even worse political goals, then what is left is not really free speech is it. Free speech has to be both good and bad to work. And with free speech eroding on the internet and in general, what is next? Tought police?
>We protect free speech!
they say, after removing the likes of r/FatPeopleHate and r/Coontown, in addition to years of censoring r/News of information they disagree with. After choosing the wrong side during gamergate like so many others. After *editing their algorithms* specifically to keep r/TheDonald from showing up on the first page as often because they're offended by anything positive related to our president.
Meanwhile, the largest doxxing, trolling, griefing, and brigaiding community (r/SRS, for those who have been hiding under a rock) remains untouched.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Mel Brooks made a brilliant, funny and subversive movie back in the 70s called "Blazing Saddles". The reason why it made it so subversive was that he used all these racial slurs and vulgar adolescent humor to paint the racist town folks as being quite stupid and ignorant.
When one see the butchered for television version that removes everything that can offend anyone, it loses its edge and point.
Folks are too easily offended and I think many folks really aren't - they just like the power trip of shutting others up. Just a bunch of PC retards.
Because that is what free speech is, protecting speech especially if you don't agree with it.
There is no need to protect speech about flowers, pasta or fishing. However, there IS reason to protect controversial speech, since that type of speech is the first to go, when people push for censorship. I disagree with people all the time, but I will fight for their right to speak up - simply because I might be the next in line to be censored. This is simple folks, offence is taken - NOT given.
Around four-in-ten Americans (41%) have been personally subjected to at least one type of online harassment – which this report defines as offensive name-calling online
Whenever you see some statistic like "40 percent of Americans have experienced some form of harassment online" you know they have jiggered the definition to inflate the numbers. By the report's definition, probably everyone on /. is a "victim".
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Moreover, why is this guy saying he's protecting speech --including speech BeauHD doesn't like-- while he's shutting down various subreddits? What else for but for their speech contents?
Start suppressing some freedom of speech, and take the first step toward totalitarianism. Racist language is hateful, but we'd better learn to put up with (and despicable things like that) if we want to live in a free society. Also, I am sick and tired of being told by self-appointed guardians of the moral virtuousness and purity what it is that I can't have access to. I am and adult, and, within the law, I will make those decisions for myself and on behalf of my children till they become adults themselves.
Bake me a cake is pretty much a debate ender when liberals claim private companies online can censor speech.
I have yet to hear an explanation of forcing religious cake maker to make a cake for a gay wedding is ok, but forcing near monopolies (which the cake maker wasn't) shouldn't be forced to accept all "customers", especially when they are censoring them based on race like Facebook recently started doing with Diamond and Silk.
Freedom of Speech is not Freedom From Speech
Freedom of Religion is not Freedom From Religion
freedom of speech: as the american government concept applies is the freedom to criticize or speak out against the government without fear of reprisal, or censure. Its literally the ability to call Donald Trump a giant talking cheeto without being hauled out of your bed at 3 AM and forcibly executed in front of your family.
freedom of speech: as it applies to society is not the same. There are several cases where private industry and society dont tolerate freedom of speech. You cannot protest a walmart without being told to leave the property. Copyright law prevents the freedom of speech on a nearly hourly basis. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre or bomb on a crowded plane and expect to walk freely if no such condition exists. increasingly, you cannot espouse white supremacy,sexism, or neo-nazi sentiment and expect to keep your job. Not because the government is trying to shut you up, but because no private industry wants their brand affiliated even casually with hateful bigotry and racism.
Good people go to bed earlier.
It's simple. If you don't like Reddit's terms and policies, you can use some other website that matches what you want. There are a whole bunch out there.
If you want nearly unlimited freedom of speech you can go to one of the chans. If you want something more locked-down you can post to the somewhat ironically named freethoughtblogs. There are all kinds of communities you can be a part of. Or with a tiny bit of technical know-how, you can create your own. Isn't it great?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Behavior can be a problem: screaming racial slurs at a group before attacking them.
Some things are not a problem, but are sort of distasteful: screaming racial slurs at a group.
Other things are actually useful: logical discussion of race, ethnicity, and whether or not diversity is functional at all.
Alternative Right.
It's much easier than that. Just label dissent as "fake news" often enough and the imagination of your viewers takes care of the rest. There are stories relating the speed capabilities of truth and falsehoods, but neither can compare with that of the unfounded rumor.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
"hate speech" is, without exception, an artificial construct designed to circumvent free speech. The moment someone is offended by something spoken or written, it becomes "hate speech". Well guess what folks, that's exactly what freedom of speech is intended to protect.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
"Going forward, we will take action against any content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people"
All political action is a threat of violence, so for example saying "let's bomb Syria!" would be impermissible on Reddit?
Or "the drug war is great, it should continue" would not be allowed?
Or is it only going to be non-government sanctioned violence that's disallowed while advocacy for government violence remains a-okay?
Why did these Free Speech Believers close /r/incels.
There is no need to protect non-offensive speech.
No one is going to go after speech that they agree with. It is only speech with which we don't agree that is in need of protection. Because if we don't, eventually, someone who doesn't agree with us is going to prevent us from speaking.
It really is that simple.
Check your premises.
Because all the SJW's are too dumb to realize the "hate speech" laws they want passed can be turned right around against themselves.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
you have basically made yourself a public square. I understand that Reddit may be a private company, and Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of speech, but at some point we have to acknowledge these major internet players have become the new town square.
Glad there is still a company willing to stand up for freedom of expression - which (unfortunately) means defending the most distasteful expressions no matter how little you agree with them - since the rest don't need it.
It's foolish to think that racist language on an internet website equals racism. It's about shock value, and getting attention.
We live in a world where the word "fuck" barely bats an eye. It's only natural to expect the few words, and phrases people can say that ALWAYS get attention to be prolific.
Most of these people aren't racists, they're just assholes desperate for attention. You can call someone a shithead all day long and get no response. If you call them something racist, not only will they respond, but so will several other people, thus feeding the trolls.
The First Amendment protects it in the real world, and Reddit has the right to allow it on their privately owned servers.
That's an end of it.
Threads on here are often littered with vile racist remarks, and no matter how many times they are reported, the /. mods will happily let them stand -- the moderators intentionally let the racist remarks remain.
Slashdot now has a problem with structural racism, and I'm curious how the owners feel about this. Or maybe they are already part of it just like the mods.
And this confirms that I made the correct decision.
In my world, offensive speech is not a value worth protecting.
What the government explicitly allows for, should not private institutions seek to uphold?
If it's only the government that allows ALL speech, and all private sources block some speech - do you really have freedom of speech? Or is it just just an archaic term that means nothing?
The whole point of these protections is they are supposed to be GUIDING PRINCIPALS by which the people of the U.S. live. That includes how we treat others. It doesn't mean everyone has to allow everything, but it DOES mean that we shouldn't get mad when SOME people truly allow all kinds of speech over their platform.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just ask a comedian in the UK how quickly the mantra "Hate Speech is Not Free Speech" became "Joke Speech is Not Free Speech."
Private entity are free to censure. Since reddit is private...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Reddit has been shutting down many, many subreddits recently.
They are taking responsibility for user-generated content, and once they do that they don't get to only take responsibility for some.
I think it would have been much smarter for Reddit to remain neutral and claim "common-carrier" status, but their virtue-signaling management wouldn't have it.
I hear Voat.co is where the banned communities are going and their stack happens to still be open source, so that's an additional level of transparency.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Hell, no. Do you want a Christian institution to seek to uphold Atheist or Muslim speech in their congregations
Of course not, but that is not at all what I said.
You have the right to say what you want, but you have no right to stand on my soapbox when doing so.
And what *I* am saying, is that if I choose to let someone on MY Soapbox you have not right to knock it out from under them, and are morally wrong to try.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And nobody is going after speech they don't agree with. They're going after incendiary speech. The reason that people tend to speak in this way is that they feel like they are being ignored. And often they are. Because their ideas don't have supporting evidence. But rather than go back and do additional research and make a stronger case, they do the equivalent of shouting which only serves to make the community less attractive.
So, they're going after "incendiary speech" not because they don't agree with it, but because....?
And who gets to draw this line between "offensive" and "incendiary"?
Check your premises.
Yeah. If companies won't let you use their platform shout about how terrible Jews are, the Nazis have basically already won.
Don't like it, don't read it. Simple.
At one point or another, every one of us have said something racist without realizing it:
http://www.rsdb.org/
So to make this work, should sites just ban us all eventually?
I agree 100% that expression of offensive opinions and ideas needs to be protected. And though as a private entity Reddit's within their rights to draw the line at advocacy of violence, governments can't draw the line there; advocating violence "in the abstract" is constitutionally protected too, and only threats or inciting imminent violence are proscribable.
But contrary to what many people think - even some of the Supreme Court - freedom of speech and the First Amendment are not about protecting offensive means of expression . It really is OK - not just for private organizations like Reddit but also for municipalities and states - to decide on standards of civility. The communicative content is protected, not the form of expression. For instance, obscenity laws can be constitutional.
In general, the Constitution gives us vast latitude to decide democratically, especially at the state and local level, what kind of society we want to be. The Warren Court decided they wanted to take much of that power for themselves. Since then most Supreme Court justices have been loath to give that power up.
Obviously some ways of legislating civility would really be backdoors to restricting ideas and thus are unconstitutional. It's no good enforcing civility standards against racists but letting their opponents be incivil, and it's no good claiming 'Tiananmen 1989' is vulgar. But we the people are within our rights to decide on reasonable standards.
The point is that Nazis have won when defending Jews or whomever the "enemy/deplorable" group happens to be is a form of hate speech against their victims. When saying "I support free speech for all groups" is something you can ban on any public forum as "hate speech/support of evil viewpoints" then yes, the Nazi's have won. Fascism and the like require a completely 1-sided public viewpoint and steep penalties for any disagreement (job, personal safety, standing in community, freedom.) Without that power, criticism and free flow of information occur and bring you back to something reasonable.
Nice victim complex you've got there. SRS was never as big of a thing as you idiots scream about. FPH and Coontown were cesspools that actually harassed people outside of the website. Just because you can't handle that your pathetic life without harassing people doesn't mean we have to put up with it.
BeauHD, SJW, would post an antifree speech biased article.
Free speech; you can't take it away you crazies. You are worse then the Nazis.
That is the whole point, Ideas can either stand on their own weight, or they cannot, and there is no way of determining that by silencing anyone you disagree with. The problem with censoring "hate speech" is it gives some level of credibility to morons.
The right course of action with the tiki-torch toting assclowns marching in Charlottesville is to let them march and otherwise ignore them.
There is also a lot if intellectual dishonesty going on, from both sides. The left labeling anyone politically right of Maxine Waters as a Nazi or fascist is a prime example.
Aaron Swartz would be proud.
FYI, you know all those "secret laws" have to exist someplace. They would be at JSTOR, which is very hard and expensive to get. What if Aaron found something by accident? Or, what if he found nothing, but powerful people wanted to make sure others didn't try to access anything? Wouldn't it be to their advantage to go after him with everything they had to make an example?
I don't think he really killed himself.
Is that a lot of the right singers jump on the free speech bandwagon when it is about allowing their hate speech and that of white nationalist or alt right Nazis. However when it is the speech of some Muslim group they consider terrorists, etc. they are wuick to support censorship.
Even though few acknowledge it, both groups tend to espouse hate that leads to violence. However, few seem eager to support the Muslim hate speech and many seem to support the White guy hate speech. Why is it easier to give one a pass and condemn the other?
It has always been strange to me, especially considering that the alt right hate speech is constantly thrown in your face and they seem to want to force us to always have to listen to them.
You'll have to clarify for the class exactly which SJWs are calling for genocide, segregation, or lesser treatment for those they perceive as second-class citizens such that they would run afoul of hate-speech laws.
Only on Slashdot. Speech is singular. "said speech IS permissible". Illiterate American idiots.
Why do Americans keep writing "women" instead of "woman" all the time? Is it that difficult?
dude pick a lane you're all over the place.
It's called gentrification and white people do it all the time. Pushing minorities out of their own spaces is like a white person special move.
Just another second banana
Then we know who they are, so we can watch them carefully, make sure all they're doing is talking. Then when they do something actionable, we'll be right there to get them arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed. "Call it evolution in action".
Are we a minority whom doesn't want to live in a thought controlling state now?
The Marxist SJWs.
For those that prefer to argue from '10,000 pages of fallacy': Marx himself said that about 10% of the population would have to be 'reeducated' or liquidated.
For those that know history, there is no argument.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'm Jewish and totally okay with racist and anti-semitic speech because free speech doesn't mean free when not inconvenient. Instead of looking to other people to censor it for me, I choose to self-censor. The fact that racists are assholes is irrelevant: as long as they're not advocating violence or yelling fire in a crowded theater, let them spout off. They're less dangerous when they can vent. I hope Reddit doesn't change its policies.
No. Nobody is forcing the baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding. We're forcing them to not discriminate in who they sell their fucking cakes to.
Here's my way of thinking of it:
With offensive speech you can say "I disagree" and have an argument about it.
With incendiary speech you almost have to say "I can't condone what you're advocating because nobody deserves what you're proposing for the reason you're stating."
Example: Nobody deserves to die because they held a particular point of view. An opinion is not a death sentence.
Nothing wrong with protecting speech, even reprehensible speech. I'd probably be labeled an SJW on /. (which has the highest number of Gamergaters and Trumpers of any community I interact with), but I'm a libertarian. I believe in free speech, even shitty speech. Unless someone is specifically attacking an individual, or calling for violence, it's protected speech in my opinion.
Reddit has specifically banned several subreddits over speech-type grounds, but they have all been areas that specifically attacked individuals, called for violence, or engaged in unlawful activity (or really-narrowly-lawful-if-you-don't-look-too-closely-but-it's-a-gray-area like technically-SFW ephibophilia image sharing). They are moderating in the least harmful way they can and still stay within the law, and that's exactly what they should be doing.
I'm all for Reddit's policies, and I applaud their restraint. They protect speech they don't like, and that's exactly the American way.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
I don't care.
Grow a thicker skin.
I'm not a fan of racist speech.
I think it's disgusting. And, like an adult, I avoid partaking in it myself.
But the idea that offensive speech OF ANY STRIPE is somehow "not protected" by Free Speech is INSANE.
Offense is taken, not given.
If you don't like the speech being presented to you, be an adult.
Change the channel. Leave. Argue against it.
But bitching to the government to shut someone up, no matter HOW ignorant the things they say are, is wrong.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Oh you didn't hear? Muslim bakeries in Michigan have refused to bake gay cakes, and are let slide. Why is that?
...had taken the order, but DIDN'T bake the cake and simply outsourced it to another bakery? In your mind would that be a violation?
We're currently witnessing the bizarre spectacle of the owner of a giant media company sheepishly explaining to elected congressmen why he's failing to censor unpopular viewpoints those in power favor censored.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Nobody should have a problem with not giving Marxists a public forum. Or Stalinists. Or Nazis. Very loosely paraphrasing Sir Karl Popper, there is no need at all to be tolerant to intolerant people. On the contrary, you have to fight them actively and one reasonable and legitimate means of doing that is to not give them public forums and advertisement platforms.
It's really pretty simple and kind of sad how so many conservative people in the US seem to have lost their moral compass:
* tolerant people who support democracy and discuss with at least a minimal amount of honesty, civility, respect, and politeness == the good guys
* intolerant people who support totalitarianism, spew hatred, disinformation, propagate genocide or homicide, and have no respect for others and lack all politeness == the bad guys
Got it?
I thought the cake thing was a travesty. Part of true Free Speech is - you cannot force ME to say anything I do not want to.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, it's even simpler than that. What reddit is doing is exactly the same as when a bar owner kicks a bunch of loud, drunk,stupid idiots out of his bar when they start insulting other guests. There is nothing wrong with that, and in fact, every responsible bar owner on the planet would kick someone out of his establishment shouts shout the kind of things at him and his other guests that you habitually see from trolls and all sorts of creeps and whackos on public Internet forums. And there is nothing wrong whatsoever with kicking them out the bar. And yes, it's totally okay if the bar owner is also personally biased.
It's as simple as that.
LOL. It may be true for some, but certainly not all. I'll fight for your right to say "N*GGER FAGGOT KIKE!", but I'll fight YOU if you insist on saying it in my house. There's the door, asshole, now get hoofing.
Or, to put it another way:
Reddit Continues To Protect Free Speech In Favor of Free Speech
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
This is incendiary rhetoric. Mods, please remove the parent's comment and ban Ed Tice's account immediately!
Sure people tend to go after incendiary speech that they disagree with more than incendiary speech that they agree with. And if you think of Reddit as one monolithic thing, I'd acquiesce to your point. But Reddit is trying to build the most profitable community which means accepting users with a wide variety of opinions but recognizing that some people are so obnoxious that they aren't profitable because they drive others away. They don't want to ban people for being ridiculous but they do set limits between offensive and incendiary based on whatever makes them the most money. So since it's Reddit's business, Reddit draws the line. And they are likely to do it fairly reasonably since they have a profit motive in getting it right.
Nonsense. You obviously prefer CryptoCommies to Commies. CryptoNazis to Nazis.
We _want_ them to speak, so they can be appropriately marginalized.
That includes letting Commies call everybody they disagree with Nazis, and vice versa. Who cares? They've already made it clear, they are MORONS, they're carrying (swastikas/hammers and sickles).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
in a theater. Free speech comes with responsibility. Hate speech can and does cross the line to incitement to violence. When folks start questioning if only somebody would rid them of that meddlesome priest it's time for the government to step in.
Furthermore Free Speech is about what the government does. It's not censorship if a private corporation doesn't want to do business with Stormfront or the like. Racist is not a protected class, and unless you're arguing it should be you have to live with the free market deciding who to do business with and who not to. If you don't like it, start your own website and hosting provider. Again, it's a free market.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
on their site. It's also fine by me if they don't. But we need to recognize that words can and do turn into actions. Especially among radicalized populations like far right racists. Things like Doxing, Swatting, etc.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
you can't threaten to kill somebody. You can't incite others to do the same. We've long since established that words can and do turn into action. The first amendment is not a blank check.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
not from private companies and individuals. You have a right to say what you want without government interference. You can go to a park and as long as you're not disturbing the peace say and do whatever you want. Remember the Illinois Nazi's? The Blues Bros committed assault and in the real world would eventually get charged. But what you do _not_ have a right to is to make me or anyone else let you come to our private property and set up your protest. I couldn't show up at an Apple store and start protesting labor relations in China in the store. I could, however, do it on the public sidewalk.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
if you don't like it, get Racists added as a protected class. Good luck with that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Racist language not in favor of free speech shall be prevented and/or stricken down with extreme prejudice!
Hate speech has been severely redefined over the years. It's one thing to state your opinion, it's another thing to crossover into threatening others or inciting violence. The latter in my mind should be limited. Even if I disagree with someone I still think they have the right to their opinion. For example if I say I believe a particular lifestyle choice is sinful because of my religious beliefs who have I harmed? Yet in some circles that's classified as hate speech. Even though I have no intention of harming anyone and never suggested violence would be an appropriate solution. Even in instances of racism, which I'm vehemently opposed to, if someone is stating their opinion and not threatening anyone else I don't feel that should be censored.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
The CEO's comments are addressing racism and racial slurs.
Which is NOT the same thing as hate speech.
Somebody is confusing the two, and they are NOT the same.
It's not hate speech when a poster merely expresses that they hold some racist belief(s), or uses
some racial slur or insult, or says ugly ignorant things about other people based on race, etc.
Hate speech is something very specific: Inciting violence or attempting to cause or incite others to cause physical harm or damage to a person or person(s).
based on their race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, age, gender, religion or religious beliefs, veteran status, genetic information, disability or physical conditions..
Reddit's policy update made it clear that hate speech is not tolerated.
As long as it is OK for a member of a group to use a derogatory word for a member of said group then it is impossible to ban hate speech or racist epithets. As long as people say "Only we can use that world! When you use it you are being a raciest!!11!!!", you can't be sure the person using is racist if you don't know the user's race.
There just isn't any way to know if "B!gPEEN34" is black or white so no way to know if s/he is racist when using the "n-word".
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
nuff said
Should we tolerate your intolerance?
Who decides what is too much?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
He's choosing which speech to protect.
Speech that people disagree with he's comfortable with. Speech that damages his business, less so. Speech that breaks the law, oddly enough he'll do his best to prevent.
That doesn't mean he isn't protecting speech, it just means the world is rather nuanced. I disagree that he's found a good balance, but that doesn't mean it's a binary scenario.
White people.
Men.
Wealthy people that aren't themselves.
Native Europeans.
Is that a long enough list? I've already covered well over half the world's population..
WORD!
But... there ARE limits to free speech. I'm all for fighting this recent wave of oppression. "...but I'll defend your right to say it..." blahblahblah and all that. But let's not go too extreme in the other direction.
Calling for violence. Specifically planning a lynch mob to go hurt someone at a specific time and place. That's illegal. It constrains what you're allowed to say and therefore free speech. Calling for all emac users to be flayed alive some time in the future? That's a general call and more of a political viewpoint. Suggesting we mob Chas tomorrow after work outside of his office and give him a wet willie? That's specific, and tantamount to conspiring to violence (of the most heinous sort). This is illegal because of all those dead black people hanging from trees in the south surrounded by mobs of white folk. It was a problem so we made it illegal. Hopefully we don't go back to lynch mobs, but now we have tools to throw them in jail if they try.
Inciting panic over false threats. It's illegal to make bomb threats. "Calling fire in a theater". This sort of scenario is where words DO cause real physical harm. (Or massive disruption while the bomb squad pokes bags or IT uninstalls emacs). If this is allowed it's an obvious denial of service security hole that would eventually be abused by actual terrorists.
Commercial speech. We're supposed to have truth in advertising. People can't sell you snake oil medicine and lie about it's properties. If you're paid to say it, you can't knowingly lie. Without this, fraud is legal and people might start praising emacs.
Local censorship. You can't swear like a sailor at a kindergarten. You can't constantly hit on people at yoga class. This isn't illegal (maybe, fuck if I know) but the local authorities can kick you out. The teacher, the instructor, the mods. This is fine. And they can make up whatever crazy rules they want. It's their land/building/server. They can't arrest you or fine you, but they are not forced to put up with you.
(eh, ok, city ordinances can also fine you for playing your music too loud at night and such. That's a little fuzzier.)
Any and all emacs discussion. This just goes without saying. We don't want this sort of indecency going on here.
While I staunchly defend the ideals of free speech and discourage censorship from both government and elsewhere, these are perfectly reasonable and justifiable limits on free speech.
Stick your psychodrama where you keep your gerbils, honey.
I find your affinity for the smell of male shit...disturbing.
That, isn't limited to SJW's.
That, in fact, is prescribed to people who DO NOT understand, nor attempt to understand, the lessons of history.
Thanks for being an example!
MLK Jr. was a SJW. How about we save our vitriol for those filled with hate and not for those trying to improve it (albeit imperfectly)?
kinda like how blacks used to stage sit ins. What they did was by no means easy. They went through a great deal of expense, stress and difficulty not just to prove a point but to set a precedent that their rights could be protected.
And the bakery wasn't targeted for it's religious beliefs. They were targeted because they used those religious beliefs to target other people. Hell, until the 70s the Mormons used to do it with blacks. It took effort to get them to see the error of their ways.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
He says you can't force Reddit to post hate speech. You seem to be agreeing with that. You say he's got no right to stop you from running a Reddit like site that allows hate speech posts. He seem to be agreeing with you on that.
The subtext I keep getting on this thread over and over is that Reddit is an opponent of free speech because they are going to ban/filter hate speech. But I haven't heard any evidence of that. Until Reddit says the Government should ban/filter hate speech then they're not knocking out anyone's soap box. But to be fair, they may very well have said that and I missed it. If so, can you post a citation? Thanks!
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't think Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren want to rule the world. I don't much indication they want to tell people how to live (that SESTA thing not withstanding, which I think was more a bad vote than a moralistic one). I do see them telling the well to do that they need to pay their share for the civilization they enjoy. But that's not telling them how to live, that's telling them to pay their damn dues.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Phrases like "hate crime" or "hate speech" shouldn't exist either.
It's a step in the right direction.
And who gets to draw this line between "offensive" and "incendiary"?
For private venues and platforms, the owner chooses what to allow.
For laws, the Supreme Court decides whether an element of speech puts it outside the protection of the First Amendment. There are already exceptions for speaking or writing certain things such as threats, blackmail, extortion, libel/slander, and fraud.
Personally, "incendiary" includes threatening elements such as intimidation and incitement to commit violence, even in the absence of a direct and specific threat.\ We can always find statements that fall into a grey area, but just as often someone clearly crosses the line. This applies to extremists on both sides. Opposing views do not justify threats or violence, and injustices never justify violence against innocent people.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Wait for political speech to be next.
Reminding people that their politician lacks the stamina to give a speech.
That their candidate stayed on the East and West Coast.
Of past speeches talking in a negative way about most of the USA? That their candidate has lots of health problems.
Talk about that too often in a virtual town square?
A site that says its open to the public and is a neutral public forum?
Expect selective enforcement for having political views next?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Censoring "hate" speech is not the answer. Let people speak and out themselves. Better for all of us! If you don't like it, then don't respond or ignore.
Yep, pretty much. This sums it up:
https://ibb.co/mpAtwn
I don't care if you are Left or Right. If you can't admit the hypocrisy on your side, you're a shit.
Reddit's run by a bunch of lame ass hypocrites. After banning, shadowbanning, vote manipulation, algorithm modification and more just to keep some undesirables off their site, this spastic piece of shit called "spez" must have realised that BLM is equally or even more racist.
Reddit is dead.
Voat is where there's true free speech.
Better than FB....
This is fake news. EVERYONE knows that Reddit is very heavily censored. The owners of Reddit obviously have zero commitment to freedom of speech.
"But..."
This right here indicates that you have completely understood the purpose of free speech.
"There are limits to free speech."
NO! BAD! WRONG! BAD! DUMB!
There are NO limits to free speech.
All your examples are crimes for reasons BESIDES the speech itself. This is not an indicator of a limit.
Because you CAN scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You CAN lie about medications and treatments your company produces. You CAN swear at little kids.
You will simply be arrested afterwards for abuse of your freedom of speech (and breaking several laws).
Free speech is not speech free from consequence. So yes, you can say whatever the fuck you want. Just be aware that certain types and uses of free speech create real-world harm beyond the simple utterance.
So if someone wants to start talking about the N-word, the K-word, or whatever else is offense-du-jour. FINE!
As long as they're not breaking any laws doing so (like incitement), it's all good. Well. Up until someone lynches them.
I don't have to LIKE it. And I'll most likely tune that shit out.
But the only way to truly destroy bad ideas is to expose them. And let them die.
And going "Oh! You CAN'T say THAAAAAAAT!!!"
Prohibition doesn't work. See the US alcohol prohibition. See the War on Drugs.
All you do is create a marketplace for that kind of stuff, completely beyond your control. Because anything not being said openly is being discussed covertly with ZERO moderating influence.
And what you've created at that point are "blasphemy" laws.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Because all the SJW's are too dumb to realize the "hate speech" laws they want passed can be turned right around against themselves.
How?
We have hate speech laws in my country and we have a higher standard of living, lower crime rates, lower murder rates, lower corruption, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality etc than the US. I'm interested in how you think think this is a bad thing?
But the idea that offensive speech OF ANY STRIPE is somehow "not protected" by Free Speech is INSANE.
This is well worn territory:
Yelling fire in a theatre
Falsely reporting a crime
Breaching an NDA
Phone-sexing children
Free speech sounds noble on the surface, but there are some limits which make society a better place, which ultimately is the end goal.
Again,
I'd argue that the speech is still free.
What you're being prosecuted for are run-on effects that are a consequence of your speech.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Someone didn't like my valid questions and modded them as troll. I guess they are trying to take away my free speech and also didn't read my sig
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
This right here indicates that you have completely understood the purpose of free speech.
Thank you
There are NO limits to free speech.
Ah, you're crazy. Have fun with that.
Free speech is not speech free from consequence.
And here's the crazy. Because by this logic, everyone in the most fascist oppressive thought-crime hellhole has complete and absolute freedom of speech. They can say whatever they want. ....But they're not free from the consequences of the state goons blackbagging them in the night...
"Consequences" range allllll the way from summary execution to people scoffing at you and walking away. Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from OTHER people saying mean things. But it should protect you from being silenced and censored. If you swear at kids in a kindergarten, they will stop you.
Are you so crazy that you're suggesting we SHOULD allow people to yell profanities at our children at kindergarten and not stop them?
Because anything not being said openly is being discussed covertly with ZERO moderating influence.
So what do you think about subbreddits where the mods work their damned hardest to block and ban anyone coming in and having rational discussion? Take..... /r/latestagecapitalism a sub which, you know, I generally agree with the concept but they take it way way WAY too far. So, a lot of similarities with this thread here. Apparently 6 months ago they simply started banning anyone that has any sort of debate. It's a "safe space for leftists". Their words. I thought it was an april fools joke. But no, they're enforcing their bubble. They are blocking any sort of moderating influence to keep their craziness in check. It's not good.
No. You completely misunderstand my point.
I'm saying there is NOTHING STOPPING YOU (but you) from abusing your freedom of speech.
This notion of "allowed" is simply self-abrogation of one's own responsibilities
Because, in the end YOU are the ultimate arbiter of what YOU do and say.
I'm saying there are, however, consequences for such abuses.
And I'm saying that yes, some consequences are going to make life unpleasant for you.
So, since YOU are the ultimate arbiter of what you do and say, it's up to YOU to determine a modicum of appropriateness that you (and others) can live with.
Reddit is a (generally) moderated platform, privately held. As such, you have ZERO expectation of complete freedom of speech. Just as with any other form of social networking platform that you, yourself, do not own (lock, stock and barrel).
You can attempt to PUSH whatever artificial limits are in place.
But they're free to delete you and deny you access.
It's their end of "don't listen and change the channel".
I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Because you're redefining "free" into a bullshit non-statement.
Imagine you're in a prison. Do you think to yourself "I AM the ultimate arbiter of where I go! I can go anywhere! I just have to accept that if I step over that line the guy in the guardtower is free to shoot me, and that would be.... inappropriate". ....Do you really have freedom of movement?
If you think "no", then you're not completely crazy and you should realize this line of reasoning applies to speech as well. If you think "Yes, prisoners are free to move and go wherever they want", then you're crazy in the sense that you're no longer operating with the same terms as everyone else and you've got some double-think going on to the levels of "war is peace" and "freedom is slavery". This just isn't how the vast majority of people see the world and define these terms. Communication will be hard. Somehow you spin this worldview into a perfectly workable end product. Hey, you and I are more or less on the same page when it comes to how people should be censored. But we disagree fundamentally on just what freedom is.
Someone didn't like my valid questions and modded them as troll.
Maybe they thought you were a Communist or something, and so your speech doesn't count. I doubt you're smart enough to see the irony...
Except that you're missing the point. Nazis have a public forum. I believe they had to go out of country to host it, but that didn't stop them. Reddit has a right to shut down Nazi propaganda on their site that is independent of whether Nazi propaganda is a good thing or not. (Full disclosure: I have a strong personal hate for Nazis, in addition to the rational hate.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Similarly, if you don't like a company denying you the right to say something on their site, be an adult. Find another site. Start your own. Don't go whining to the government that the company needs to be forced to give you a platform.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Nobody should have a problem with not giving Marxists a public forum. Or Stalinists. Or Nazis. Very loosely paraphrasing Sir Karl Popper, there is no need at all to be tolerant to intolerant people. On the contrary, you have to fight them actively and one reasonable and legitimate means of doing that is to not give them public forums and advertisement platforms.
It's really pretty simple and kind of sad how so many conservative people in the US seem to have lost their moral compass:
* tolerant people who support democracy and discuss with at least a minimal amount of honesty, civility, respect, and politeness == the good guys
* intolerant people who support totalitarianism, spew hatred, disinformation, propagate genocide or homicide, and have no respect for others and lack all politeness == the bad guys
Got it?
What will you do when the Marxists or Stalinists or Nazis get the power to decide that your speech is "hate speech"?
Don't tell me no leader of your country would ever be a dishonest authoritarian, willing to lie to harm their enemies. Those are the people who win the game of politics in the long run.
Don't tell me you will pick a fight with a government and win. That only works when the government operates with restraint, and your attempt to destroy the government's limit on suppressing opinions sets the precedent that restraints are optional. Marxists and Nazis will kill you just for saying they are doing something wrong, under the pretext that your saying so is "hate speech".
Don't tell me "hate speech" is a well defined term that no one could twist to use against you. A few examples:
If you support gay rights, you "hate traditional values".
Under the second Bush in America, if you were against torture, you "hate America".
For abortion? You "support genocide of the unborn".
Against abortion? You are part of a "war on Women".
Support a state for the Palestinians? You must be an anti-semite!
Support israel's right to self-defense? Islamophobe!
You think you can make a rule about "hate speech" that only applies to violent psychopaths, and not to nonviolent honest people. You are wrong. Please do not set the precedent that the people in power get to ban ideas that are "bad". The next people in power will define "bad" to justify hurting you.
And what's wrong with allowing free speech - as long as the content has clear context?
Huffman is correct: there IS a difference between believing something and acting in a harmful way about it (behavior).
ANY attempt by ANY entity to infringe on our right to Freedom of Speech SHOULD be met with a loaded gun (oh - yeah, that other Right we have)!
Presenting unsubstantiated info is akin to lying if portrayed as truth without facts as proof.
Trump gets away with it by qualifying his false facts and lies with a phrase like "they are saying" or "I am hearing..."
This society (USA) is NOT a monarchy or a dictatorship (YET!), and our Rights should be defended to the death (preferably of the infringing party).
I will NOT be bullied out of my Rights.
There is a difference between "bullying" someone, and simply stating your opinion.
Stating facts about someone's shortcomings is not bullying. Grow up!
Oh, and one last thing: I think that anyone that voted for Trump is a foolish idiot. They need to wake up and see ALL the FACTS (not alternate facts).
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
If topless dancing is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, then baking a wedding cake sure as hell must also be protected speech.
Ask a Trump hater what he or she (it can be either one of the two genders that exist, the response will be the same) thinks about a Trump supporter, and you'll see just how much violence and hatred fills the heart of a typical social justice retard.
Again,
I'd argue that the speech is still free. What you're being prosecuted for are run-on effects that are a consequence of your speech.
Ok, if that makes you feel better, but the law says otherwise.