Thought Criminals

[chiknbut]

Inspired by Psych's response in the anti-semitism thread.

I know he was just trolling. But with this response and the recent banning of Count, I wonder, where do you draw the line?

Freedom of speech - groovy! But at what point does the quest for this freedom become a burden on society?

DC writes that alternative sites serve a certain purpose for those, some in academia, who feel they cannot conduct an honest discussion on Conservatism without being called Nazis.

Inevitably Gab or some other site runs amok with Nazis and then in come, as Psych puts it, the Thought Police.

Should there be no limits on Free Speech? Some. And who decides?

[twocoach]

There are ample laws on the books about what is allowed and what is protected in both spoken and wriyten speech today. Like with any law, if people have a problem with these laws they can take it up with the folks in office whose job it is to maintain those laws.

[HouseDivided]

We seem to have lost our way where distinguishing between rhetoric and incitement to violence are concerned. The past two decades have seen our culture gradually moving to the point where, if it hurts my feelings or makes me uncomfortable, it is hate speech. There is yelling "Fire" in a crowed theater or publicly plotting to murder people for their ethnic or religious affiliation, and then there is most of the stuff said around here that gets peoples' knickers in a twist.

The problem arises when we lay aside common sense and blur the line between the two.

As Cathy Newman stupidly asked Jordan Peterson while he was destroying her in a televised debate, "Are you really suggesting that your right to free speech is more important than my right NOT to be offended?" I would argue yes.

Gab originated as an alternative to Twitter and Facebook for people who were being censored for supporting conservative viewpoints. As is wont to happen, it was infiltrated by people who had views that were much more insidious in nature. In retrospect, they probably erred too much on the side of being the Anti-Facebook and too little on policing real hate speech.

To wit: I thought the Michelle Obama dick pic was mildly amusing, if in poor taste, but IMZ went over the line hyperlinking the anti-Semitic websites. Seems like most people around here see them as one and the same, and that's what augurs poorly for our culture as a whole.

[DCHawk1]

Inspired by Psych's response in the anti-semitism thread.

I know he was just trolling. But with this response and the recent banning of Count, I wonder, where do you draw the line?

Freedom of speech - groovy! But at what point does the quest for this freedom become a burden on society?

DC writes that alternative sites serve a certain purpose for those, some in academia, who feel they cannot conduct an honest discussion on Conservatism without being called Nazis.

Inevitably Gab or some other site runs amok with Nazis and then in come, as Psych puts it, the Thought Police.

Should there be no limits on Free Speech? Some. And who decides?

In this particular instance -- gab, specifically -- the issue is incredibly convoluted. Does GoDaddy have an obligation to host sites it finds problematic? If it doesn't, then GoDaddy gets to decide whose speech is or is not acceptable? Is that a standard we want? If it does, then why? Can web-hosting services be treated like a public utilities?

And then the questions get really complicated.

If you have a right to speech, but are denied access to the predominant societal mechanisms to exercise that right, then is the right worth anything?

GoDaddy says that their standard for speech that not protected is actual, literal incitement of violence (the constitutional standard, as well). Can they demonstrate that? Do they care?

Should the app/service provider be held responsible for the speech of those using its product?

Etc., etc., ad infinitum.

[Geezer]

Internet service providers are a private enterprise not a public utility. Until the alt-right is defined as a protected class, they can be refused.

[DCHawk1]

That's a weird and irrelevant couple of thoughts, but OK.

[Mjl]

Such a tough subject. This type of thing inspires people to commit acts like the one in Pittsburg.

Certainly the government shouldn't play any role in censoring. But people and organizations can and absolutely should do so.

And if you're going to be a bigot and spreader of harmful propoganda, you have no right to complain when society rips you apart and excludes you.