I’m deeply ambivalent about a site like Cloudflare censoring anything but the logic here… absolutely not.
You can classify speech. It’s not terribly difficult to classify when something is an outright call for racial warfare. If I were a person calling for a ban to such speech my own speech wouldn’t automatically be subject to the same criteria.
We already have laws against speech that incites violence and you might be surprised how contested the lines themselves are. There are a lot of people these days who outright state that speech itself == violence and should carry the same consequences.
I'm not a free speech absolutist. When pressed, I don't think very many people are. I just think we need to be extremely careful when it comes to expanding those boundaries and that we're better off to err on the side of freedom because of the importance of what we stand to lose.
What's the argument against? Folks have been driven to suicide by targeted harassment and doxxing labeled "speech." The whole reason we have laws about public accommodation is because in a society you can drive someone to ruin by everyone collectively refusing to do business with them which was (and still is for the gays) backed by 1A. The threat of violence is violence, speech that is an implicit threat of violence is violence. Speech that makes people feel unsafe due that implicit threat is violence (say a neighborhood where every house had a flag with a black man hung by a noose). Verbal abuse is still abuse. Everyone who's ever been to school knows that bullying doesn't actually require anyone lay a hand on you to make you live in constant fear and that dynamic doesn't just go away when you become an adult.
Sure, we could coin a term like "diet violence" to mean actions that cause in people the behave as if they were under the threat of violence but which doesn't cause bodily harm but what would be the point? Legally it makes sense to do that to discourage escalation but to the victim the only difference is usually but not always the severity.
I'm sympathetic to folks when their messaging or iconography becomes recognized as an implicit threat of violence due to it being co-opted by others when they didn't mean it that way but if a bunch of people started flying communist flags and lynching people I would take mine down even if I was just really pro-workers rights. To me speech is about the content, the ideas, not any particular expression. In opposite world where "we're here we're queer" was a line that caused people to hide in their homes in fear I would be like yeah that's violence if I used that phrase in a speech. I can't separate cause and effect. I can still express my totally fine idea that queer folks do and will always exist, just using different words.
No they haven't, not on Kiwi Farms anyhow. This is a deliberate smear intended to justify any extrajudical action taken against the forum. The reality is that it's just a bunch of assholes gossiping about other assholes, and one asshole in particular is doing everything he can to eradicate the site because it has documented, amongst other horrible things, his confession of rape.
Kiwi Farms has been more than just gossip. It's been used by people to harass people in the real world. People there have taken things way too far in the past, and that behavior has been encouraged and supported by the culture of the site. I don't think the forum should be silenced, but it's simply not accurate to say that it's nothing more than online gossip. It has at times been the source of outright harassment and abuse. I think we'd agree that it's an issue that needs to be handled with moderation and the law, but it's also a real problem.
And libraries have been used by people to learn effective methods to harass or harm others in the real world. Quick! Let's shut down all the libraries!
> I think we'd agree that it's an issue that needs to be handled with moderation and the law, but it's also a real problem.
We already have such a law. It's called Section 230. Forum operators should not be subject to tortious interference, criminal harassment, or other manner of extrajudicial punishment because they choose to exercise speech that you find repugnant.
You can put that straw man away. I made it clear that I didn't think the site should be shut down. I was only saying that its content and impact shouldn't be misrepresented as mere gossip.
No, muddying up terms and words is not okay. The threat of violence is not violence. It's a threat. And I say that as someone who thinks that threats should carry a far (FAR) higher penalty than they currently do. This constant redefinition of words is done as an attempt to define a new morality but you know very well that there are many holes in it. And yet proponents of this new morality don't care to think about those holes. Being offended or scared can be subjective, therefore you cannot define threats and insults as violence. Otherwise the person which is most easily scared and offended wins. And what a surprise: That's how people already evolved under this new morality, how often do you now see people talk about how "terrified" they are of X or Y or Z or something their political opponent said. Obviously they are not actually terrified per dictionary definition but they use that word because they know that it gives them power under the new morality. Likewise being offended now equals power. You create a very dangerous system through these word redefinitions. Also by admitting that in a world where your views are the minority, you would define violence differently just proves what a problem this is: Whoever wins the social battle, gets to define what violence is. That is dangerous. Things must be based on objective reality.
If speech is violence then we have no means other than acts of violence to explore, discuss, and debate ideas. We need to be able to disagree with each other without it being assault and battery.
We need the right to offend, make uncomfortable, and challenge.
Exposure to an idea shouldn't be treated the same as being beaten with a fist because acts of violence are criminalized. Criminalizing unpopular speech is exactly what free speech is supposed to protect us against. Our freedom and ability to demand change depends on the ability to speak out against oppression without fear of being sentenced to prison just because of our words. If we need to speak out against those in power, we need the ability to use words they don't want to hear.
Blurring the lines between words that offend us and actual violence is dangerous and can only lead to actual violence. If there's something we disagree on, let's keep talking about it to reach a solution or at least an understanding of one another. If there is no difference between speech and violence we may as well just pull out guns instead and let might make right.
> The threat of violence is violence, speech that is an implicit threat of violence is violence.
Some speech really does rise to the level of threat and incitement to violence and we already have first amendment exceptions carved out in law to deal with that. We have laws against harassment. We don't need to expand that to include anything that someone doesn't want to hear. Even on the more extreme end, courts have tended to agree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...
The OP’s assertion was that if I oppose censoring Stormfront then I shouldn’t be surprised when I find myself censored. But of course I would: the speech I (and the vast majority of the population) engage in is nowhere near as inflammatory.
According to who? History shows us that what people generally find acceptable or inflammatory has changed wildly over time. I think people should be able to love and marry any consenting adult they can convince to agree to it. That kind of talk would have had me crucified under McCarthyism.
You can't know what the prevailing opinion on the views you hold today will be even 5-10 years from now. People in recent times have been surprised to find themselves in very difficult situations because of that reality. In the US, our culture and values are less stable now than they've been in a long time. If you weaken free speech, as a right or an ideal, just to make yourself more comfortable today you might very well be surprised to find yourself censored or worse tomorrow.
The definition of a crime of violence[2] in the US also explicitly includes threats as a form of violence. "The term 'crime of violence' means—... (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." (18 USC § 16 my emphasis)
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/E-Stanko
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/E-Stanko/publication/24...
Private people, groups, companies though? Not only may they curtail speech more or less arbitrarily in places they own, I believe quite firmly that they may respond to the exercise of freedom of speech by exercising their freedom of association and refraining from further commerce with the speaker because of the information the speaker has revealed. And with very few, narrow, specific cut-outs, American law agrees with that premise.
"freedom of association" is what a lot of people who owned diners felt enabled them to deny services to black people. Maybe you still feel that they should have been able to refuse service to anyone for any reason including skin color. We collectively decided that society works a lot better when we infringed on the rights of diner owners in order to protect the rights of everyone who wanted a seat at the lunch counter.
There's an argument to be made that in exchange for the privilege of corporate personhood, any company offering services to the general public should be required to serve any member of that public no matter what their beliefs. I'm not yet convinced that's an ideal situation personally, but situations like this make me more sympathetic to the idea.
I'd rather see our government take steps to make sure that no company is allowed to be in a position to oppress the American people leaving them without recourse. I'd sooner see companies with monopoly power broken up or pathways cleared to bring in meaningful competition. That should help protect the American people from oppression by non-governmental agencies while preserving the rights of companies to discriminate according to ideology (if that's a value we think is worth protecting).
We notably did not and that is a key distinction. We carved out very narrow obligation upon business owners to refrain from refusing service in a very specific set of intrinsic categories that have no bearing on the content of one's character. At the federal level, we notably stopped short of things like political affiliation.
In most states you can be refuse service for being a Nazi. Hell, a police officer was recently refused service because the obligation he has to open carry a firearm on duty ran afoul of the establishment's "no firearms on premises" policy (https://www.insider.com/san-francisco-bakery-reems-refuses-p...). The key difference is intrinsic versus malleable properties; a cop can go off duty and put the gun down, a Nazi can stop advocating for the genocide of people, and a KFer can cease to associate with a site tied directly to organizing abuse.
You can make a case that promoting the common welfare is served by maximizing the corporate obligation to serve citizens, but if you're trying to make it the burden's on you to explain why it promotes the common welfare for a person to serve those they know wish for their genocide or actively organize hate mobs against them.
... Anyway, I'd love to continue this thread, but as this site owner exercises their right to filter the content on their own site, I'm limited to the number of responses I may give per period of time. And that is reasonable, it is their site. ;)
We have a very narrow carve out of service obligation that constrains businesses from refusing service for intrinsic properties. Apart from that, at the federal level: no, we don't and shouldn't obligate businesses to serve Communists. We don't obligate them to serve Nazis. We don't obligate them to serve the KKK. We don't obligate them to serve Democrats. A business that's too picky about the color of people's money is a business that leaves money on the table, and that is almost always counterweight enough.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37316078
But as demonstrated by it being flagged, in practice it's too often code for "I don't like this, so NOBODY should be able to see or reply to it".
Other than that it's fair game.
The author of that paradox also states: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise." He only recommends such an extreme action when all else has failed and we're up against "fists and pistols".
I have yet to hear an argument for genocide that can't be countered by rational argument. When hate groups commit acts of violence (not just acts of speech), the US is certainly not sitting around tolerating that. We don't need to fear words. In fact, I much prefer it when racists make themselves known by their words rather than their actions.
Popper's argument is essentially that tolerance is essential to open society and therefore to maintain openness, society must ironically be intolerant of those who are intolerant themselves or would spread intolerance. Nazis were specifically on his mind, WW2 having just occurred, and Popper uses them as an example of people who use tolerance by others to spread intolerance and therefore reduce freedom overall. For society to defend freedom, it has to not permit that.
Popper also states: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise." He only recommends such an extreme action when all else has failed and we're up against "fists and pistols". When hate groups are committing acts of violence (not just acts of speech), the US is certainly not sitting around tolerating that behavior.
"Stormfront began in 1990 as an online bulletin board supporting white nationalist David Duke's campaign for United States senator for Louisiana. The name "Stormfront" was chosen for its connotations of a political or military front (such as the German Nazi Sturmabteilung (also known as storm troopers or SA)) and an analogy with weather fronts that invokes the idea of a tumultuous storm ending in cleansing.[11] The Stormfront website has been registered at Network Solutions since 1995 and was founded in 1996 by Don Black, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s and a member of the National Socialist White People's Party."
National Socialist White People = The American Nazi Party. That is literal. They changed from the NSWPP to the American Nazi Party in 1983. Their logo has a swastika on it. LITERAL NAZIS.
https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-history-taking-stand-fre...
If Cloudflare or anyone else wants to have a different standard, that’s their right, too. But the First Amendment line is neon bright, which is a nice feature.
If Cloudflare or anyone else wants to have a different standard, that’s their right, too. But the First Amendment line is neon bright, which is a nice feature.
?
"hunter biden laptop" was always a distraction tactic, just like "but hillary's emails". It was an attempt to muddy the waters and obscure the republican's long list of shit they got up to. Thankfully, we've gone from "fuck around" to the "find out" age now.
If Biden did a thing then the legal system will take care of it. That is all.
No, they aren't.
Freedom of speech is not the right to coerce others into relaying your speech. That is a violation of free speech.
You people built an edifice at law, called it 'public accommodations', went to great lengths to stretch it as far as possible into a concept of commercial neutrality, and now here it is being applied against you. No one will care whether or not your idiosyncratic definition of 'public accommodations' applies here either. The proletariat's sense of justice has been offended. You did this to yourselves. Choke on it.
Yes, it generally is in the US. Legally, there are a small number of narrow exceptions in public accommodations based in historically widespread societal persecution, but those exceptions would not be necessary if the general liberty you deny were not the rule, and even those exceptions which have been established in statute have not-infrequently been narrowed or limited by the courts for infringing on speech, press, and association rights when applied beyond certain limits.
I am not interested in your arguments predicated on what bourgeoisie law courts have said. They have natural rights the same as anyone else, and they are being trampled upon. No one is fooled, and no one is going to get dragged into useless arguments to authority with you.
A nitpick, but "bourgeoisie" is the noun, "bourgeois" is the adjective; it is either "bourgeois law courts" or "law courts of the bourgeoisie".
> They have natural rights the same as anyone else
“Natural rights” are a thought-terminating cliché to avoid justifying one’s view of what concrete legal rights people should have while simultaneously pretending that the moral conclusion on that question one is offering is a material fact.
Outside of use within a community within which there is a non-controversial moral consensus as a shorthand for positions not in debate within that community, it is never productive to invoke it.
And, certainly, the right to compel others in society to involuntarily relay your views is not a consensus position on rights in our society, even if you leave the law courts, of the bourgeoisie or otherwise, out of it. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this debate.
To make it intuitive: the First Amendment is just as much a guarantee of a right to not speak as it is a right to speak. In other words: it is just as much a guarantee that the state is not empowered to make you do or say things. Expecting the state to require private businesses to carry speech that they otherwise would never associate with is a remarkable incursion on 1A rights.
Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. It (in theory) protects us from oppression by our government. Freedom of speech is also an ideal that we should strive for in a free society. One would protect us from oppression by forces other than our government.
Private businesses don't have an obligation to uphold people's rights the way the government does, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't expect them to respect the ideals of freedom of speech. Because our country doesn't do enough to protect the people from what are basically monopolies we should apply extra pressure to companies who are uniquely positioned to oppress us.
I personally don't think the government should step in and force companies to carry speech they disagree with. I think they should make certain that no company has the power to oppress people leaving them without reasonably equivalent options.
Once a single company, or small group of companies, can decide who has a voice that company has become a liability to our security and freedoms. Those companies should either be broken up or others must be allowed and enabled to step into that space to create alternatives. That might mean that certain barriers to entry will need to be dismantled. It might mean changing laws to accommodate newcomers into the market. As long as truly competitive options exist and/or can be created, freedom can exist.
Sadly, right now we don't really have truly competitive alternatives for things like cloudflare or payment processors and there are many places where single entities hold dangerous amounts of power when it comes to the internet. Imagine if ICANN decided to refuse to provide IPs or domains to anyone whose political views they disagreed with. When non-governmental agencies hold too much power, as Hurricane Electric does, we have to hold them to a higher standard, take actions against them, or put alternate systems in place to protect ourselves from them.
> I personally don't think the government should step in and force companies to carry speech they disagree with. I think they should make certain that no company has the power to oppress people leaving them without reasonably equivalent options.
This maxim has not been violated in this case! HE is one of many ISPs; no evidence has been presented that it colludes with other ISPs[1] to stifle public expression.
And note: the logic of "reasonably equivalent options" doesn't entitle anybody to Internet access, for the same reason that the freedom of movement doesn't entitle me to a driver's license (or a horse). The government may not prohibit my expression; it is also under no particular obligation to supply me any particular venue for expression.
[1]: HE is somewhat famous for having long-standing conflicts with other, larger, ISPs with regards to peering: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031195041
It's one of a very small number of ISPs that form the backbone of the internet (Tier 1-ish) and that puts it in a rare position to censor. The website they are censoring has no direct relationship with HE, yet they are still being silenced by them. That's the problem.
They can host their content on other platforms, or self host.
Sometimes they cave, sometimes they don’t. But they’ve begged the public, and presumably the customers/investors pressuring them, to treat them as dumb pipes, not editors.
They are people.
And you disagree with them.
Free Speech doesn't exist for people to be agreeable. It's only purpose is specifically to protect controversial statements.
If you empower the good guys today with the wrong machinery, you will be crushed in the future by the bad guys.
The luxury of liberal principles - facing the threat of the rise of fascism - really can only be exercised by those least affected by such a rise.
I'd be really interested to hear how you think Hitler should've been handled in the 1920s and early 1930s. Could a debate parler have saved Germany's democracy?
This is not the hypocrisy that you’re painting it as.
I question the motives of anyone sympathizing with Nazis as “just a different opinion”
Suppressing nazism is not “suppressing freedom of speech”. It is suppressing people who seek to suppress.
if you don't support unrestricted free speech that's fine, but don't pretend you do. i personally don't either.
They are the ones who are breaking it. Not me. Therefore, they are the ones who are removing themselves from the protections of freedom of speech.
You characterize this as a difference of opinion. Despicable.
Paradox of tolerance.
The author also states explicitly that his words shouldn't be used to "suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument" and that such extreme action should be reserved for situations where all else has failed and we're up against "fists or pistols"
Violence, not words, is the problem. Thankfully we're not tolerating their violence.