Comment by serverholic
4 years ago
The government shouldn't do anything about hate speech. Full stop.
Edit: I’d love a definition of hate speech from someone who downvoted me.
4 years ago
The government shouldn't do anything about hate speech. Full stop.
Edit: I’d love a definition of hate speech from someone who downvoted me.
Which government? surely each country gets to choose for itself - the US 1st amendment is only a US law, it doesn't apply world-wide - the internet however is a world-wide entity and once a company like CF, or Google etc gets big enough it needs to obey the law everywhere
Every government. No government should be in the business of policing hate speech.
Surely that is for my country to decide for itself - we're a democracy - you don't get a say here any more than I get a say in what the US does
4 replies →
It absolutely should. Full stop.
What is hate speech?
The German criminal code has a pretty good definition; good in the sense that it is limited. It applies to speech that fulfills 4 criteria:
* It happens in public
* it is capable of disturbing the public peace
* it attacks an entire segment of the population
* by inciting hatred, insulting, defaming or calling for violence or arbitrary measures against them.
You'll have a hard time explaining what the value is in allowing speech that fulfulls all of the above.
6 replies →
But it should do something about how 2-3 giant corporations have become effective arbiters of online speech.
Agreed. There should be (and I thought there was with Section 230) a very, very clear line between being a platform--"dumb pipe"--and a content provider with moderation and censoring capabilities. I agree with others that the law has a lot of catching up to do... but when it does catch up, that doesn't mean it will favor folks demanding censorship of this type of content no matter what.
> I thought there was with Section 230
You were misinformed.
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...