Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On September 03 2024 00:31 Introvert wrote: It's not like before social media people were any more immune to bad info.
Whether this is strictly true or not, keep in mind that information spread very differently prior to social media. For example, pre-social-media it was much harder for a State-sponsored agent in Russia to manipulate thousands of Americans into doing something dangerous based on misinformation.
You're right, the Soviets might have to pay for travel if they wanted a gullible American journalist to view a potempkin village
But it's never been easier for the Ameican government to say what it wants to say. What it lacks now is overwhelming market share. I'm ok with FB banning bots but less fine with governments putting thumbs on the scale. I'd rather not walk down the road to a Russian or Iranian version of the internet.
Maybe we should do the biblical version instead. An Eye-for-an-eye kind of deal. The only way to remove content is for an affected individual to go to a court directly. But the crux is that if you have posted disinformation, lies or hate speech you first must prove to a judge that your posts were acceptable before they will review the content you want gone. Post 5 blatantly false things and your "open for PvP" so to speak. Let's see how fun Farage thinks free speech is when an AI generated video of him fucking a goat is trending legally on X. Sure he can remove the things he said instead of trying a barrister but that's still 3 months of #farageatthefarm trending before the tied material disappears. Might make people think twice about what the post.
Goverment gets pissed at you for inciting riots on facebook and MI6 gets your picture and your porn search history sent to all your friends and familly.
On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote: As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4.
Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way.
The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor.
Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it.
On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote: As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4.
Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way.
The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor.
Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it.
Ideally people would not be dicks all on their own, but clearly people are going to be dicks. There isn't any salient reason to burn a Quran except because you want to piss off Muslims. There isn't any reason to burn a Bible or a Torah either for that matter. It's a limitation on freedom of speech in the same way that being forbidden from insulting a police officer is a limitation on freedom of speech.
On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote: As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4.
Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way.
The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor.
Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it.
Ideally people would not be dicks all on their own, but clearly people are going to be dicks. There isn't any salient reason to burn a Quran except because you want to piss off Muslims. There isn't any reason to burn a Bible or a Torah either for that matter. It's a limitation on freedom of speech in the same way that being forbidden from insulting a police officer is a limitation on freedom of speech.
That’s kind of the whole idea of freedom of speech. We don’t have freedom of speech to exchange pleasantries and debate Ronaldo vs Messi. The entire reason to have freedom of speech is to be able to say something controversial or offensive without being punished for it.
On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote: As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4.
Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way.
The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor.
Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it.
Ideally people would not be dicks all on their own, but clearly people are going to be dicks. There isn't any salient reason to burn a Quran except because you want to piss off Muslims. There isn't any reason to burn a Bible or a Torah either for that matter. It's a limitation on freedom of speech in the same way that being forbidden from insulting a police officer is a limitation on freedom of speech.
That’s kind of the whole idea of freedom of speech. We don’t have freedom of speech to exchange pleasantries and debate Ronaldo vs Messi. The entire reason to have freedom of speech is to be able to say something controversial or offensive without being punished for it.
Not really. Hate speech is already banned. Burning the Quran is basically hate speech, but not adequately covered. I know we differ of opinion about banning hate speech, with you only considering it bannable if it incites violence, while over on this side of the pond we generally consider hate speech as such a precursor to violence, so just ban it all. But we aren't going to reach agreement about that. I'm just trying to point out that banning Quran burning is very much in line with existing laws and just patches up a gap in the "hate speech" limits on freedom of speech. If you actually want to say something like "Islam is an idiotic backwards religion", you can still do that. You just can't rile up the rabble with a good ole book burning.
The instances of Quran burning aren't happening in just any random place in public. The instigators do it deliberately in Muslim neighborhoods to incite a violent reaction. It's very much on purpose with the intent to get footage of angry Muslims. And it's usually right-wing activists doing it to fabricate outrage and controversy. These are the majority of cases. I'm generally opposed to censorship, but in such instances it's undeniably preferable.
On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote: As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4.
Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way.
The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor.
Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it.
Ideally people would not be dicks all on their own, but clearly people are going to be dicks. There isn't any salient reason to burn a Quran except because you want to piss off Muslims. There isn't any reason to burn a Bible or a Torah either for that matter. It's a limitation on freedom of speech in the same way that being forbidden from insulting a police officer is a limitation on freedom of speech.
That’s kind of the whole idea of freedom of speech. We don’t have freedom of speech to exchange pleasantries and debate Ronaldo vs Messi. The entire reason to have freedom of speech is to be able to say something controversial or offensive without being punished for it.
I thought the idea of freedom of speech is to prevent a totalitarian government or other apparatus from blocking the flow of information they don't like. You're allowed to say you don't like Team Liquid and they can't sue you for it or scour your words from the internet. You're not allowed to threaten to Supreme Court Solution Kwark. You're not allowed to say drinking bleach is safe. You're not allowed to say a lot of things. That's fine.
Stuff people say SHOULD have consequences, and sometimes punishment is a valid consequence.
On September 03 2024 09:13 Magic Powers wrote: The instances of Quran burning aren't happening in just any random place in public. The instigators do it deliberately in Muslim neighborhoods to incite a violent reaction. It's very much on purpose with the intent to get footage of angry Muslims. And it's usually right-wing activists doing it to fabricate outrage and controversy. These are the majority of cases. I'm generally opposed to censorship, but in such instances it's undeniably preferable.
We have people like that in the United States. They go around being assholes to police in the hopes the police will overreact and they can get a lawsuit out of it. They label themselves “first amendment auditors.” It’s perfectly legal because we think you shouldn’t be arrested for flipping the bird to a cop, even if their intentions are to be a dick.
Edit: and I just want to be clear. You’re saying this should be banned because you just think people should stop being assholes and not because it might cause violence in the streets, right? Because the latter opinion is completely unhinged in my opinion.
On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote: As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4.
Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way.
The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor.
Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it.
Thanks for this. I chose those examples because they're close to stuff that actually happened, i.e. 2 people were reported to have gotten jail sentences for stuff similar to 2-4, the UK government explicitly went after "the keyboard warriors behind the unrest" and got convictions between 2 and 3 years.
From your latter posts, I take it you think this is gross over reach? This is why I really wanted to get an idea because things are clearly different in Europe. Shouldn't the people that act maliciously like your quran burners in Muslim neighbourhoods to stir up trouble or people that provoke cops just to get a reaction and a lawsuit face some consequences for their actions? They actively make our living spaces worse for no practical upside that I can discern.
A clear tragedy for me is that examples 1 and 3 face zero consequences, but if a regular person does the same thing (in the spur of the moment as Wombat put it), albeit far more dumbly and without plausible deniability, they end up in jail even though the intent is the same.
I think you should be able to make fun of every religion, and islam (in G7 countries) has to quickly adapt to the fact that mohamed was likely a scam artists that made up his own religion to gain political power.
Same with christians are really quite aware that Jesus disappears 3 days after being un-alived and not showing himself to his followers for a month..then appear to an isolated few.. and then magicly gets beamed back up to enterprise .. is really just a bullshit cover up story to keep the then small cult going.
At least most Jews can take a fucking joke... getting lost in the desert for 40 years is really..really bad navigational skills.
On September 03 2024 09:13 Magic Powers wrote: The instances of Quran burning aren't happening in just any random place in public. The instigators do it deliberately in Muslim neighborhoods to incite a violent reaction. It's very much on purpose with the intent to get footage of angry Muslims. And it's usually right-wing activists doing it to fabricate outrage and controversy. These are the majority of cases. I'm generally opposed to censorship, but in such instances it's undeniably preferable.
We have people like that in the United States. They go around being assholes to police in the hopes the police will overreact and they can get a lawsuit out of it. They label themselves “first amendment auditors.” It’s perfectly legal because we think you shouldn’t be arrested for flipping the bird to a cop, even if their intentions are to be a dick.
Edit: and I just want to be clear. You’re saying this should be banned because you just think people should stop being assholes and not because it might cause violence in the streets, right? Because the latter opinion is completely unhinged in my opinion.
They're somewhat the same thing. They cause violence in the street by being an asshole. The violent reaction is wrong, but if you go into a bar, pick the biggest guy there, walk up to him and start insulting him, his wife and his mother, there's a good chance you get punched in the face, then your friends jump in, his friends jump in and the bar gets trashed. Who threw the first punch? He did, but that doesn't mean you weren't looking for a fight and equally or even more culpable of the situation.
Should Muslims react violently to burning the Quran? No. Neither should the big guy in the bar when you insult him. But both are very likely outcomes and this is knowledge the instigator has. Nobody is burning Qurans in their fireplace because they ran out of wood. They are burning Qurans for the express purpose of insulting Muslims.
As for your cop example, I already said we won't find common ground on where exactly the line is. Generally speaking, verbal abuse at any person should, imho be illegal. I am not a fan of "disrespecting a cop" law (for instance the one in Spain), but feel that should just be generally covered sufficiently by a law against verbal abuse in general (such as in Germany or the Netherlands). The obvious advantage of the latter is that (1) it cannot be interpreted as broadly as "disrespecting a cop" can, and (2) it doesn't single out cops as some special snowflakes that need extra protection ahead of other people who you can freely insult. So for your example, it'd depend on what those "heroes" of the first amendment are yelling. If they're verbally abusing a police officer, fine them. But also fine that asshole in the bar who verbally abused the big guy to get him to throw the first punch.
On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote: As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
Alas I am not BJ but I’ll give my half a dollar.
Legally, unless you have actual proof it was done intentionally dishonestly, I think it’s difficult to advocate for legal censure in 1 and 3’s case. It’s one of those frustrating ‘I fucking know what you’re doing, but I cannae prove it’ ones.
2 and 4 you’re getting into incitement territory, but for me it’s somewhat contextual. If said individuals are constantly advocating for refugees to have their places torched, yet maybe a police visit may do them good. Equally it could be a recently unemployed person who’s had a few too many beers and is venting, or a misjudged shitpost.
As for non-legal sanctions I mean I think it’s perfectly reasonable to, on whatever platform throw out a ‘don’t do this again or we’ll ban you’ warning, or straight throw the hammer.
In the specific case of Farage well, show your working or retract the claim.
There is quite famous precedent in the UK for the police avoiding tackling child abuse, and a quite horrific level of child/teen abuse for not wanting to appear racially insensitive or target a particular community. So such things do happen, and should have an outlet to be aired but extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Or well, at least some evidence.
Hey maybe you end up in a spot where people can make their ‘I reckon…’ claims, with a wee ‘This user has not substantiated their claims’ disclaimer, which would be an improvement for me. Less so for regular folks but I think for notable public figures that would be a reasonable filter
I agree with pretty much everything here except for the bit about "if something bad just happened in your life, it's okay to vent and call for the death of a subset of the population". Those views are firmly held, even if they only come out under moments of stress.
On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote: As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
Alas I am not BJ but I’ll give my half a dollar.
Legally, unless you have actual proof it was done intentionally dishonestly, I think it’s difficult to advocate for legal censure in 1 and 3’s case. It’s one of those frustrating ‘I fucking know what you’re doing, but I cannae prove it’ ones.
2 and 4 you’re getting into incitement territory, but for me it’s somewhat contextual. If said individuals are constantly advocating for refugees to have their places torched, yet maybe a police visit may do them good. Equally it could be a recently unemployed person who’s had a few too many beers and is venting, or a misjudged shitpost.
As for non-legal sanctions I mean I think it’s perfectly reasonable to, on whatever platform throw out a ‘don’t do this again or we’ll ban you’ warning, or straight throw the hammer.
In the specific case of Farage well, show your working or retract the claim.
There is quite famous precedent in the UK for the police avoiding tackling child abuse, and a quite horrific level of child/teen abuse for not wanting to appear racially insensitive or target a particular community. So such things do happen, and should have an outlet to be aired but extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Or well, at least some evidence.
Hey maybe you end up in a spot where people can make their ‘I reckon…’ claims, with a wee ‘This user has not substantiated their claims’ disclaimer, which would be an improvement for me. Less so for regular folks but I think for notable public figures that would be a reasonable filter
I agree with pretty much everything here except for the bit about "if something bad just happened in your life, it's okay to vent and call for the death of a subset of the population". Those views are firmly held, even if they only come out under moments of stress.
I think many folks temporarily hold views that they don’t really hold under certain conditions.
If someone’s just had a valued relationship end due to infidelity, you’ll get many a ‘men are bastards/woman are bitches’ rant in the aftermath. But, outside of a relatively small subset of people, those oft-expressed opinions aren’t particularly prevalent views.
I don’t think such a vent should be free from censure, but if it’s an instance of an atypical outburst I’m alright with a slap on the wrist, don’t do it again. Or have a post nuked with a warning or what have you.
A pretty consistent trend one sees is those temporary frustrations growing into permanent ones, oft-accompanied with a perception that x is a protected class and yours is a persecuted one.
So a well-intentioned attempt to stamp out such things at source can actually have the opposite effect in actuality. So aside from a civic harmony/safety versus free speech balancing act to do, there’s that additional plate to keep spinning.
These are tricky problems indeed, aside from their contemporary importance IMO that also makes them a rather interesting topic of discussion. Alas I don’t have all the answers, and I think even if I did few in positions of consequence would listen :p
On September 03 2024 09:13 Magic Powers wrote: The instances of Quran burning aren't happening in just any random place in public. The instigators do it deliberately in Muslim neighborhoods to incite a violent reaction. It's very much on purpose with the intent to get footage of angry Muslims. And it's usually right-wing activists doing it to fabricate outrage and controversy. These are the majority of cases. I'm generally opposed to censorship, but in such instances it's undeniably preferable.
We have people like that in the United States. They go around being assholes to police in the hopes the police will overreact and they can get a lawsuit out of it. They label themselves “first amendment auditors.” It’s perfectly legal because we think you shouldn’t be arrested for flipping the bird to a cop, even if their intentions are to be a dick.
Edit: and I just want to be clear. You’re saying this should be banned because you just think people should stop being assholes and not because it might cause violence in the streets, right? Because the latter opinion is completely unhinged in my opinion.
They're somewhat the same thing. They cause violence in the street by being an asshole. The violent reaction is wrong, but if you go into a bar, pick the biggest guy there, walk up to him and start insulting him, his wife and his mother, there's a good chance you get punched in the face, then your friends jump in, his friends jump in and the bar gets trashed. Who threw the first punch? He did, but that doesn't mean you weren't looking for a fight and equally or even more culpable of the situation.
Should Muslims react violently to burning the Quran? No. Neither should the big guy in the bar when you insult him. But both are very likely outcomes and this is knowledge the instigator has. Nobody is burning Qurans in their fireplace because they ran out of wood. They are burning Qurans for the express purpose of insulting Muslims.
As for your cop example, I already said we won't find common ground on where exactly the line is. Generally speaking, verbal abuse at any person should, imho be illegal. I am not a fan of "disrespecting a cop" law (for instance the one in Spain), but feel that should just be generally covered sufficiently by a law against verbal abuse in general (such as in Germany or the Netherlands). The obvious advantage of the latter is that (1) it cannot be interpreted as broadly as "disrespecting a cop" can, and (2) it doesn't single out cops as some special snowflakes that need extra protection ahead of other people who you can freely insult. So for your example, it'd depend on what those "heroes" of the first amendment are yelling. If they're verbally abusing a police officer, fine them. But also fine that asshole in the bar who verbally abused the big guy to get him to throw the first punch.
SCOTUS has ruled that Fighting words are not protected speech, but that wouldn't cover things like burning a book or a cross or a flag. So at least under US law there is a distinction made between the Quran burning example and your analogy. Why stop at Quran burning? Should cartoons of Mohammed be banned as they caused a similar brouhaha in Denmark?
Just FYI, knowing that Muslims might react violently to certain offensive speech makes me even more inclined to defend the offensive speech. The Western world shouldn't acquiesce by abandoning its principles to placate people that haven't learned "sticks and stone may break my bones." That's offensive to me, if anyone cares.
What a great example to set, though. Cause enough civil unrest and the government will cave and pass laws to appease you. Perhaps that's the same logic being followed by the anti-immigration riots in the UK? Yes, let's just incentivize this behavior. Whoever causes the most civil unrest gets what they want in order to prevent said civil unrest. No way this could backfire.
On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote: As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
As written I don't think anyone should go to jail for these but 2-4 are borderline as they approach incitement. WombaT points out speech is already not unlimited, even in the US, things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to violence are already illegal. I'd rather we use laws that are already on the books to censor things that are already illegal instead of giving extrajudicial powers to bureaucrats to censor what they deem fit. I'm a bit less concerned with a private company like X censoring speech than the government doing it. I'd feel strongly against 1 being moderated on X but not so much about 2-4.
Back when Twitter was run by people ideologically on the left and stuff getting censored was mostly on the right there was a lot of "Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want" energy. Now that Musk is at the helm there is a lot of "Twitter shouldn't be able to do what they want just because they are a private company" energy. It's all fun and games when you're the one doing the censoring but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot it's not as fun. I agree with Introvert's point there. I have zero confidence in our polarized society that the censorship will be done in an even-handed way.
The other thing I think will be a fail when it comes to this type of censorship is that sometimes "the truth" and "offensive speech" are one in the same. I've heard statistics that the majority of rapes committed in Scandinavian countries are committed by foreign born migrants. That's a fact capable of sowing unrest and racial tensions with migrants. But is it also true? I think the truth is more likely to take the backseat here if well-meaning progressives are in charge. I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor.
Denmark banned Quran-burning only last year. It's 2023 for christ's sake. We're bringing back blasphemy laws? Why, to placate troublemakers? This kind of stuff is truly shameful, imo. But like I said, different strokes for different folks. If people prefer to have less civil unrest and are willing to trade their freedom of expression for it then so be it.
Thanks for this. I chose those examples because they're close to stuff that actually happened, i.e. 2 people were reported to have gotten jail sentences for stuff similar to 2-4, the UK government explicitly went after "the keyboard warriors behind the unrest" and got convictions between 2 and 3 years.
From your latter posts, I take it you think this is gross over reach? This is why I really wanted to get an idea because things are clearly different in Europe. Shouldn't the people that act maliciously like your quran burners in Muslim neighbourhoods to stir up trouble or people that provoke cops just to get a reaction and a lawsuit face some consequences for their actions? They actively make our living spaces worse for no practical upside that I can discern.
A clear tragedy for me is that examples 1 and 3 face zero consequences, but if a regular person does the same thing (in the spur of the moment as Wombat put it), albeit far more dumbly and without plausible deniability, they end up in jail even though the intent is the same.
I should clarify so I don't inadvertently misrepresent the first amendment audit movement. It's not really about harassing police officers. It's more about going to public spaces and often photographing or taking pictures of government buildings/property and seeing if the police come and try to intimidate you or legally stop you from doing that. Some of them are dicks to police officers but some of them are respectful and just decline to answer questions.
To me it's not about defending the people that are being dicks, it's about defending personal liberty. You can't just take offensive speech away from the dicks. If offensive speech is censored its censored for everyone, myself included. It would really piss me off if someone told me I weren't allowed to burn a US flag. Why not? It's a piece of cloth colored a certain way. I don't really care if people are offended by it. This comedian kind of sums my thoughts up exactly when it comes to desires to ban offensive speech:
If libel is a protected category that transcends free speech in even the most permissive of places in that sense like the US, why not extend it to create some kind of ‘group libel’ category?
I don’t like it, but I think the downsides of trying to clamp down on speech such as ‘I don’t like Muslims and don’t want them in my country’ outweigh the positives there, by a distance by what potential doors that opens.
But say falsely claiming particularly egregious things becomes something you can’t freely do. Like if you’re claiming there are gangs of Muslim jihadists roaming around the suburbs of Birmingham and torching cars, and they are not, that seems something you shouldn’t be able to do without consequence.
I mean you still get into nebulous territory as to where that line is drawn, so I certainly see some drawbacks here too. So if I was installed chief Reddit moderator of the wider entire I would be extremely strict in where I apply those lines. However of course whoever is given those keys may not be so circumspect.
For example, I may not like ‘hey look at these stats, they show black folks to be genetically inferior’, or ‘hey there’s quite a lot of Jews in x industry, they are secretly ruling the world’, because of where those rabbit holes go.
But if the initial observation isn’t outright false, I wouldn’t personally moderate the opinion. I mean I may on a platform like Twitter for the more egregious offenders, but I wouldn’t unleash the censure of the state upon such an individual.
The last three quran burnings were from an Iraqi man. He was denied asylum and didn't want to go back because he had pending criminal charges. First he came out as gay once he got his decision but that appeal didn't work. Then he tried making videos insulting Islam but no one watched them so that didn't work either. Then he burned some books outside some mosques and then finally he starter to recive some death threats from Iraq.
Before that we had a Danish gut with ties to Russia trying to fuck with our Turkish relations because of our NATO applications.
It's still legal to do but overall people are just sick of the people doing it since it has very little to do with free speech.
On September 03 2024 19:11 WombaT wrote: If libel is a protected category that transcends free speech in even the most permissive of places in that sense like the US, why not extend it to create some kind of ‘group libel’ category?
I don’t like it, but I think the downsides of trying to clamp down on speech such as ‘I don’t like Muslims and don’t want them in my country’ outweigh the positives there, by a distance by what potential doors that opens.
But say falsely claiming particularly egregious things becomes something you can’t freely do. Like if you’re claiming there are gangs of Muslim jihadists roaming around the suburbs of Birmingham and torching cars, and they are not, that seems something you shouldn’t be able to do without consequence.
I mean you still get into nebulous territory as to where that line is drawn, so I certainly see some drawbacks here too. So if I was installed chief Reddit moderator of the wider entire I would be extremely strict in where I apply those lines. However of course whoever is given those keys may not be so circumspect.
For example, I may not like ‘hey look at these stats, they show black folks to be genetically inferior’, or ‘hey there’s quite a lot of Jews in x industry, they are secretly ruling the world’, because of where those rabbit holes go.
But if the initial observation isn’t outright false, I wouldn’t personally moderate the opinion. I mean I may on a platform like Twitter for the more egregious offenders, but I wouldn’t unleash the censure of the state upon such an individual.
You're implicitly trusting that the facts you're basing this decision to moderate or not moderate are accurate. What happens when you've got conflicting 'facts'? The classic example is the "vaccines cause autism" scientific article that kicked off the anti-vaxxer movement -- it was a badly done piece of science and scientists at the time pointed out the flaws pretty much immediately and was later shown to be false and retracted by the journal. However, for a period of 3 years, a malicious actor could have easily claimed that there were a lot of conflicting pieces of evidence put forward and it wasn't clear who to believe and they were simply doing their duty to inform their fellow citizens. Unchecked, that has led to the resurgence of preventable diseases that had been previously eradicated, and the damage is still ongoing.
It is clear that the spread of misinformation causes damage. Should we not learn from these examples and have higher standards for what is permissible to post in public spaces?
On September 03 2024 19:11 WombaT wrote: If libel is a protected category that transcends free speech in even the most permissive of places in that sense like the US, why not extend it to create some kind of ‘group libel’ category?
I don’t like it, but I think the downsides of trying to clamp down on speech such as ‘I don’t like Muslims and don’t want them in my country’ outweigh the positives there, by a distance by what potential doors that opens.
But say falsely claiming particularly egregious things becomes something you can’t freely do. Like if you’re claiming there are gangs of Muslim jihadists roaming around the suburbs of Birmingham and torching cars, and they are not, that seems something you shouldn’t be able to do without consequence.
I mean you still get into nebulous territory as to where that line is drawn, so I certainly see some drawbacks here too. So if I was installed chief Reddit moderator of the wider entire I would be extremely strict in where I apply those lines. However of course whoever is given those keys may not be so circumspect.
For example, I may not like ‘hey look at these stats, they show black folks to be genetically inferior’, or ‘hey there’s quite a lot of Jews in x industry, they are secretly ruling the world’, because of where those rabbit holes go.
But if the initial observation isn’t outright false, I wouldn’t personally moderate the opinion. I mean I may on a platform like Twitter for the more egregious offenders, but I wouldn’t unleash the censure of the state upon such an individual.
You're implicitly trusting that the facts you're basing this decision to moderate or not moderate are accurate. What happens when you've got conflicting 'facts'? The classic example is the "vaccines cause autism" scientific article that kicked off the anti-vaxxer movement -- it was a badly done piece of science and scientists at the time pointed out the flaws pretty much immediately and was later shown to be false and retracted by the journal. However, for a period of 3 years, a malicious actor could have easily claimed that there were a lot of conflicting pieces of evidence put forward and it wasn't clear who to believe and they were simply doing their duty to inform their fellow citizens. Unchecked, that has led to the resurgence of preventable diseases that had been previously eradicated, and the damage is still ongoing.
It is clear that the spread of misinformation causes damage. Should we not learn from these examples and have higher standards for what is permissible to post in public spaces?
If we had a machine, or provably faultless human arbiters who could do such a thing, yeah absolutely.
Until we do have such a thing it feels too expansive a remit for my personal tastes.
Maybe the quack ends up being right in the long run. But in the example I frequently invoke re the recent riots in Britain, bloke had a Christian background, went to Christian church and it’s pretty unambiguous as to whether he was a Muslim or not
EPT
