3mo ago

It’s not censorship to stop hateful online content, insists UN rights chief

news.un.org

125 comments

a belief held by most reasonable people and only opposed by Nazis
- And those that still think fReE sPEECh is an acceptable concept in the modern world?
  
  Free speech without consequences is what fascists are after. Free speech is an action to which they want no reaction or even worse when there is a negative reaction (also a desired goal) they will use that to attack the structures attempting to uphold peace.
  
  And it'll only be their speech that's free.
  
  Yes that's why the Chinese are such big proponents of free speech!
  
  Post free speech. They have already finished their objective.
  
  The freedom to speak has nothing to do with being heard.
  
  Free speech is absolutely an acceptable concept, but it's merely a restriction on government.
  Private platforms are free to drop you from their platform if they don't like your speech, and you can be prosecuted if your speech violates a law (e.g. hate speech). Platforms can also restrict the types of speech allowed on their platforms. None of that is a violation of free speech.
  Free speech is only violated if governments place a restriction on the speech itself, or force private entities to enforce restrictions.
  
  but it's merely a restriction on government.
  It isn't. Free speech is a right the gov can give you, but it's also just a concept.
  
  Governments don't grant rights, they can only restrict them.
  
  They can recognize them. But nice strawman.
  
  It's not a strawman, it's literally what you wrote.
  The Bill of Rights in the US only exists to prevent encroachment on individual rights, they're not necessary in order for people to have them. Arguably, governments only have rights explicitly granted to them, because they only exist due to the people submitting themselves to them.
  It's an important distinction, and one so many seem to misunderstand. I'm not saying you do, I'm merely clarifying in case someone else does.
  
  And, in reality, the only rights that remain are those that have been fought for. "Inalienable rights, granted by the Creator" is a lovely concept, but it's not self-enforcing, and as we've seen, rights can be effectively nullified by a corrupt Supreme Court and a fascist legislature and executive branch. OK, you can pretend they still exist in the abstract, but they're de facto gone if state institutions or people power don't defend them.
  
  It's not a strawman, it's literally what you wrote.
  You ignored the point I was making to argue about semantics. Still are. That's a strawman.
  
  And what was that point? My point is that freedom of speech has nothing to do with private platforms.
  
  I stated my point very bluntly in the comment you replied to above. Freedom of speech is not "merely a restriction on government". It is a concept that exists outside of government entirely. And it has everything to do with anywhere speech is expressed, including private platforms.
- So the ACLU are Nazis now?
  
  i mean they've historically defended nazis yes
  
  That doesn’t make them Nazis. It makes them defenders of free speech.
  Free speech protects unpopular speech. Popular speech doesn’t need to be protected.
  
  This isn't about free speech. This is about amplification and publication of speech.
  You can say whatever you want, but we shouldn't guarantee you a megaphone to say it.
  
  The platform isn’t the megaphone. That’s the algorithm.
  If you’re wanting their access to platforms limited, I’d like the know where you draw the line. Are they allowed to text hate speech to each other? Publish their own email or print newsletters? Should we ban them from access to printers (or printing press while we’re at it)? Should they be allowed to have hateful conversations with large groups of each other?
  
  That's up to the owner of the megaphone.
  If the megaphone owner doesn't want you to use it, create your own.
  
  And there’s the expected bootlicking. You went from complaining about who gets access to the megaphone, to openly praising government censorship coordination.
  Maybe if you want more censorship so bad, you should take your own advice and start your own platform.
  
  Sorry, I was busy gagging on a boot or I would've responded sooner.
  The rise of fascism across the United States is partially because they've been allowed to coordinate, and are public and loud with their normalization of hate.
  Free speech absolutionists quickly run up against the paradox of tolerance. And at that point you get to choose. Do you want the most tolerance society or do you want full freedom of speech?
  If you think you want full freedom of speech, then you don't understand how people will abuse that to take it away from you anyway.
  
  No, fascism is on the rise to power because it has the financial backing of capitalists who are trying to counter the rise of leftism in the broader population. And you are being a “useful idiot” by helping them to establish the political and systemic tools to snuff out contrary speech under the guise of fighting the fascism they are in reality entrenching with those powers.
  If you think you can hand the rich & powerful the power to limit speech, and that it will be used by them to limit the very speech they are funding, you are seriously not paying any attention.

125 comments