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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
the /. mods will happily let them stand
Perhaps you don't understand how the Slashdot moderation system works. We are the moderators. And you are free to mod down any comments that you feel are trolling, incitefull or just off topic.
structural racism
I don't see anything in the design of Slashdot that excludes any particular group. In fact, we don't even require that you identify yourself by race or gender anymore. So there is nothing about this forum that excludes anyone.
Have gnu, will travel.
Fun part being that the opposite is most likely true. Progressive women are not breeding in anything close to replenishment level, in fact doing the exact opposite. Openly declaring that they will not breed at all, because there are too many people. While those people who do breed well don't just abhor their values - they think their values need to be beaten out of them. With sticks and whips. As they do across the world today to people like them.
So future generations are likely to come from the latter kind of people, ending modern progressivism and causing future generations to view it as we view late day Rome. Degenerate and repulsive. On the bright side, at least we'll all be dead by that time of old age, so we won't have to live through that self-created nightmare.
Good thing you are not in charge then. Offensive is subjective. You may find yourself on the wrong end of that value system one day. Do not assume that the next generation will find you amusing.
Just ask a comedian in the UK how quickly the mantra "Hate Speech is Not Free Speech" became "Joke Speech is Not Free Speech."
Are you a Christian? Would you be fine with it if a shop owner told you he doesn't sell his wares to Christians? Only to, say, Muslims? What if you lived in a small town and the 3 shop owners in the town in addition to the barber decided to not sell any wares or services to Christians, would you be fine with that, too?
Are you white? What if you stopped at a gas station and the owner, a black man, told you "sorry, we don't serve white men". Would that be totally okay to you? Even if your car had to town away? Do you really it would some kind of crime if the law forced this gas station owner to sell to white men, too?
Why is all of that suddenly okay when Google, Facebook and Twitter do it?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
Yes, but this has been conflated with the idea that offensive ideas aren't a value worth protecting. Offensive ideas expressed in a non-offensive way should be protected as those ideas may come to seem less offensive in the future.
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.
thankfully political belief is not a heritable trait. The only thing that is degenerate and repulsive is conservative politics as you have demonstrated here. Women do not exist solely to "breed" as you so lovingly put it. They also should not be whipped and beaten for exercising their freedoms in the same way that you can. If I were a woman, I sure as fuck would not be "breeding" with a conservative neckbeard like you!
Are you an idiot who didn't read the court filings in question where plaintiffs admitted the defendants were willing to sell the couple any of their premade cakes or a blank sheet cake? Yes, yes you are. What the cake shop in question was not willing to do was sell a custom piece of edible art that exists solely as a symbol for something they consider sacred for an event they believe is immoral and wrong.
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.
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.
What is a heritable trait however is culture, and overwhelming majority of people on the planet who are well above replenishment rate are those who's cultures view modern progressivism as pure evil to be purged from this world.
We're already seeing it in Middle Eastern, Pakistani/Afghani and African ghettos in European states that have them, and in utter rejection of the same values across Asian and African states that enjoy significant population growth.
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?
At one point or another, every law has punished an innocent person. So to make this work, should all laws be repealed?
Just another second banana
You think that's shocking? I always suspected the hate-mongers would have delusions when it came to who to suppress. I doesn't surprise me at all, I mean, these people have to have some mental issues to openly hate a group of people. I get that they see a trend and are quick to judge, but exposing such bullshit, I really didn't have faith that they would be internally consistent.
The shocker came when my own party started lashing out against free speech. Like they don't remember the hippies getting silenced and their war-protests getting shut down. Like they don't even remember the Occupy movement getting kicked out and dispersed. This used to be a cornerstone of a "good thing" that we upheld. A pillar of society we supported. But no, the moment that some people they don't like get a little uppity and flex their right to free speech suddenly it's a terrible thing. Something that can be abused. I've had to point out so many times that Free Speech is bigger than the first amendment, it's becoming a pain. Political parties change. I get that. I just don't like this change. So I'll do my damned best to remind people that if you don't support the minority's ability to speak out, you are an oppressive shit-stain on history.
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".
the /. mods will happily let them stand
Perhaps you don't understand how the Slashdot moderation system works. We are the moderators. And you are free to mod down any comments that you feel are trolling, incitefull or just off topic.
Perhaps you don't know how the reporting flags work. It's supposed to enable admins to remove content that is beyond just Offtopic or Flamebait
structural racism
I don't see anything in the design of Slashdot that excludes any particular group. In fact, we don't even require that you identify yourself by race or gender anymore. So there is nothing about this forum that excludes anyone.
And for the record structural racism isn't individual racism which is what you're talking about. Structural racism is like how on slashdot everyone feels perfectly content to belittle minorities because there's no consequence for doing so
Just another second banana
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.
No one says they don't have the right. That's moronic that people like you keep trying to bring that up. Of course they have the right. that's not even germane to the debate. Also you have the right to pee standing up even if you're a girl. But that's about as useful to this debate as what you're saying. The point isn't that reddit does or does not have the right. The point is that as you say those people are just assholes desperate for attention and that by allowing them to flourish on reddit. Reddits admins are just assholes desperate for attention. Every time we point this out and people like you bring up "They're allowed to do it" you sound like a two year old trying to argue global politics. You just prove you don't even have the mental tools to participate. If we call reddit out for being just assholes desperate for attention we're not saying they're legally obligated to not be just assholes desperate for attention. We're saying you can't be just assholes desperate for attention and pretend you aren't just assholes desperate for attention. We're saying We see you reddit and you are being just assholes desperate for attention so either stop it or stop saying you aren't.
Just another second banana
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.
hey at least you said unfortunately. So many slashdotters have been cheering gleefully like hate speech is a necessary product for a society to work rather than an unavoidable by product of a working society.
Just another second banana
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.
The one sure thing you can know when you embrace censorship is that opinions that oppose the censor will be censored and you have left no one to watch the watches.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
everyone feels perfectly content to belittle minorities
But how does that exclude substantial numbers of people from minority backgrounds from taking part? We aren't going to legislate society into some shape that makes everyone comfortable. The world doesn't work like that. Nobody knows what you are on Slashdot. So if someone uses a racist slur, how can you assume that it is aimed at excluding you? If someone uses the 'N' word here, you can fight back. Because you are white, but don't like their attitude. Or you are black and feel personally offended. And don't like their attitude. Either way, the most valid argument is that it is insensitive. Not that you are personally injured and somehow excluded.
Nobody knows if you are a dog on the Internet.
Have gnu, will travel.
So in other words, you have no argument.
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'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!!!
Be careful with whom you make common cause. Those same peoples also overwhelmingly reject freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom to be secure from government searches, and many of the other things that are part and parcel of modern liberalism.
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?
A restaurant owner - just like Google, Facebook, or Twitter - is well within their rights to ask you to stop screaming derogatory things at or about the other patrons of their business, and to kick you off their property if you don't abide by that request.
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.
Ok, but here's the problem. What happens when 'offensive speech' is things like 'I don't agree with our political leadership' or 'women should have equal rights' or 'maybe we shouldn't enslave people' or 'I have this theory that the Earth orbits the Sun?'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Or, to put it another way:
Reddit Continues To Protect Free Speech In Favor of Free Speech
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It's foolish to think that racist language on an internet website equals racism. It's about shock value, and getting attention.
But it should be noted that if you are on the receiving end, the difference between racism and someone just trying to get a reaction can be indistinguishable.
The First Amendment protects it in the real world, and Reddit has the right to allow it on their privately owned servers.
Reddit has the right to disallow it, as well, or to selectively allow it.
I don't think you read my argument, considering the sheer amount of projecting you're doing right now.
The sheer amount of projection between the original OC and you is amazing. Common cause is it? If you were to stop with the "us vs them" insanity, you'd actually be able to comprehend what the last sentence of my opening statement said:
>On the bright side, at least we'll all be dead by that time of old age, so we won't have to live through that self-created nightmare.
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.
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/
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.
Structural racism is like how on slashdot everyone feels perfectly content to belittle minorities because there's no consequence for doing so
Dude, let it go. Emacs has lost the war and all you old codgers are just fools for not waking up and smelling the coffee that Vi is dominant. And calling yourselves a "race" is bullshit.
The offer work for hire and are refusing to work for someone because of that someone's sexual orientation. If they just baked cakes, there wouldn't be a problem. But, they are offering an inferior service to a customer which the baker admitted was based on the customer's inclusion in a class that happens to be a protected class.
Would you feel the same if it were a black couple being told "I will sell you a cake but I won't decorate it because you are black"?
How about if they were being told they had to sit in a particular section of a restaurant or drink only out of a specific water fountain?
What if it were an interracial couple (interracial marriage is banned in the bible e.g. Deut7:3 and Ezra 9:12) were told by a baker "I will sell you a cake but I will not decorate it because I believe in the bible and it says mixed race marriages are wrong"?
How about if it were a Jewish couple being told by the baker "I will sell you a cake but I won't decorate it with a Star of David because Jews killed Jesus"?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Erm.. bad example. Because yes, they do.
(So do the rest of us. Innate survival trait.)
The websites that have policies against derogatory screaming and enforce them based on derogatory screaming and not on who is doing it don't get called out for being biased cesspools of political bias.
Unlike, to pick an example, Twitter.
Who's a near monopoly, now? Reddit? Facebook?
Would you disagree that Facebook is a monopoly?
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.
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/
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.
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.
Hint: Google, Facebook, and Twitter don't do that. They'll treat you as your behavior indicates, not anything innate to you.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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
From watching that Congressional hearing, the government thinks its a monopoly.
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.
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.