Comment by dagmx
4 years ago
Is it censoring free speech when the goal of the speech is to actively harm people? I’m not sure of any nation that has no caveats to their idea of free speech
4 years ago
Is it censoring free speech when the goal of the speech is to actively harm people? I’m not sure of any nation that has no caveats to their idea of free speech
Is declining to participate by re-transmitting such speech even censorship? You can't force a company to take you as a customer, being a shit head isn't a protected class.
Agreed, being dropped from cloud flare isn’t censorship. It’s refusing to actively provide resources to them in their pursuit to harm people.
Also agreed, but I think in some ways there are a few companies that have too much control or influence over the internet as a whole.
CLoudflare makes it nearly impossible to operate without a large network by knownly allowing DDOS-for-Hire services to illegally use its services.
2 replies →
Thank da Lord, a rational series of comments.
Agreed!
Regardless of the behavior of the people at kiwifarms, I still find it odd that we have protected classes of people that are more equal than others. Everyone should receive the same rights.
Calls for acts of violence already hasn’t been legal. Hate speech is outside of that scope, otherwise we wouldn’t have another term for that (all calls for violence could be hate speech, but not all hate speech is calls for violence)
Therefore what is hate speech? Are words violence in and of themselves?
My interpretation of hate speech is that it attempts to "dehumanize" a category of people with malice.
Not a lawyer or a linguist, just Yet Another Internet Spectator.
Sometimes hate speech can be done with a smile and a calm voice, but it's still toxic. I'd posit that that kind of speech has been quite effective in ramping up the political divide and I only see it getting worse.
I recognize that real censorship is a dangerous thing, but would counter that there's a lot of speech that, while legal, should not be celebrated.
Calls for violence are legal in the United States.
The specific thing that is illegal is "incitement to imminent lawless action", which is distinguished from advocacy for violent principles.
2 replies →
>Calls for acts of violence already hasn’t been legal.
Pretty sure calls for acts of violence is legal in the United States unless that call for violence is intended to produce an imminent lawless action.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373
Not entirely sure you’re correct on this one?
11 replies →
> unless that call for violence is intended to produce an imminent lawless action
So it’s fine to call for violence, as long as the violence in question would be legal if it were acted upon?
That makes so much sense, it seems like it would go without saying. If the violent act itself was legal (like a war, or an organized boxing match), why wouldn’t it be legal to solicit or petition for it?
2 replies →
A lot of crime involves speech: extortion, e.g. You can't extort someone without speech or communication of some sort.
Which wasn't what KF doing.
Yes, you may be pro-censorship, but if so don't claim to be for free speech.