Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reddit Continues To Protect Racist Language In Favor of Free Speech (digitaltrends.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the lone-wolf dept.

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."

40 of 661 comments (clear)

  1. ALL SPEECH.... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Minus Threats and Causing a Panic, are PROTECTED.... Even VILE, UNCOMFORTABLE, and UNPOPULAR Speech.... Is PROTECTED! Long Live the FIRST!

    1. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by Bozzio · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... protected from government censoring in the US.

      Added some context.

      --
      I just pooped your party.
    2. Re: ALL SPEECH.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      While the distinction is appreciated, in the USA the government is us. A government of the people. We should not be censoring each other. If we don't like the words, we don't have to read them.

    3. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >... protected from government censoring in the US.
      >
      > Added some context.

      Let me add some more. In the US, liberty is though of as something that government doesn't need to "give" to you. It exists as part of your natural condition. The Constitution exists to define the limits of government. It does not enumerate your rights.

      You are demonstrating that you simply don't care about the principle at large. YOU are why we need laws protecting us from evil men that would do us harm. YOU would do us harm otherwise.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by Travelsonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Free Speech" isn't just a governmental/legal concept. It is also a concept that applies to society's handling of ideas, and the flow of ideas on a societal level as well.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    5. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by Bozzio · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I was demonstrating that some people don't live in the US.

      You are demonstrating how to build a strawman and get angry on the internet.

      --
      I just pooped your party.
    6. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by Stan92057 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree whole hardhearted. Its their money, its their Site. Dont like it? go make your own hate/lawful activity allowing site..reedit doing you a favor kudos to them but tomorrow if they decide not to allow it kudos to them its their business not mine. Stop expecting other to fight your battles and expect them to pay for it as well.Amazing how free people are with other peoples money today. And name one law the government is using to force reddit or any other site to stop hate speech?

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    7. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But we can force a business to bake a gay weedding cake... Just not to allow all to speak... Pathetic.

    8. Re: ALL SPEECH.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, the Disney Channel isn't obligated to air your homemade porn, but as a service they don't air outside content anyway.
      Reddit accepts people's posts. They've decided not to censor racist language. It's good that somebody doesn't.

    9. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thats not how the leftists think. The leftists think its all about power and the government is power. Nothing else but power matters to them.

      Oh, please. Everyone thinks that, not just leftists. Rightists want to use the power of government to tell people whom they can marry, whom they can have sex with and when, and whether or not they can have an abortion or use birth control. Everybody wants to rule the world.

    10. Re: ALL SPEECH.... by Bozzio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know why I even bother using slashdot anymore. There is no nuance to the discourse.

      Although I suspect you deliberately chose to misunderstand me I'll indulge you.

      I'm not saying that matters relating to free speech don't affect people outside the US. I was trying to highlight the fact that Reddit extends beyond the US and approaching this problem with a US-centric view will not make it easy to find a broader solution.

      Now do everyone a favour: Stop jumping at the opportunity to feign outrage and start taking a moment to consider whether your contributions to the discussion are more than just noise.

      --
      I just pooped your party.
    11. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by butchersong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first amendment is a reflection of the underlying philosophy that has led to the rise of the West and our modern world. This is why western societies most likely to prosecute hate/incorrect though crimes can be labeled these days as fundamentally in decline. Our willingness to challenge the orthodoxy, to be heretics is what leads to true progress. The things someone says today that seem to hurtful and antithetical to everything you believe may actually be TRUE and VALUABLE. Do you leave the decision about whether someone is a maverick blazing a new trail or just a person who's words have no value and should be suppressed up to bureaucrats or do you let allow all words that can possibly be viewed as not a direct threat of violence into the arena and see where the ideas take us?

    12. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by blogagog · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wish I was moderating right now so I could +1 you.

    13. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whether you're talking about "free speech" as a legal concept or a moral concept, it only extends to your right to say something. [...] It doesn't mean that other people are obligated to promote your speech or provide you with a platform.

      You mean like a wedding cake?

      You see, this is where the argument breaks down - either the government forces all businesses to allow all legal speech, or the government allows all businesses to determine what speech they want to allow on businesses platform/cake.

      Any in between turns into the government picking the winners of any argument, by allowing only certain arguments to be made.

      You know, there's a reason that the hard-left gave rise to Hitler. It's because they were in such a fucking hurry to shutdown down wrongthink by the individual in favour of groupthink by the society.

      Popular speech needs no protection - repeat that three times every day before going to bed until you get it.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    14. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Go back to reddit, racist Trump faggots.

    15. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by cje · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Curious.

      Does your definition of "liberty" include forcing privately-owned and operated Web sites to carry and publish material that the proprietors may fundamentally disagree with?

      Would the proprietors of these Web sites fall under your definition of "evil men that would do us harm" if they attempted to establish and enforce their own principles on their own private property?

      --
      We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
    16. Re: ALL SPEECH.... by thewolfkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While the distinction is appreciated, in the USA the government is us. A government of the people. We should not be censoring each other. If we don't like the words, we don't have to read them.

      No the distinction is VERY important because we SHOULD be censoring each other. We have no obligation to put up with things we don't like. If I find words in a book (that I own) that I don't like. I'm perfectly allowed to burn that book. That's censorship. But it's not the government. The book can still be found on bookshelves in other people's homes and I can't demand that city hall forced bookstores to remove it and burn all copies.

      That is why the distinction is important. A bookstore can find all copies of the book and burn it. They can't make the government force me to turn my copy back into the bookstore and burn my copy. Again the distinction is important. We're all allowed to censor. We ARE NOT the government. We are allowed freedoms that the government can not be allowed to have. I can kick you out of my home for being a Protestant. I can kick you out of my home for being a woman. The government can not do that.

      --
      Just another second banana
    17. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Okay, look, as a business of public accommodation (a business open to the public), they are required to not discriminate against customers.

      SCOTUS has yet to rule on that (they will do so later this year) but there are a few objections I have to this:

      - The customer is giving their money to somebody who hates them and demanding that they take their money. Seriously, why would you do this? I'd boycott them if anything.
      - There is a word in the English language for forcing somebody to perform a service against their will.

    18. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fuck you! Hate speech IS free speech. Fuck you again, ghost pepper lube.

      I don't want to shut down commies speaking, no matter how high their megadeath count is. Why? Commies are better than crypto commies. Same as Nazis are better than crypto Nazies.

      The one you have to worry about is the Stalinist that has the sense to keep his plans private. Not the drooling street screamer.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    19. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by SJMage · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Free speech protects you from the GOVERNMENT, genius.
      But since you're bringing up expediency, for the sake of argument, let's pretend the 1st amendment refers to all speech: well so fucking what?
      Free speech was enshrined because we considered it useful, because the concept came from a time when you had to stand up for what you say, you couldn't just spew hate speech anonymously without consequence. Times have changed, we now live in the age of Trump and online misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia and all kinds of anonymous bigotry and hate speech, this is not what free speech was supposed to protect.
      So what if we reexamine the concept of free speech and whether or not it's serving a good cause?
      Now you have no white old man conventions to hide behind, you have to tell me HOW allowing hate speech is going to benefit society at all, particularly oppressed groups like women, LGBT, people of color and Muslims. And you can't do that, you know why? Because these religious invocations of "freeze peach" are just the cries of dying reactionaries wishing to turn back the clock to an era where they could abuse oppressed groups without consequence.

    20. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everyone thinks that, not just leftists

      I'm a libertarian. I don't think like that, not by a long shot. But then again, I'm a fringe element that views Statism (both left and right) with a vile contempt, and abuser of liberties for the purposes of control.

      Liberty is messy, and dangerous. I just want people to recognize safety is not something worth giving up liberty for.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    21. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Free speech protects you from the GOVERNMENT, genius.

      Free speech is a fundamental human right. The First Amendment specifically protects you against government taking away that right, sure, because that's the scope of the Amendments: protecting you from the government. But free speech remains a fundamental human right in any context.

      There is no right not to be offended though. The only free speech that matters is speech that offends you.

      Free speech was enshrined because we considered it useful, because the concept came from a time when you had to stand up for what you say, you couldn't just spew hate speech anonymously without consequence.

      This is what kids learn instead of history? I blame the schools. FYI, anonymous pamphleteering filled with every kind of slur and insult was common then, and some of the Founding Fathers were busy printing some pretty vile shit to smear Royalists with.

      So what if we reexamine the concept of free speech and whether or not it's serving a good cause?

      Sure, it's always good to re-examine core beliefs. But I come to the same conclusion: free speech is a fundamental human right, while taking offense at speech is your problem.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re: ALL SPEECH.... by hesiod · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're assuming that the majority object to people coming in. That does not appear to be the case, though that is a reversal from just a few decades ago and it could switch back to being the majority opinion in the future.

    23. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Free speech is a fundamental right and I am all about any person saying what ever they want. However, it is up to you to send your message, and no one else has to provide you with a platform.

      It is not a denial of your free speech when a private organization does not let you post on their property.

      It is not a denial of your free speech when someone else doe not provide you with message amplification.

      It is not a denial of your free speech when you are not allowed on private property.

      Print all the anonymous pamphlets you want, on your press, I do not have to provide it for you.

    24. Re:ALL SPEECH.... by greythax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, I took your post and replaced the word Gay with a different protected class to see if it passed the smell test:

      They never had any intention of consuming the cake. People have mapped it out, the Black couple drove past something like a dozen other bakeries specifically to target this one because they are such screeching blue haired drama queens that they cannot physically function without calling inordinate amounts attention to themselves. The news made it out to seem like it was a surprise that the bakery wouldn't serve them, but that bakery had a well established reputation by then. The bakery was targeted because of their religious beliefs, it's the very definition of discrimination but because it's cool to be black , the other protected class won this round.

      Honestly, I am pretty sure the only way this sounds ok is if you don't believe that gay people are entitled to the same protections black people are. By the way, assuming your description of the situation is accurate, this is the model used during the civil rights movement. Groups of african americans would specifically target businesses knows not to serve people like them and hold sit ins at the lunch counter. I am sure that there are a lot of people who thought they were attention seeking too.,

  2. Free speech doesn't mean only the speech you like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So why are you making it sound like it's a bad thing?

  3. So does Slashdot. by Train0987 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what? Free speech is preferable to censorship.

  4. Good by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Neither of these are problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Neither of these are problems by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a difference, though, between harassment and disagreement. Unfortunately, people can't tell the difference between someone who harasses them and someone who disagrees with their batshit insanity.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Speech is not the same as action by CptLoRes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Speech is not the same as action by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And with free speech eroding on the internet and in general, what is next? Tought police?

      UK already has that. You can go to jail for a Facebook post with unapproved opinions.

  7. Mel Brooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. "some form" by jbmartin6 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the report:

    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.
  9. "hate speech" is an artificial construct. by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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!
  10. There is no need to protect non-offensive speech. by forkfail · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  11. Re:Free speech doesn't mean only the speech you li by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  12. Count Dankula by Kunedog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just ask a comedian in the UK how quickly the mantra "Hate Speech is Not Free Speech" became "Joke Speech is Not Free Speech."

  13. You misread by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  14. I'm in favor of Reddit's policy. by The+Raven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.