I sincerely hope you're not still reading this so called "tech site".
Also what do you think about the recent increase of censorship on twitter?
>believing a social media platform controlled by a centralized corporate entity will respect freedom of speech
Annalee Newitz is the Tech Culture Editor at Ars Technica. Her work focuses on cultural impact of science and technology. She founded the science and science fiction blog io9.com, and is the author of Scatter, Adapt, and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction. She has a Ph.D. in English and American Studies from UC Berkeley, and was the recipient of a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at MIT. She lives in San Francisco with many other life forms, some of which have yet to be identified.
This argument is unwinnable from the conservative standpoint because liberals have very effectively manipulated the public's opinion on what is considered threatening hate speech.
The moment a liberal feels cornered in an argument, they will resort to the usual meme responses in order to derail the argument and win. Afterwards you will get promptly taken to jail by your local thought police, even when you didn't type a single objective cuss word, racist or sexist slur. Doubt me? There is already precedent given that a father was thrown in jail for two years after arguing with Internet feminists on Twitter. He never used a threatening word.
Fee Fees rule the future.
>The moment a liberal feels cornered in an argument
Yeah, yeah. Fuck off. Half the population are what you would call liberals. Only a small minority are going around accusing people of hate speech.
The moment a certain type of Internet loser feels cornered in an argument they resort to these tactics. That does not mean all liberals do.
And what is a liberal anyway? The term seems pretty much meaningless.
>There is already precedent given that a father was thrown in jail for two years after arguing with Internet feminists on Twitter. He never used a threatening word.
If I recall correctly, that case was thrown out. Got a source for that claim?
Even in the US, which has remarkable levels of freedom of speech, there are limits.
"There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
I think that's a good guideline. Things that are intended to cause harm or incite violent are not allowed, but you can express any opinion. The only thing there I disagree with censoring is "the lewd and obscene" since pretty much everyone looks at porn these days, but even that should be censored in certain contexts.
Before about two years ago, Ars Technica was the gold standard for reporting on tech. It's a fucking shadow of its former self now. There are an unbelievable amount of Jews and shitskins on the writing staff and very few of them have a real IT background anymore. Both of the "culture" editors exhibit this exact problem. They were fucking liberal arts majors that weren't smart enough to be actual programmers or computer scientists, so they just write click-bait articles breathlessly reporting on the latest fucking scandal about emoji (no, unfortunately, I'm not kidding: https://archive.is/Li1oo ). If it keeps going this way, I'll probably stop reading Ars within a year.
>willing being an American liberal
Your mother should have swallowed that night.
At least Terry is still fighting the good fight on twitter
So it is real. He isn't in prison, though, as far as I can tell. And this claim is bullshit:
>The moment a liberal feels cornered in an argument, they will resort to the usual meme responses in order to derail the argument and win. Afterwards you will get promptly taken to jail by your local thought police, even when you didn't type a single objective cuss word, racist or sexist slur.
You have ONE example of someone getting arrested IN CANADA and are trying to turn this into some general trend of people being arrested that occurs "the moment a liberal feels cornered." ONE example does not a trend make.
Let it all burn
What those parasitic oportunist "journalists" fail to understand is that Ars success lied within its lack of bias and quality.
Now that its gone people, no real STEM people are left and we have no reason to endure that kind of mess.
Collapse is imminent.
What is precedent?
What another medium is there? You can setup your own platform but it would be as effect as talking to an empty room. Besides such radical speech would get you ostracized maybe even shutdown. Circlejerks and echo chambers are the worst, this includes both sides of the spectrum: stormfront, tumblr, Reddit, etc.
>Colonel: You exercise your right to "freedom" and this is the result. All rhetoric to avoid conflict and protect each other from hurt. The untested truths spun by different interests continue to churn and accumulate
in the sandbox of political correctness and value systems.
>Rose: Everyone withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum. They stay inside their little ponds, leaking whatever "truth" suits them into the growing cesspool of society at large.
>Colonel: The different cardinal truths neither clash nor mesh. No one is invalidated, but nobody is right.
>Rose: Not even natural selection can take place here. The world is being engulfed in "truth."
>Colonel: And this is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper.
>What another medium is there?
It doesn't matter, Twitter is not government owned (Well, officially), so you have 0 rights to free speech on their platform. I don't agree with what they are doing, but they have every right to do so.
>What is precedent?
So you have ONE incident where someone was charged (and not convicted) and you decide ALL other incidents will play out the same.
If this one case is precedent, then surely all the billions of cases where liberals have been cornered in arguments and NOT called the cops are vastly more convincing precedent.
True. But sadly the populist-minded people in the community will see this as a failing in the concept of free speech.
What I mean by that is this (sorry if the idea gets lost a bit while typing), people should be allowed to say what they want as long as it doesn't obviously initiate a negative response (threat of violence) to a person or group. However if an affluent minority can curtail the ability to "print" ideas contrary to their personal beliefs then freedom of speech has been violated. This is noticeable if you ever visit Reddit. Trolls with no life actively police and downvote stances they don't agree with. The people were allowed to say what they wanted but the receiving of the message was prevented by a powerful minority or mob majority.
A good example of a neutral platform was yik yak before edgy faggots spammed it with bomb threats and drama queens complaining so that posts that broke their little world were removed. Now it's turned into a meme, attention grabbing, circlejerk, ID-enforced (new policy back in June of last year require you to input your phone number to post to "prevent" spam, it's actually so that the company can properly ID you and alert authorities if you threaten others) place much Reddit and every other circle jerk.
Just remember this, if it weren't for the radical and admittedly terrorist words of our founding fathers (if you're an American) we would all be drinking British tea.
Political dissidents of pro-Kremlin invaders, for example.
But as long as we can sensor GamerGate it's worth it! :^)
Also to add. It's why I love this place so much for all the years that I have come here. It's anonymous. Once this thread is over with, I will have no way of knowing if I encounter you again in another thread. All the posts are seen without being hidden, unless they violate rules. My and everyone else's messages are seen by a greater extent by everyone who looks at this thread. Attention-whoring can still occur but it's usually just done because it can be funny.
Nothing matters and that's what's great. You are free to do whatever you want.
Oh, I agree with you completely, this sets a very dangerous precedent for the other major sites. That being said, I don't use any sort of social media, and I'm glad places like 4chan exist where you don't need to sign in to post.
But everything in that blurb is true. Hate speech is a form of censorship that threatens violence if undesired discourse takes place. If you consider "speech" to be an idea that can be responded to with another idea, then hate speech doesn't count: the only way it can be responded to is an act of defense.
>Hate speech is a form of censorship
Not if "hate speech" is defined as an opinion the establishment disagrees with. If we're talking about actual threats of violence and incitement to such, then sure.
>liberal arts degree
>stayed in school for way to long because she couldn't get a job
>lives in San Francisco
>wrote for gawker (io9)
>unnatural colored hair
Do they not see how they're all fucking identical to each other?
>but if they are only censoring violent speech or harassment
Disagreeing with SJWs gets your account locked until you delete your opinion.
>inb4 publically disagreeing with me is harrassment
>If we're talking about actual threats of violence and incitement to such, then sure.
Well, it's a good thing that we are. The problem is people who see that but agree with whatever cause the hate speech is being used in support of. Then they shout, "IT'S JUST SPEECH!"
There's a reason why even presidential debates have limits on speech (time limits): hearing what someone has to say is important, but an unscrupulous individual will use their unrestricted speech to drown out others' voices.
In the end, speech and communication in the political sphere are about conveying, codifying, and rallying support for policy. Policy has to be enacted in a timely manner or it's useless. What some might call "censorship" is necessary to prevent a dialogue from becoming an effective monologue.
>What some might call "censorship" is necessary to prevent a dialogue from becoming an effective monologue.
>censor the things I don't so that the only speech I like is allowed
Sounds like a free exchange of ideas to me, totally not a monologue, yep.
Jesus christ, that pic.
>how many errors in logic can I make in a single paragraph?
I mean, do people actually read this shit and think it makes sense? Is this what normies are like in 2016?
I think SJWs are destroying the left and we're going to end up with an ultra-conservative neo-fascist president like Trump.
And after that you can read the response -
/v/ still posts links to arstechnica
>do people actually read this shit and think it makes sense?
critical thinking is dead, my friend. When people read shit on the internet their first thought isn't "is this person lying to me?" or "does this person have bias or an agenda?" their first thought is "big words, me no understand, person look nice though, must be true."
>You have ONE example of someone getting arrested IN DUSSELDORF and are trying to turn this into some general trend of people being arrested that occurs "the moment a NAZI feels cornered." ONE example does not a trend make.
Yep. It both saddens and terrifies me.
I read a short story once in primary school about social marxism where attractive individuals were forcibly made unattractive, intelligent individuals had a device that would prevent them from keeping thoughts for too long, watching government run television was mandatory, etc, all in the name of making everyone equal.
It's our future.
>If I recall correctly, that case was thrown out. Got a source for that claim?
it wasn't. He was banned from using the internet for over a year, and spent time in prison.
>but he hasn't been found guilty so that's alright!
you sicken me
You accused Ars Technica of being a hipster hangout, but gave no reason why. You didn't qualify your accusation.
You also didnt name a better tech news site, so i'm doubly suspicious of your opinion on the matter.
True this is why I favor a voting system that doesn't place the candidate's name on the ballot but rather lists their position in a few bullet points.
I can guarantee you that a few people in the USA would actually vote for trump if they looked at his stance like a resume. They would also vote what they truly believed in (left or right) if they felt free of the criticism from peers/voting staff.
Essentially trump could lose just because of his name. Also a bit of stretch but people would have voted for Obama in 08 even if he held opinions similar to trump.
Sadly, society has become superficial and attention deficit. Social media and smartphones are key reason for this trend.
>Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace.
Accurate description of the speech allowed on Twitter and Tumblr desu
>censor the things I don't so that the only speech I like is allowed
So this is what we call a strawman.
I see you've never worked with lawyers before. If you give them unlimited time, they will take all of it to prevent their opponent from speaking. That's what a filibuster is.
No, the primary reason for the time limits is just marketability. Nobody ever said "unlimited time," but 1 minute or whatever the limit is often is not enough to sufficiently answer the question.
Keep in mind that is prob one of the best pictures she has ever taken. Now imagine her on am ordinary day and she expects you to go down on her even though she took a shit within the hour amd hasn't showered
Actually it's white guilt. You know the concept of original sin from the Old Testament? People back in ancient times must have tried to repent for such sin much like how whites are doing these days for actions performed by non-relative white predecessors.
White guilt is the new original sin.
Holy shit, check your privilege, shitlord.
Technically, the multi-person format is not conducive to a coherent debate. With as many as we've had, they could presented it as a round-robin series. In that sense, I agree that the format is more about marketability. However, the time limit is also found in other, more useful debate formats, for the reason I mentioned: the ability to occlude your opponent's speech is more valuable than anything you could say. Which is why a proper dialogue requires the parties to know when to stop talking and let the other speak. If you can't agree to that, then it's not so much that you believe in free speech being the key to sweet idea sex that brings forth the offspring of Progress; you just want your way and nothing else.
>Before about two years ago, Ars Technica was the gold standard for reporting on tech
I think it's been longer than that.
>I'll probably stop reading Ars within a year.
You sound like one of those kids that swears he won't buy Call of Duty and all the DLC THIS TIME.
I don't use Twitter for this reason, but what are we talking about here? Are they moderating posts the way you would expect of any message board (removing unconstructive, inflammatory remarks) or are they banning people who express unpleasant views? Moderation can encroach on free expression when mods begin to see some views as inherently inflammatory, but I'm not against it in principle.
I'd like it if everyone switched to identi.ca to avoid these issues in the first place, but I'm not counting on it. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws can extend first amendment protections to primarily public spaces owned by private companies. A few states make use of this by extending protection to shopping centers. Maybe we should push for similar laws that apply to any public, general-purpose, online platform.
do you even visit other sites?
I bet you people visit reddit too
I forgot that you have to name a better thing to claim that another thing is dogshit
Honestly, I visit Reddit for jailbreak and fantasy football (not so this year since I was busy on draft night and I got replaced). I used to for WoW as well but since the game unequivocally killed any hope of redemption with the shitty expansion of WoD, I don't anymore.
Been coming 4chan since 09, far longer than any other site.
I use twitter for social networking (mostly with anon accounts), go on hackernews because I don't know a better/less pretentious news site, and maybe medium. Reddit for information like wikis and stuff, never for user interaction.
There are websites dedicated to their censorship. Most of it is simple disagreements with the SJW's and BLM and their uneducated and racist, bigoted views. Times a changing though.. They are about to "feel the crunch"
>Dat logic and cool-headedness
But keep in mind that those laws don't always get executed the way you expect. BLM protesters were kicked out of Mall of America on Boxing Day, for example. You would expect that to be one of those, "Don't like what you say, defend your right to say it," situations, but the mall owners argued successfully that they should be excluded somehow.
The only website that I still visit regularly that I started going to before 4chan was [insert unnamed art community here]. Reddit is actually worse than here for conservatard /pol/ bullshit. I always thought it was funny that it was the SJW boogieman when places like the Chimpire and Fat People Hate existed (and just because some of those subs are gone doesn't mean the users are). And tbhfam they often discuss things that we refuse to for whatever reason.
Honestly, 4chan's format is perfect, but the userbase has gotten worse and worse over the years, as has the culture of the individual boards. I promised at one point or another that I'd never load 4chan or reddit or ars or Engadget or The Verge or whatever, and I eventually folded every single time, because it turns out that you take what you can get when you have niche interests and/or the desire to speak freely.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
The current generation doesn't understand the concept of recoil, and when that shot is fired, they're gonna feel the effects.
This is interesting. So basically a protocol which enables you to potentially fetch content locally from a computer right next to you instead of everyone having to fetch it from the same server?
I just watched that video, bitch. That's how I understood it, but how does it actually do this shit?
When someone fetches some content somewhere, they also distribute that content such that computers close to it can find it?
>What another medium is there? You can setup your own platform but it would be as effect as talking to an empty room. Besides such radical speech would get you ostracized maybe even shutdown. Circlejerks and echo chambers are the worst, this includes both sides of the spectrum: stormfront, tumblr, Reddit, etc.
But if you take it like that anything can be censorhip.
It's like complaining the BBC news website is carrying out censorship by not having pages with hard core pornography.
Ars was always the poor man's Anandtech.
They've become increasingly shit because they know they can't compete with Anandtech and need to grab the shithead iVerge non-technology audience instead.
>So this is what we call a strawman.
I genuinely wish it was because that's literally what's happening right now... Trolls and dissenting opinions are being bundled together, labeled as "hate speech" and banned. Just look at how the people who exposed Sarah Nylund as pedophile were banned when people didn't like one of their own being outed as a child molester.
However it's not like this sort of tactic is anything new seeing how feminism has been using it to silence men's rights groups for years by grouping genuine misogyny and people just wanting to bring up things like unfair treatment of men in custody cases and dismissing them all as one big group of "misogynists".
Pornography is not an opinion and we're talking about censorship of opinions here. If you want to go that route practically every site on the internet is doing censorship because they don't feature child porn and we most certainly shouldn't have CP everywhere. Actual censorship for the BBC would be them doing things like intentionally not covering the labor party or the China.
Ok fine. Lets say I love broccoli. I mean a really fucking love broccoli. I think it is amazing.
That is my opinion.
I make a thread here on /g/, about how much I love it. Being non-tech related it gets deleted.
I expressed my opinion, and then someone else stopped me expressing it. Is that censorship?
Yeah, that's what I mean. If I'm visiting, it's usually to go to the Oculus board because for some godforsaken reason /g/ can't talk about anything related to VR without shitposting/memeing/hating. And then, if big news of some sort is happening that /v/ or /g/ isn't talking about or that is within /pol/'s jurisdiction. But 4chan is still my go-to for anything /m/ or /co/ related.
The difference between /g/ and twitter is that while /g/ has a general topic all threads are supposed to be under, twitter doesn't. What you're doing when you post about vegetables on a board not about food is going off-topic.
So a more accurate analogy would be to post it on /b/ or some other general board without a general topic. There you won't get your thread deleted, it'll probably be hijacked for some other subject, but it won't become subject to "censorship".
You can't post cp on /b/, and any furry is subject to spontaneous deletion without warning. There are always limits. The question is whether you're going to have some amount of buy-in to the scheme and therefore some say in what is and isn't "civil discussion," or whether you're going to continue appealing to an unworkable ideal that gets steamrolled when people get sick of the practical struggles of participating in such a community and decide to push for their own idea of what's acceptable.
Which is basically what's happening now.
>In fact, so-called free speech can actually be used as a weapon to silence the vulnerable and dispossessed.
But that's idiotic. Censorship and violence stifle free speech. SJW's had to use free fucking speech in the first place to have the tables turned as they are now.
That's unfortunately not what's happening as it would at least be somewhat reasonable. They're literally banning people based on just mass complaints from the political correctness crowd. Some victims of this have complained to twitter and been unbanned after they found that they haven't posted anything worthy of a ban, others haven't been so lucky.
Trolling is pretty much all done on anonymous throwaway accounts and we've yet to see these accounts actually get tied to anyone but a few of the supposed victims of trolling.
CP is banned on /b/ because it's genuinely illegal and furry has it's own board, so it's genuinely illegal material and material that isn't being censored and has a board dedicated to it.
With twitter you can block out users and discussion you don't like to see and it's a completely different matter to have them block people and discussions because some people don't like to see them. Imagine if back in the day when slavery or racial segregation was the norm that talking critically about them in public was illegal.
What we're talking about here is doing a literal blanket ban on disagreeing with the twitter status quo. That is stifling free speech and only serves the people who believe the status quo should be enforced with censorship.
So it's not censorship if I have another outlet from which I can express my views? i.e. I can't post on /g/, but I can on /b/.
You could effectively expand that to the whole of the internet. I can't express my view on Twitter, but I can on another website.
You say the first amendment doesn't apply to privately own platforms, but then discourse about the public (i.e. the Government) takes place on that very platform.
So, the platform can inhibit the very speech you are granted as a right just because it can be deemed 'private'. Since the major majority (99%) of speech today takes place through some 'private' entity (television, an internet website, phones & apps), then doesn't it make sense that the first amendment *should* apply?
>CP is banned on /b/ because it's genuinely illegal
Threats aren't illegal?
>and furry has it's own board
MLP doesn't encompass all of furry, and you'll be banned if you post most of it there
>Imagine if back in the day when slavery or racial segregation was the norm that talking critically about them in public was illegal.
Surely you're not serious.
>Imagine if back in the day when slavery or racial segregation was the norm that talking critically about them in public was illegal.
I think you'd be very, very surprised to learn the opposite was actually the case for America and Britain. Especially in the 1800s.
Slaves were owned *and* there were people who wanted to see slaves abolished. And, sometimes, these were the same person.
>Imagine if back in the day when slavery or racial segregation was the norm that talking critically about them in public was illegal.
Oh, it wasn't illegal. But private enterprises reserved the right to ban you from their establishments for being an abolitionist.
Oh, also, the mob-killings.
I think you missed my point and that is my fault for not making it explicit and simple.
Nearly every bit of talk about politics these days takes place on some privately own platform. For example, there's Twitter, Facebook, that random forum you visit, the apps on your Phone, the cable networks, etc.
Rarely these days are there public discussions of politics in person, without using some 'privately owned' *thing*. The most obvious of these would be campaign speeches, but even those are designed for cable television.
So, does it not make sense for freedom of speech to apply since, in our world today, it's nearly impossible to communicate without using some "private" platform?
It's still on the same site so 4chan isn't censoring anything, it's just enforcing segmenting a structure of several boards with different topics. As I already explained, twitter doesn't have different boards with different topics.
"Violent speech" IS protected under the First Amendment.
It'd be a legal nightmare to implement what you want. We would need new legal definitions of pretty much everything you mentioned.
Define private, define platform, define free, define speech.
Gives me a headache just thinking about it.
>more government please
listen fuckface, it's the same as 2A enforcement, I can carry a pistol but if a shopkeep posts a sign on the window that says no firearms, I have to respect the property owner's request by law. I won't give him my business though, I'll stop supporting his business
if only there was a publicly owned resource in each municipality that the taxpayers paid for, maintained and used. most likely similar to the utility boards...
the sooner we realize communication as an inherent human right, the sooner we advance as a civilization.
As I already point out to you twice, boards have a clear topic while twitter doesn't. If 4chan did what twitter is doing you'd get banned for saying "Intel CPU's are shit" on /g/, "The PS4 sucks" on /v/ and "G-Reco was garbage and Tomino is a senile old man who can't write dialogue worth shit" on /m/.
What twitter is doing is not even banning a topic, it's banning a disagreement against the political correctness status quo.
>if only there was a publicly owned resource in each municipality that the taxpayers paid for, maintained and used. most likely similar to the utility boards...
ok you're trying very hard to imply the internet
what the fuck are you trying to get at?
I am free to whatever the fuck I want on the internet. Some site will ban me. Some will not. What is the issue here?
>What twitter is doing is not even banning a topic, it's banning a disagreement against the political correctness status quo.
well I guess twitter's topic is political correctness
it actually isn't irrelevant and you should try hard to figure out why. communication on some jackass's server shouldn't be censored moreover than a sign in your window should be censored
Well they should probably clearly state then that disagreeing with things like gender and race quotas, lower college entrance requirements for non-whites, sexism in games being a problem worthy of being talked about at the UN and pedophilia being wrong is against the rules.
I wasn't using "establishments" as a euphemism, but actually, yes, private residences that functioned as clubs were where such discussion would have taken place.
>The mob killings were illegal
Laws don't matter if they're not enforced.
>what if you lived in a world where you could post "no niggers here" in your business window and no one could do anything about it?
But I can. It is protected by the 1st amendment.
What I cannot do it the actual act of banning black people from entering my place of business.
I feel you're trying to push an agenda.
It's like turning up at a white nationalist rally and asking to be given a platform to talk about the joys of race mixing and homosexuality. If they decline to give me a platform, it's censorship.
This is true. What you can't do is post a sign that says, "I will shoot any nigger who walks in here," because it's a threat of imminent harm. Those are unprotected.
But then, this isn't a question of legality on the part of the government but morality on the part of private entities. You say it's immoral to ban any kind of speech, I say it's immoral to allow speech that silences other speech unduly. If the somone carried a gigantic "No Niggers Allowed" banner on the grounds of the RNC nominating convention, I'd expect them to eject that person. The effect of losing the speech of that one person is less hurtful to the discourse the RNC aims to allow than the loss of the speech of the dozens of black conservatives (including delegates) who would no longer feel safe participating.
Moderation is not immoral, and it's not censorship. You're either civil or you get to leave.
you statist prick
you know what's a "public platform"?
you are just as bad as the people forcing bakers to make cakes supporting gay marriage even if it violates their religious conscience
>Essentially trump could lose just because of his name.
I think you mean
>Trump could lose just because he's an unelectable monster who doesn't mean a single word he says, would lack the authority and support to accomplish a single one of his stated goals if elected, and is exploiting our governmental process to stroke his own colossal ego while simultaneously furthering a poisonous divisive mindset that is tearing our country apart.
A private gathering like a rally is not a public space. You won't be able to go to a Bernie Sanders rally and talk about how fantastic trickle down theory is.
The proper analogy here would be an event center banning say Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton rallies in their facility.
Once again, when you're at someone's own house it's hardly a public space. Proper censorship in this case would have been banning people to have events about this to begin with or now allowing them to publish newspapers on the topic.
The problem here is definitions. Define "public space".
The private rally might be held on public space. The event center might be privately owned.
You can see how hairy things can get.
Twitter used to be privately owned, now is publicly traded company.
So your basic stance is now one of "If it's privately owned in any shape or form, freedom of speech does not apply"...
I imagine your stance would probably be quite different if it was the other way around and posting opinions like the ones you hold was a bannable offense on twitter.
>I read a short story once in primary school...
>It's our future
The ENTIRE point of the story Harrison Bergeron is to highlight how retarded people like you are. It's a satire of you in a, "this is what idiots think equality means", sort of way.
>complaining about newspeak being alive and well
Yes, and the right-wing was the one who instituted it.
It's amazing how much Stormfront has infiltrated /g/
They must be milking every angry virgin stereotype for all its worth.
>It's not as bad as Europe, but hate speech is illegal here.
Hate speech in a public forum (ie: renting out a stadium to have a "black people are monkeys" symposium is a no go). You can yell nigger in public all you want and it's not against the law (disturbing the peace is, though).
Frankly, nothing of any fucking value was lost.
>So your basic stance is now one of "If it's privately owned in any shape or form, freedom of speech does not apply"...
no, I'm not really saying that. That would be like me saying I should be free to put up large posters of scat in your private residence because I should be free to do so.
What I'm saying it it hard, if not impossible to draw the line between private and public forms of communications/platform. We cannot force entities to espouse views no more than we can force them to censor certain views.
The only line we can draw is the line between the state and non-state. And the state should not be able to censor any views. That is all that is needed for freedom of speech.
>If the somone carried a gigantic "No Niggers Allowed" banner on the grounds of the RNC nominating convention, I'd expect them to eject that person.
I'm sure you'd feel the same way no matter what group said person's sign was attempting to disallow, correct?
By and large I think some reasonable restrictions on speech are okay, but it seems slightly too much that passing anti-gay fliers (based off medical facts, not just saying "fags to the stake, burn them now") is enough for a hate speech conviction.
>The ENTIRE point of the story Harrison Bergeron is to highlight how retarded people like you are
I wasn't saying the story is right, I was just pointing out that they had the wrong title.
Never been there nor do I agree with their racist viewpoints. I am merely suggesting that people today shouldn't be punished nor feel responsible for actions committed by others in the past.
The couple fliers of his that I could find through google didn't have any medical facts in them.
I gather that the "medical facts" were showing STIs that are much more prevalent among gay men than the general population - probably due to the inherent better transmission of STIs through anal sex and lower condom use rates among gay men