Social Media Censorship

[LDAHL]

The line to draw is not a hard and fast one, and is debated in the courts. Generally, there is more respect for the concept of free speech in the United States than in other developed countries. Keeping big government from limiting freedoms is important here.

Our friend Wikkipedia says that speech many consider “hate speech” is free from government interference, except in the unusual cases where the hate speech is intended to “incite imminent lawless action.”

so, speech that is mean or hurtful, actions that express thoughts such as burning a cross near the homes of African
Americans, words that show intolerance, hate, disrespect for a person or a group due to their race or religion or etc.—all are legal and free from government interference.

That is here, and that is the way it should be.

Other countries take a bigger role is quashing the expressions of thought from their citizens. I find that chilling.

Ever since they made Socrates drink the hemlock, there have been people taking it upon themselves to “protect” us from various speech in the public sphere. I think there’s more danger in handing them the power to do so than in anything some addled crank, Russian bot or Chinese sock puppet has to say. So I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist in that respect.

As Alan pointed out, however, the private sphere is different. The owner makes the rules. In my own house, if I don’t like your crackpot round Earth theories or insults to the Chicago Cubs, I’m well within my rights to eject you. I can also walk away from what I find offensive. I don’t feel it to be my or anyone else’s responsibility to force others to shut up.

[razz]

Good point about freedom when choosing what is appropriate when it is privately owned.

To Il's post about freedom of speech;
if one does hateful things targeting others, cross-burning as an example, is that one then accessory/guilty/responsible if another party feeling validated and legitimized in their hate because of initial cross-burning actually commits violence against that same target?

[Alan]

Good point about freedom when choosing what is appropriate when it is privately owned.

To Il's post about freedom of speech;
if one does hateful things targeting others, cross-burning as an example, is that one then accessory/guilty/responsible if another party feeling validated and legitimized in their hate because of initial cross-burning actually commits violence against that same target?

I believe ones actions are singular. If you become enraged over an action I take and then go out and do an evil deed, I am guilty of enraging you but you are guilty of your response.

[iris lilies]

Good point about freedom when choosing what is appropriate when it is privately owned.

To Il's post about freedom of speech;
if one does hateful things targeting others, cross-burning as an example, is that one then accessory/guilty/responsible if another party feeling validated and legitimized in their hate because of initial cross-burning actually commits violence against that same target?

If you mean your question in the legal sense, no, the original cross burner bears no responsibility for the subsequent actions of others, assuming his cross burning was not intended to whip up imminent violence. I think “intent” and “imminent” are important words in the legal case here.

If you mean your question in the ethical sense, sure, the initial cross burner bears some responsibility for putting hatefulness out into the universe and ethically is an influencer of subsequent cross burning actions. So, what do you propose the government should do in ths latter case?

[LDAHL]

Good point about freedom when choosing what is appropriate when it is privately owned.

To Il's post about freedom of speech;
if one does hateful things targeting others, cross-burning as an example, is that one then accessory/guilty/responsible if another party feeling validated and legitimized in their hate because of initial cross-burning actually commits violence against that same target?

No. Spouting hate of say, Republicans does not make you responsible for some nut shooting up a ball game. Otherwise we would have to lock up half the academic community and most of the New York Times editorial staff.

If you make feeling validation a crime, there will be no end to the tyranny you can justify.

[jp1]

So is someone responsible if they accuse the families of a mass shooting of being actors and then people dox them and threaten them with harm, up to and including murder, are they merely disgusting worthless human beings or are they responsible for the follow on threats made by their audience against the people whose children were murdered?

[razz]

So, what do you propose the government should do in ths latter case?

I wasn't aware that the government was involved in the discussion at all. Canada does have a 'Human Rights' process that has been abused. Has it solved all the problems of inappropriate behaviour? No. It has raised awareness which probably has been beneficial.

I thought that the complaint was against social media for judging and dis-inviting (like that phrasing) those who post hateful messages and misinformation that targets others unlike themselves. Was I reading all this incorrectly?

My question comes back to the generic: when do you draw the line on hateful behaviour? When do you withdraw your support for those agencies that enable hateful behaviour? When do you protest vigorously to indicate your disapproval rather than enabling by validating by passivity?

[iris lilies]

I wasn't aware that the government was involved in the discussion at all. Canada does have a 'Human Rights' process that has been abused. Has it solved all the problems of inappropriate behaviour? No. It has raised awareness which probably has been beneficial.

I thought that the complaint was against social media for judging and dis-inviting (like that phrasing) those who post hateful messages and misinformation that targets others unlike themselves. Was I reading all this incorrectly?

My question comes back to the generic: when do you draw the line on hateful behaviour? When do you withdraw your support for those agencies that enable hateful behaviour? When do you protest vigorously to indicate your disapproval rather than enabling by validating by passivity?

If this discussion is soley about what *I* would do on social media sites, I will say “it depends.” It depends on the site and its members as well as the poster and his words.

Maybe I will challenge the poster’s claims especially if no one else is rushing forward to do so. Maybe I will put that poster on “ignore”. I currently have one poster on Ignore on another forum, and that is very unusual for me. It is doubtful I would complain to a moderator about a poster’s words.

If the poster in question is posting a lot of hateful nonsense it is likely that a rush of people will get there before me to call him out on it and there is no need for me to add a “me too” message.

[Williamsmith]

With all due respect to the reactive censorship being discussed, I was thinking along the lines of whether or not the tech companies have crossed the line from being just platforms to being publishers. In other words, they are destinations which pick winners and losers among the publishers, drive their own agenda, censor nefariously through guarded data research that they do not share with their customers ( both consumers and providers of content.). Should they be broken up?

After all, in who’s interest is it to quash “racist” dialog? How is the public supposed to learn who is what if their speech is being banned? The tech companies believe it is in the interest of their stockholders to not allow “offensive” postings, but how is this affecting the way we perceive the world when so few “platforms” exist.

[razz]

With all due respect to the reactive censorship being discussed, I was thinking along the lines of whether or not the tech companies have crossed the line from being just platforms to being publishers. In other words, they are destinations which pick winners and losers among the publishers, drive their own agenda, censor nefariously through guarded data research that they do not share with their customers ( both consumers and providers of content.). Should they be broken up?

Since they are private companies providing a service that enjoys enormous usage, should they be broken up any more than the local furniture making shop? Because a company has a lot of customers who freely made the choice, are those companies then losing their freedom to operate as their Board and shareholders advise.