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."

Comments

ALL SPEECH....

[Zurkeyon3733]

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

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[Bozzio]

... protected from government censoring in the US.

Added some context.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[jedidiah]

>... 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.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[Travelsonic]

"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.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[XxtraLarGe]

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.

I wish more people understood this.

You are demonstrating that you simply don't care about the principle at large.

I think that's a little unfair to assume about the GP. It seemed to me that they were just clarifying that the protections in the Constitution limit on they government.

YOU are why we need laws protecting us from evil men that would do us harm. YOU would do us harm otherwise.

YOU should know better than this. So many laws "protecting us from evil men that would do us harm" is a big part of the reason we're continually moving toward a police state.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[Stan92057]

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?

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[Zurkeyon3733]

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

Re: ALL SPEECH....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[butzwonker]

All wedding cakes are gay.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: ALL SPEECH....

[Bozzio]

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.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[butchersong]

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?

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[goose-incarnated]

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.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[Kierthos]

It's not the same thing.

Okay, look, as a business of public accommodation (a business open to the public), they are required to not discriminate against customers. That is to say, they are not allowed to refuse service to a customer on the sole reason of that customer falling in a protected class.

Federally protected classes include, but are not limited to, race, age, sex, national origin or ancestry, religion or creed, and physical or mental disability. (I may have missed a couple in there.)

States are allowed to add to the federal list, but they are not allowed to remove anything from the federal list. In the state that the "gay wedding cake" occurred in, sexual orientation is also a protected class. So, the bakery in question was not allowed to deny them service solely on that basis.

Now, if the bakery had been booked solid, and would have been unable to produce the wedding cake by the time of the wedding, and they'd denied service based on that? Not discrimination.

If the bakery didn't do wedding cakes at all, as in it wasn't a service they offered, and had denied service based on that? Not discrimination.

Now, Reddit probably doesn't count as a business of public accommodation. While anyone can read most Reddit posts, you have to login to comment. It requires membership to access certain services. They are free to set the Terms and Conditions under which they will allow those services. And they are free to say what constitutes a violation of those Terms and Services. (Although, let's face it, while they should be consistent in that application, it's practically impossible to prove that.)

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[cje]

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?

Re: ALL SPEECH....

[thewolfkin]

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.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[Archangel Michael]

Unless you're a baker. Then the government can force you to use your artistic skills against your own first amendment rights.

But that is okay.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[ausekilis]

And just how do you know they prefer other wedding cakes? Have you observed their mating rituals?

I always wondered where cupcakes came from...

Re: ALL SPEECH....

[MightyYar]

It's because one thing is something someone DOES and the other is something someone IS. Judging people for what they do is fine, IMHO. Judging someone because the universe gave them brown skin is silly and counter-productive unless you are evaluating their sun protection. Judging someone because they have an ancestor from the banks of the Rhine is silly unless you are evaluating them for colon cancer.

Another way to view it is in terms of classical rights: you should be free to associate with whomever you wish. Forcing a racial identity onto someone interferes with the right to free association, as they no longer choose their identity but instead have it forced upon them.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[lgw]

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.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[ComputerGeek01]

They never had any intention of consuming the cake. People have mapped it out, the Gay 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 gay, the other protected class won this round.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[mopower70]

"The left" isn't okay with it. Some people on the left are okay with it, and other people - like you - generalize their beliefs to make a point that has no merit. Your idea isn't terribly fleshed out. Let's say a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for me because I'm black. No problem, right? I'll just go to another baker who will. Except, I live in a town with a bunch of racist fucks like this guy and the one black lady who wants to be a baker can't open a store because the racist building owners won't rent to blacks, the racist service workers wouldn't hook up her utilities if they did, the racist supply company won't sell her ingredients, and the racist bank wouldn't lend her money to start the business, and racist media wouldn't let her advertise to grow it. You can't just give your money to someone else if there's literally no one else to give it to because your minority status is at odds with the rest of your community. And I can already hear your next argument: well move someplace where that's not the case! Just re-read that paragraph and instead of a single business, apply it to entire towns, counties, even states. The entire point of these laws is that this actually happened in America and we agreed that we're better than that.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[lgw]

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.

Sure, right up until that private service effectively becomes the common forum.

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

Sure - unless you're the primary public forum. There's a reason the broadcast networks used to be bound by "equal time" laws, when other media never were.

Perhaps you also want to argue that we need to favor the speech of the historically oppressed? That free speech is violence? That free speech threatens a stable society (totalitarian regimes love that one)? We can walk through all the stale arguments used through the centuries to remove a fundamental right, if you'd like.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[RightwingNutjob]

False.

"I believe God made man and woman to be with each other" is not hate, it is religion. If you interpret that as hate, that's in your head.

"I don't believe in making women cover themselves in sheets or requiring them to have male escorts" is the opposite of hate.

The list goes on. If you feel hate where none exists, that's all on you. I am not responsible for navigating around the minefield of other people's mental states.

And regardless...people are entitled to their opinions. No one gets to reach into their heads and deem thoughts "hateful" or "criminal" based on nothing besides their own opinion.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[Archangel Michael]

The left CLAIMS to protect the weak from the strong. But uses strongman tactics for any slight (real or imaginary). Take for example the Left wanting to ban Diamond and Silk from Facebook for being a "danger" to our social structure. Or rioting over speakers on college campuses because they view the speakers as "evil" for simply having a different framework of thought. Or forcing a baker to the will of the state sponsored group think. Taking from one group and giving to another without regard the force required to do so.

The whole group identity politics (intersectionality) of the left thing is by definition bigoted. And yes, I am a racist, homophobe, sexist .. because that is the only way group think can handle rational thought.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[greythax]

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.,

Re: ALL SPEECH....

[reanjr]

"Corporations are people" is not just someting an old, rich, white, out-of-touch guy says. It's actually the law of the land. For the most part, the rights of individuals is transitively applied to groups of individuals. It's not hard to figure out why; if you are concerned with freedom of speech and assembly, you can see how the rights of corporations (groups of people) must be protected as well.

Re:ALL SPEECH....

[ArmoredDragon]

Yes, this is what the brochure says, but if it was really true, why is it acceptable for the government to restrict the rights of non-citizens?

Like GP said, the constitution doesn't enumerate rights. Among other things, non-citizens are not given the right to vote, and the right to hold political office. Good luck finding a country that does allow these things. Furthermore, SCOTUS has, on many occasions, denied i.e. 4th amendment rights to foreign nationals on foreign soil.

If rights truly are endowed by the Creator, and if "all men" are equal in the eyes of that Creator, then don't all men qualify equally?

Much of what is written in the declaration of independence isn't reflected in the constitution, furthermore, the declaration isn't written as a binding law, rather it's written more as the founding philosophy of the US itself. It's a bit complicated, but in general, the declaration is not enforceable, UNLESS it's being used to interpret verbiage in the constitution that might be unclear or difficult to apply to an unforeseen circumstance.

At some point, the origin myth of the United States of America falls apart and you realize the language of the Declaration was hype and the belief in the Constitution as some magical document is misplaced.

Nobody ever said the constitution was magical. It's simply a document that lays the framework for the federal government and the many states. The declaration of independence is more of a philosophical document (otherwise "the creator" would be part of our legal framework.)

Accept that it was just a tool to codify the aristocracy

No, but it did regulate (and effectively limit) their power, as well as commoditize religion. Even your buddy Karl Marx appreciated how the "bourgeoisie" accomplished that.

and slavery,

No, it didn't. At all. Sure, there was language permissive of it in the constitution, but it didn't codify it whatsoever, and furthermore, Article 1, 9 clause 1 even added language permissive of the slave trade to end. This was part of the great compromise to make sure that all 13 colonies ratified the constitution. Had this not been done, the southern states would have been allowed to hold on to slavery much longer than they did.

and the flowery language of "rights" was just to dazzle the yahoos.

No, it actually wasn't. If it was just meant to dazzle, then it was intended to dazzle the states. The bill of rights was meant for them, not for you. And in fact, they didn't apply to you, nor did they imply that they applied to you. The only thing the constitution gave you was the right to vote for your state government. SCOTUS once even ruled that your state can restrict your right to free speech. That all changed after the 14th amendment was ratified, and the south was forced to ratify it in order to regain representation.

And you know what else? I think that no matter the origins, the US has turned out alright. If we weren't here, then by all measures, you and your comrades would have enslaved the world after Europe destroyed itself in the 40's, and that's probably why you hate the US so much...which also makes me happy.

Free speech doesn't mean only the speech you like

[Anonymous Coward]

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

So does Slashdot.

[Train0987]

So what? Free speech is preferable to censorship.

Re:So does Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

* Actually you can't post the n-word here.

shuttup nigger

Re:So does Slashdot.

[Luckyo]

That's up to the mods of the specific subreddit. Not reddit itself.

Remember that each subreddit belongs to the mods, and reddit wants to take no responsibility for moderation. The saga of the_donald made that quite clear.

Re:So does Slashdot.

[91degrees]

It's an oddly inflammatory headline considering Slashdot's general leaning (both users and owners) is very much pro-free speech.

Good

[argStyopa]

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.)

Re:Good

[AmiMoJo]

Surprised to see you saying that, since you were so upset when they banned subreddits like FatPeopleHate and CoonTown.

Reddit's approach is sensible. The problem was never the language, it was never a free speech issue, it was that those subreddits were harassing people.

Re:Good

[edtice1559]

Yes the speech must be protected but that doesn't mean that the speaker is guaranteed a platform. Places like Reddit, Slashdot, Facebook, et cetera rely on positive engagement by the users. If you alienate your users in the name of free speech, you end up with nothing. Those who want to spout uninformed opinions in vitriolic language should be allowed to do so. They can by serves and domain hosting and the rest and have at it. They're not entitled to use Reddit's platform.

Neither of these are problems

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Neither of these are problems

[Opportunist]

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.

Speech is not the same as action

[CptLoRes]

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?

Re:Speech is not the same as action

[cascadingstylesheet]

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.

Mel Brooks

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

"some form"

[jbmartin6]

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".

Re:"some form"

[Opportunist]

Yeah, someone recently replied to a post of mine and dared to disagree. I felt so abused!

"hate speech" is an artificial construct.

[IGnatius T Foobar]

"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.

There is no need to protect non-offensive speech.

[forkfail]

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.

Re:Free speech doesn't mean only the speech you li

[ArchieBunker]

Because all the SJW's are too dumb to realize the "hate speech" laws they want passed can be turned right around against themselves.

Re:Free speech helps us identify the nut-cases

[Opportunist]

Because it also lets people find out that they're not the only one who thinks differently than the government.

Some real context

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Bake me a cake

[Luckyo]

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.

Count Dankula

[Kunedog]

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

bill_mcgonigle

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

You misread

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:There is no need to protect non-offensive speec

[forkfail]

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"?

Re:What I find confusing

[HeckRuler]

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.

I'm in favor of Reddit's policy.

[The Raven]

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.

"Protects racist speech". GOOD!

[Chas]

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.

Re:Free speech doesn't mean only the speech you li

[butzwonker]

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?

Re:Bake me a cake

[Green Mountain Bot]

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.

It also doesn't mean you get to shout fire

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Free speech doesn't mean only the speech you li

[Cederic]

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.