The Consequences of Indecency (techcrunch.com) 502
Ron Wyden, a senior U.S. Senator from Oregon, argues there should be consequences for internet companies that refuse to remove hate speech from their platforms. An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a report Wyden wrote via TechCrunch: I wrote the law that allows sites to be unfettered free speech marketplaces. I wrote that same law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to provide vital protections to sites that didn't want to host the most unsavory forms of expression. The goal was to protect the unique ability of the internet to be the proverbial marketplace of ideas while ensuring that mainstream sites could reflect the ethics of society as a whole. In general, this has been a success -- with one glaring exception. I never expected that internet CEOs would fail to understand one simple principle: that an individual endorsing (or denying) the extermination of millions of people, or attacking the victims of horrific crimes or the parents of murdered children, is far more indecent than an individual posting pornography.
Social media cannot exist without the legal protections of Section 230. That protection is not constitutional, it's statutory. Failure by the companies to properly understand the premise of the law is the beginning of the end of the protections it provides. I say this because their failures are making it increasingly difficult for me to protect Section 230 in Congress. Members across the spectrum, including far-right House and Senate leaders, are agitating for government regulation of internet platforms. Even if government doesn't take the dangerous step of regulating speech, just eliminating the 230 protections is enough to have a dramatic, chilling effect on expression across the internet. Were Twitter to lose the protections I wrote into law, within 24 hours its potential liabilities would be many multiples of its assets and its stock would be worthless. The same for Facebook and any other social media site. Boards of directors should have taken action long before now against CEOs who refuse to recognize this threat to their business. In an interview with Recode, Wyden said that platforms should be punished for hosting content that goes against "common decency." "I think what the Alex Jones case shows, we're gonna really be looking at what the consequences are for just leaving common decency in the dust," Wyden told Recode's Kara Swisher. "...What I'm gonna be trying to do in my legislation is to really lay out what the consequences are when somebody who is a bad actor, somebody who really doesn't meet the decency principles that reflect our values, if that bad actor blows by the bounds of common decency, I think you gotta have a way to make sure that stuff is taken down."
Social media cannot exist without the legal protections of Section 230. That protection is not constitutional, it's statutory. Failure by the companies to properly understand the premise of the law is the beginning of the end of the protections it provides. I say this because their failures are making it increasingly difficult for me to protect Section 230 in Congress. Members across the spectrum, including far-right House and Senate leaders, are agitating for government regulation of internet platforms. Even if government doesn't take the dangerous step of regulating speech, just eliminating the 230 protections is enough to have a dramatic, chilling effect on expression across the internet. Were Twitter to lose the protections I wrote into law, within 24 hours its potential liabilities would be many multiples of its assets and its stock would be worthless. The same for Facebook and any other social media site. Boards of directors should have taken action long before now against CEOs who refuse to recognize this threat to their business. In an interview with Recode, Wyden said that platforms should be punished for hosting content that goes against "common decency." "I think what the Alex Jones case shows, we're gonna really be looking at what the consequences are for just leaving common decency in the dust," Wyden told Recode's Kara Swisher. "...What I'm gonna be trying to do in my legislation is to really lay out what the consequences are when somebody who is a bad actor, somebody who really doesn't meet the decency principles that reflect our values, if that bad actor blows by the bounds of common decency, I think you gotta have a way to make sure that stuff is taken down."
what is indecent? (Score:5, Insightful)
go on, define it
Re:what is indecent? (Score:5, Insightful)
go on, define it
OK: "stuff I don't like"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think he did:
"an individual endorsing (or denying) the extermination of millions of people"
The problem is, the genocide of 60 million unborn Americans that the Democrat party has as a plank that every democratic Senator, including Ron Wyden, has endorsed.
Therefore, since Ron Wyden is an individual, who has endorsed (or maybe denies, I haven't checked his position on the personhood of the unborn recently) the extermination of millions of people, he needs to be censored.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, well, there's your problem. You have greatly expanded the definition of what constitutes a person.
Re:what is indecent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what is indecent? (Score:5, Interesting)
so if you say something like "lawyers are the scum of the earth, they should all be loaded on buses and driven off a cliff" , which is most likely not a real call to action, is hate speech?
Here is what pisses me off... we tell providers they have the right to refuse to allow someone like Alex Jones to air his content on their site because they do not agree with what he says. Fine. But at the same time they condemn a bakery for refusing to make a wedding cake for someones position they do not agree with. The 1st amendment assures you free speech, the 14th amendment assures you equal protection. If we bend the rule to allow providers to pick and choose whom they allow to have accounts and post based on whether we agree with what they say or political agenda, what grounds do they have to go after a baker for doing the exact same thing?
Re:what is indecent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now don't go pointing out basic fundamental inconsistencies in rhetoric - that's the kind of thing that makes people actually think instead of just engaging in so-called "whataboutism" and us-versus-them partisan horseshit.
Re:what is indecent? (Score:4, Informative)
How do you determine if something is a real call to action? People harassed the families of murdered children after Jones peddled his conspiracy theories, is that enough or do you use some other threshold?
By the way, the court decided that the bakery thing wasn't a freedom of speech issue because no reasonable person would think that the message on the cake was the speech of the baker, but rather the speech of the couple.
Re: (Score:3)
By the way, the court decided that the bakery thing wasn't a freedom of speech issue because no reasonable person would think that the message on the cake was the speech of the baker, but rather the speech of the couple.
Yet no reasonable person would think that a tweet from Alex Jones is the speech of Twitter, but rather the speech of Alex Jones. So, by that logic, Twitter shouldn't be allowed to "de-platform" him, right?
I personally barely know who Alex Jones is and have never watched/read/listened to him
Re:what is indecent? (Score:5, Informative)
I think he did: "an individual endorsing (or denying) the extermination of millions of people"
I think he didn't. That's an example. It's not a definition. If you can't tell the difference then you shouldn't be writing laws.
Ron Wyden is the poster child for why the First Amendment is critical to society. It was enacted not to protect speech that everyone approves of, but to protect unpopular speech. You know, the speech that doesn't fit fully within "community standards" or "approved by the government".
Re:what is indecent? (Score:5, Interesting)
Thing is I'm reading the transcript of the actual interview [recode.net] and it seems like the summary is misrepresenting him a bit. For example:
I guess, if people wanna say, âoeYou know, we oughta just have the government start dictating...â By the way, one of the most stunning aspects of the last couple of days is to see conservative politicians, people like Kevin McCarthy and Ted Cruz, they are essentially saying that the government should run private companies, the government should dictate to private companies what theyâ(TM)re doing. Iâ(TM)m sure itâ(TM)s very popular with their base, but doesnâ(TM)t happen to be the right thing.
So apparently he doesn't want the government to be too heavy handed here.
You know how Backpage was essentially busted? They were busted under existing Section 230 law. The reason we had problems is because law enforcement didnâ(TM)t move aggressively enough and quickly enough. And after a while everybody said, âoeOh, we canâ(TM)t do anything about it, letâ(TM)s go pass this really flawed law, SESTA and FOSTA,â
His goal is to avoid over-reaching legislation like SESTA and FOSTA by having more reasonable rules.
In fact if you grep for the "lay out what the consequences" quote you can see that he wants to avoid trying to define morality or "common decency" and instead lay out what sanctions the social media companies are allowed to use (I guess he means bans, demoting in search results etc.) at their own discretion.
The summary is confusing because it makes it look like he is trying to define "common decency", when in fact he is just giving his personal opinion and using it as an example of how he would create the rules on his own imaginary social network.
Re: (Score:3)
Even better, since his law would go after the publisher and not the person actually posting, we need to start fining the executives of the hosting company that host ronwyden.org, which appears to be Google according to whois.
So let's make that the first defendant. Haul Larry and Sergey on into court behind this shit and see just how far it gets. Then let's do the same for the hosting companies for DNC.org and every other Senator and Congress-person that votes for this thing.
What's good for the goose...
Re:what is indecent? (Score:5, Interesting)
Free speech draws the line at explicit inciting of violence, the proverbial cry of “fire” in a theatre. But we should be free to insult and offend. And they way things are going it might not be a bad idea to actually put that explicitly in our respective constitutions.
Re:what is indecent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is Jones at fault for an armed guy going to the pizza parlor?
Is the media at fault for a guy assaulting a catholic priest for recent events?
Is the Sanders and the media at fault for the guy shooting up Republicans at a baseball field?
If Jones broke the law where is the police report? Where is the prosecution, the trial, the conviction? Is he guilty of a crime or is he guilty of saying stupid shit? There is a civil lawsuit pending but I have yet to see any criminal charges. Innocent until proven guilty and there is not a single criminal charge. The mob should not decide when someone can use their rights or not.
I don't care if they are jokes or lies I care if they break the law and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that beyond empty rhetoric like yours.
The media isn't responsible for a guy assaulting a priest just as Jones isn't responsible for an armed nut. It doesn't matter if what Jones said was true, parody, lies, jokes or insulting. What matters is that he has the right to say it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Abortion is not an easy issue, but it is simple from a legal standpoint. The "pro-life" position is inherently violent and the pro-choice is not. Give people a better society and abortions will diminish.
Re:what is indecent? (Score:5, Insightful)
go on, define it
It's what's defined by the Wahhabi interpretation of the Holy Quran.
We'll start with Wyden's web site(s) and email. I think sharia law should be applied.
Re: (Score:2)
Define common decency, 'TOO FUCKING EASY', take it to court fuckers and prove it there, done. I want organisations to be penalised for not taking down content that goes against common decency, 'ONCE IT IS PROVEN IN COURT'. No one should have a problem with that, they take it to court, demand the content be taken down, prove it in court and then and only then if the company refuses they are fined.
Re: (Score:3)
The best part is that the media coverage of the trial will greatly expand the audience of the "indecent" material and cause a Streisand Effect like we haven't seen since the DMCA takedown notices of DeCSS keys and such. And then all those media publishers get indicted and fined as conspirators and accomplices to the original defendant!
What could possibly go wrong with this...
Re: (Score:2)
go on, define it
I know it when I see it.
And I am pretty sure I just saw it on the Senator Ron Wyden (D) web site!
Re: (Score:3)
systemd
Re: what is indecent? (Score:3)
That's not indecent, it's just retarded.
The same justification (Score:2, Insightful)
Decency.... hate speech .... blah blah blah blah
Everything that Senator Wyden says is the same exact justification that China, North Korea and every other dictatorship uses for suppressing free speech and free expression.
And when the popular opinion swings... (Score:5, Insightful)
...and decides that things like "homosexuality", "pre-marital sex" and "mixed marriages" are "against the common decency" - then it's perfectly ok for any matching content to be removed from the internet, right? RIGHT?
Because THAT'S what this is saying...
Re:And when the popular opinion swings... (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's not happening. Indeed, something of the opposite is happening.
For many topics, or behaviors, or beliefs, any criticism or even simple rejection is being punished as 'hate speech'. You cannot disagree with a wide variety of opinions without being shadowbanned or redirected, deplatformed, or simple filtered out, and the entities doing that may ignore your requests for explanation.
While it's popular to hang on to the old saws about how many people reject certain behaviors, and you know these since you referenced them,m it is indeed the new wave of 'inclusion' that is working effectively and uniformly to suppress opposing viewpoints.
It's as if the First Amendment is limited to that which obeys, supports, or promotes the 'social norms', except that, of course, it actually defends what is NOT part of 'social norms'. whether those are real, historical, imaginary, or a hoped-for future reality.
We are in this deep. Failure to stop the Internet censorship of contrary speech will at best fracture society, and at worst lead to real, physical conflict. It has actually already begun. Pay attention.
Re:And when the popular opinion swings... (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's not happening.
Obviously
Indeed, something of the opposite is happening.
Exactly
For many topics, or behaviors, or beliefs, any criticism or even simple rejection is being punished as 'hate speech'. You cannot disagree with a wide variety of opinions without being shadowbanned or redirected, deplatformed, or simple filtered out, and the entities doing that may ignore your requests for explanation.
Right, and *right now* those same people are perfectly OK with censoring things they disagree with as "against common decency" because "common decency" aligns with their beliefs and they are utterly incapable of considering the possibility that social norms may change, and they're totally ignorant of what the consequences of such a policy would be should social norms become misaligned with their own beliefs.
I'm trying to point out that social norms can and do change, and that if the norms should swing "against" their beliefs, they would no longer be in support of said policy - because they're hypocrites
Re:And when the popular opinion swings... (Score:5, Funny)
You don't have to wait for that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply look at the problems global platforms are experiencing with foreign governments currently.
Twitter pressured to remove content because it offends the thin-skinned leader of another country (China, Turkey). I mean really, Winnie the Pooh is offensive? Imagine Trump having the power to ban all pictures and references to Cheetos from the internet because its "offensive" to his supporters!
The bigger problem though is vocal minorities.
Imagine the US Government forcing YouTube to remove Mark Meechan's (Nazi dog guy's) videos because a small group of people with no sense of humor complained.
Imagine Facebook removing a Harry Potter fan page because a group of angry Bible Belt moms complained it was "of the devil" and offensive.
Imagine the knee-jerk reaction to the next mass shooting being to remove whatever imagined influence (Ozzy Osbourne, Iron maiden, D&D, Magic the Gathering, Marilyn Manson, Call of Duty, etc) from the internet "to prevent it happening again".
This isn't a slippery slope. Its a cliff. And we're standing at the edge with one foot over the drop while politicians stand behind us screaming that somehow that step will be good for us.
Re:And when the popular opinion swings... (Score:5, Insightful)
time and time again these idiots pull this power shit and do this without ever thinking that one day, some other group is going to use it against me.
Even now they go gunning for bakeries that refuse to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals, because they don't have a right to deny service. Then they cheer the restaurants who refuse service to cabinet members and say they have the right to refuse service to anyone because its their business and thats their right. They cheer sites that take down Alex Jones saying its their right because its there site; but if facebook started banning accounts because the accounts were promoting gay sex, they would be strung up and an outcry to make a law forcing facebook to allow it would be circulating within days.
hows this for hate speech.... everyone guilty of profound hypocrisy should be rounded up and executed summarily. Better for the species as a whole. LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Careful, you say shit like your last sentence if this legislation passes, and the Department of Thought Police... err... Department of "Justice" starts fining BeauHD and the other Slashdot editors.
Hey wait, you might be on to something...
Re: (Score:2)
Even now they go gunning for bakeries that refuse to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals, because they don't have a right to deny service. Then they cheer the restaurants who refuse service to cabinet members and say they have the right to refuse service to anyone because its their business and thats their right.
The law is quite clear and easy to understand. You are allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason with the exception of a small number of reasons.
Those exceptions have all come about because
Re:And when the popular opinion swings... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you really just break off a "think of the children" ?
This legislation is an abomination, and incredibly short sighted. Anyone who votes for this piece of trash apparently has never even looked back at what was "indecent" 50 years ago and 100% acceptable today and thought about what this law would mean, as the United States Code is much slower to adapt to shifting winds than pretty much any other thing imaginable.
The Universal Code of Military Justice defines "sodomy" as "unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal" - it's essentially a half-assed ban on homosexuality in the Military even after Don't Ask Don't Tell has gone by the wayside, and it can only go away by an Act of Congress. Technically any active-duty or reserve enlisted homosexual could be thrown in jail for 5 years for having completely consensual sex with a partner.
The onset of gay rights and overall public acceptance would show that the law is not exactly in lock-step with what is thought to be "indecent" in today's society. You are absolutely correct that they will never be able to define what is "indecent" but I'm still afraid they might take a crack at it, fucking it up for 50+ years while the First Amendment gets trampled under the guise of "think of the children" and other such horseshit emotional appeals.
What is the consequences... (Score:5, Insightful)
...when what is considered indecent is decided by those in power?
Re: (Score:2)
For a lot of people, I think that guy has been elected.
How many people have a much more favorable view of George W. now than they did three years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
that's exactly what I have been trying to warn about for over a decade now. Too many people just think they will never fall out of power. Its fundamentally stupid. If they will do it with you, they will do it to you. If you don't close up every loophole you find, eventually someone is going to exploit you using the very exploits you set in motion. It is _literally_ where the expression 'beat them at their own game' came from.
You First (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You First (Score:5, Insightful)
Right on. I looked him up and the turned out to be a Democrat. What is it with liberals getting so worked up about controlling who is allowed to speak? Even Wikipedia says "Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized important individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association." Maybe it's time to redefine the terms.
Re:You First (Score:5, Insightful)
>"What is it with liberals getting so worked up about controlling who is allowed to speak? Even Wikipedia says "Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized important individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association." Maybe it's time to redefine the terms."
Many already have. Those original liberals are now often called "classical liberals", not to be confused with "modern liberals", who many just now refer to as the "left".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://reason.com/archives/20... [reason.com]
"â Classical liberalism is a combination of civil liberty, political freedom, and economic freedom.
â Modern liberalism is a combination of social justice and mixed economy."
Re:Nope, Davis, you're dithering in "Social Justic (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. "Social Justice", at least as it is practiced today, appears to be not concerned with equal opportunity but equal OUTCOMES. The only way to make THAT happen is to remove those three aspirations of classical liberalism: political freedom, civil liberty, and economic freedom. It is a belief that somehow everyone is a victim and everyone else owes you something. To to promote it, they foster "identity politics" where people are not individuals, but just parts of either victim or oppressor "groups." And to "rectify it", they seek government and corporate assistance, demonize anyone who disagrees, and seek to shut down any rational conversation in any way possible- like appealing to emotion instead of facts and banning speech. Gone is individual responsibility and gratefulness, replaced with blame, sadness, and outrage. That is the modern social justice warrior, at least as I have observed.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate the way the word 'liberal' got re-written to somehow imply for civil liberties. Someone for freedom, ie the french word Liberte, would be a Libertarian.
when i was a lot younger, Liberal vs Conservative mean budgetary spending. A Liberal was all about spending and spending and just raising taxes. In other words they were very 'liberal' with the way they spent other people's money. A conservative was about cutting programs deemed not needed and reigning in wasteful spending. Joke expressions like 'tax
We know (Score:2)
Your Version of "decency" is what is to be enforced right?
It used to be indecent to do a lot of things, like race mixing, anything more than holding hands in public, women showing too much skin... did you see her ankles? What a fucking slut!!!
Yea yea we get it... we really do get! Free Speech for me, but not for thee!
The Enemies of Voltaire (Score:5, Insightful)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - from The Friends of Voltaire
This kind of commitment to free speech is a pillar of classical liberalism. Sen. Wyden is interested in the opposite: infringing civil rights.
Hate speech does poorly in a free marketplace of ideas, and brings discredit upon the speaker. There is no need to infringe freedom of speech, one of the most fundamental civil rights.
Re:The Enemies of Voltaire (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate speech does poorly in a free marketplace of ideas, and brings discredit upon the speaker. There is no need to infringe freedom of speech, one of the most fundamental civil rights.
Yeah, but if allow people to speak and expose their atrocious ideas, then the SJWs will no longer simply be able to decide in advance for the rest of us who the nazis are...
By letting people speak, you are infringing on the rights of the SJWs to arbitrarily decide who the "bad guys" are
Re: (Score:3)
Most of us were fine with "SJWs" for years- hell, most of us were in the same camp. It was when any amount of disagreement got relabeled "hate speech" or "hate-tinged" and then that said terrible hate speech must be banned that a clear line was drawn.
I cannot condone any moralistic limits to free speech. Not because I want to call people slurs as I'm sure you are already preparing to accuse me of. I am afraid that tomorrow I may not be able to say "God won't save us from climate change".p>
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - from The Friends of Voltaire
This kind of commitment to free speech is a pillar of classical liberalism. Sen. Wyden is interested in the opposite: infringing civil rights.
Interestingly enough, when you actually read what he said, you are suggesting he is saying exactly the opposite of what he said:
I say this because their failures are making it increasingly difficult for me to protect Section 230 in Congress. Members across the spectrum, including far-right House and Senate leaders, are agitating for government regulation of internet platforms.
He's pointing out that others are wanting to put in place regulations on free speech, and it's becoming more difficult to defend section 230, but you're a scibing that position to him.
Hate speech does poorly in a free marketplace of ideas, and brings discredit upon the speaker. There is no need to infringe freedom of speech, one of the most fundamental civil rights.
I would agree that it "should" work that way, but we've seen years, and even decades, of exactly the opposite. There are more hate groups now than ever before. The problem isn't that they're not
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
The fact is, hate speech often does quite well in "a free marketplace of ideas" especially when there's no responsibility or accountability and there's anonymity in it's place.
Re:The Enemies of Voltaire (Score:5, Interesting)
Wyden says "platforms should be punished" if they don't censor despicable Alex Jones-type speech.
Sorry, the end of "protecting Section 230" doesn't justify that means. Saying that we should censor, so that we won't have to censor, is a pretty poor solution.
Now, I said that hate speech does poorly in a free marketplace of ideas. You disagreed.
Look at the highly-publicized white nationalist rally that was held on Aug 12. Out of 326 million Americans, only 24 people showed up to that rally.
If that's not an example of an idea that's "doing poorly," I don't know what is.
Re:The Enemies of Voltaire (Score:4, Interesting)
someone, using actual logic, needs to explain how a business has the right to refuse a platform for Alex Jones, because its their company to do as they please, and at the same time say another business, such as a bakery, does NOT have the right to refuse service to a gay couple wanting a wedding cake?? This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy the breeds more conflict and will eventually start a conflict of violent proportions.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone elsewhere in the discussion did. Basically, being gay is a legally protected characteristic, and being Alex Jones is not.
Re:The Enemies of Voltaire (Score:5, Insightful)
>"There are more hate groups now than ever before."
Actually no. It might APPEAR there are more "hate groups", but only because of the way the media is covering such topics.
>"The problem isn't that they're not being stigmatized, it's that people without basic decency are now embracing the hate. That's the reason Trump was elected, and why this countries conservatives are on a seemingly one way ticket to all out fascism."
That is just utter nonsense. The vast majority of hate I see is from the left and SJW's. The reason Trump was elected was primarily due to people getting fed up with the "establishment" politicians- on both sides. There is no denying he certainly has been different.
Re: (Score:3)
so fed up that they knew they were throwing a bull into a china shop. They didnt care what he broke, they just felt washington needed to be punished. I see hate coming from all sides. However, i do agree there is a whole lot of 'thats not hate' coverup from the left.
Lesson learned.... when you get elected president you're supposed to put partisanship behind and represent ALL the people. When you run a campaign insulting and calling half the nation a basket of deplorables, there is no pretending you ever wi
Re: (Score:2)
>"If your opinion is shared by the neo-nazi's, and they say you're the savior of the white race.... chances are you're a fucking neo-nazi".
Or, you are just a rallying point for ignorant people who think they have something going that they don't. Siting a left-wing site outlet of a left-wing organization (SPLC) doesn't lend much credibility to the analysis. I could just as easily site Stossel's take on the SPLC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
>"The fact you think the media is to blame for calling
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
thats not why trump got elected. It's certainly what got him popular at some rally's but it wasnt enough to get him elected. He got elected because more people hated Hillary than liked her. It could have been another candidate but the media went and meddled. Go back and look at the headlines leading up to the primaries. Watch how media worked with HRCs campaign to deliberately tilt the table in favor or HRC. At first the media was pushing Jeb Bush out in front. They wanted nothing more than another Bush
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Sen. Wyden is interested in the opposite: infringing civil rights."
There is no evidence of that.
"Failure by the companies to properly understand the premise of the law is the beginning of the end of the protections it provides."
Wyden is talking about legal protections enjoyed by corporations hosting content, not about "infringing civil rights". It appears you "fail to understand the premise of the law" as well.
Re: (Score:2)
explain to me how corporations have the right to say who can and who cannot have a voice on their platform, and using the same exact reasoning explain your way out of how a bakery does NOT have the same right to refuse service to any person they do not agree with, such as a gay couple. Then turn around, after doing that, explain how those restaurants in DC that refused service to whitehouse officials is also OK when the Bakery thing is not. The Hypocrisy of the situation is fairly disgusting.
"Thank God for Dead Soldiers" (Score:2)
If Trolling people at funerals in real life is perfectly legal and without consequences then why the hell should the internet be any different?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not without consequences -- they spend a lot of money doing this, expecting someone to get aggressive with them so they can sue to finance more such meatspace trolling. So either they run out of money or they induce someone to assault them. Neither one is without consequence.
Private companies (Score:2)
Free speech should be left alone and private companies can set whatever community guidelines they want regarding free speech and they should be able to enforce them when someone breaks them. Anyone not liking getting booted for breaking community guidelines can just go rent some web space or dedicated server and start their own stream and say anything they want, oh oh yah there's that thing called the audience. With out YT/Twitter/etc no one would find the Alex Jones types.
Larry Flynt (Score:5, Informative)
"Free speech only important if it's offensive".
One step, then one more... (Score:5, Informative)
The thing is, the online services have already taken that first step by agreeing together to remove Alex Jones from all the major social media sites.
The fact that Alex Jones is a reprehensible conspiracy-mongering nutburger is beside the point. Of course he is. Anyone with two neurons capable of achieving a synapse can tell that.
But he's far less of an evil than Holocaust deniers and actual Nazis. If they can remove the lesser evil, whey are they hesitating to remove the greater evil?
They've already passed the "That's already been decided; now we're just haggling about the price" point with the Alex Jones thing.
The only way to win this game is to refuse to start playing it in the first place, but that horse left the barn a few weeks ago.
Re:One step, then one more... (Score:5, Insightful)
But he's far less of an evil than Holocaust deniers and actual Nazis.
Actual Nazis, yes. Holocaust deniers, no. Actual Nazis were dangerous not because of their words, but their actions. It was the fact that they murdered millions of innocent people that made them evil and dangerous, not their speech. Holocaust deniers are not nearly as dangerous as those that would attempt to control the teaching of history through legislation.
This IS a constitutional issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Social media cannot exist without the legal protections of Section 230. That protection is not constitutional, it's statutory.
The first amendment states the following:
The first amendment is intended to restrain congress from acting against free speech. If revising or removing the Section 230 protections has a chilling effect on free expression, then Congress has abridged free speech, and the act of modifying Section 230 was then unconstitutional. It does not matter that Section 230 did not exist at the time the constitution was made ---- Today we enjoy certain free speech rights, And a law protects platforms who enable us to exercise that free speech right. ANY attempt to curtail that by passing any kind of law or law that says an existing law shall change --- is an abridgement of Free Speech; Once congress passes a law protecting free speech (Such as Section 230) --- which is their authority to do in order to enforce the constitution, The first amendment ensures congress does not have the right to abridge the rights of expression by cancelling that protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethics of society? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who gets to flag and enforce that "ethics of society" on US domestic politics? Followers of one side of US politics?
The USA saw what "chilling effect on expression" was like under the tyranny of a UK monarchy.
Thats why the USA protects the freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
Why the USA has freedom of the press.
The right to peaceably assemble.
To petition for a governmental redress of grievances.
Self-evident under God. Not the changing partisan politics to "reflect the ethics of society".
US freedoms are protected from governments, not for governments to set limits on.
No (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bike Lock Party wants to ban Free Speech! (Score:2)
No doubt, Wyden imagines that it will be someone like him and not someone like President Trump that gets to decide what constitutes "common decency" and hence what gets banned in practice. But to imagine President Trump making such decisions, requires thought. And members of the Bike Lock Party don't think, they only emote.
And what do they emote about: Who to hit over the head
Enemies of the state! (Score:2, Insightful)
"We need to kill all those old white guys and make sure that someone who represents the actual people runs Washington."
Is that hate speech? That's basically the left's rhetoric everywhere for the last 80 years.
What is hate speech? (Score:2)
Hate speech is speech the Left hates.
There is this constant attempt by the Left to label any position it doesn't like as far right or Nazi. Thus, once labeled, it can be removed. Coincidentally, this is the same philosophy used by the far left regimes of the 20th century. They failed in part because they punished anyone who told the truth and thus could not obtain accurate information about their situation. That's the problem we developed free speech to deal with. It's very worrisome the Left apparently lea
Does anyone actually believe this propaganda? (Score:2)
"Indecency" is the new "corrupting the youth."
Or even "royalism" or being a kulak.
They just want to remove off-Narrative content.
They will use any excuse.
Worrying about "indecency" is the new "think of the children!"
take the alex jones thing for example (Score:2)
personally i think alex jones is a carpetbagging tinfoil asshat,
1st Amendment violation! (Score:2)
The SECOND the Government does something like this they are now in VIOLATION of the 1st Amendment! They are restricting (by law) peoples RIGHT to Free speech!
Hello Mr. Orwell!
Yeah, no way that will be abused (Score:2)
See here's the problem.
The definition of hate speech is a moving target and subject to the whim of those in charge at the time OR pressure from whatever voter demographic yells the loudest.
Today, you can't say anything meaningful without someone claiming to be offended by it.
Once enough folks claim to be offended, ( -waves wand- politico correcto ! ) it magically becomes hate speech.
Just. Like. That.
People don't need the government to protect them from words or ideas. If anything, the government needs to t
Ron Wyden, a senior U.S. Senator from Or (Weird) (Score:3)
If he was a Republican that sentence would have made that very clear....
Welcome to Liberal Socialist Communist thinking.. China would be proud.
Liberalism is dead (Score:2)
Enjoy mad max millennials. Maybe your grandkids will rediscover real liberal principles. Or Not. At least it's an answer to the Fermi paradox
Completely wrong: legally and philosophically (Score:3)
Wyden is is lying about what the CDA is designed to do.
Social media cannot exist without the legal protections of Section 230. That protection is not constitutional, it's statutory.
Civil libertarians have waiting 20 years for this shoe to drop. Back when the CDA was being debated we predicted that this is *EXACTLY* what would happen. It was never meant to protect freedom of speech. Stop pretending it was. The Communications Decency Act was passed with the goal of protecting minors from online exposure to indecent material. [msk.com]
This law was a legal bait-and-switch setup. Step 1: Pass a law that mirrors something the constitution already guarantees. Step 2: Claim that the protection is statutory not constitutional. Step 3: Remove or amend the law and now you can claim that you can regulate that thing.
I want them to get rid of the CDA because this was never something congress should have had the power to legislate. Twitter, Facebook, Google, Instagram - none of them are liable for what their users post any more than the owner of a building is liable for the graffiti that is placed on it, or the newspaper is liable for the opinions in the letters to the editor. This is a cornerstone of democracy.
You can't reasonably argue that the 1st amendment prevents congress from passing law that inhibits freedom of speech, but also claim that manufacturers of pens are liable for the speech, or manufacturers of loudspeakers are liable for the sounds that come out of them, or web site hosts are responsible for what people post on them, or bulletin boards are responsible for the notes people tack onto them, or that telephone companies liable for the content of calls people make, etc.
Remember that the CDA set the legal stage for the DMCA, which is what makes it possible for the RIAA and MPAA to start using ISPs as copyright police. With the DMCA, these new "statutory protections" that we didn't ever need now had limits. ISPs are now only protected from liability if they cooperate with copyright holders demands, and if they take down "hacking" or circumvention tools.
Wyden is claiming that section 230 is a free-speech clause, but it really isn't. It's called the Commications Decency Act for a reason! They wanted to regulate what is "decent." Section 230 also grants ISPs immunity from liability if they *restrict* someone's free speech. Without section 230, they might be legally liable if they block someone's speech! We are better off without it.
Go ahead, try to stop Americans from cursing online, or posting porn, or posting whatever you want to call "indecent." Does Mr. Wyden really think that is even possible?
Re: (Score:3)
We should also remind Mr. Wyden that the parts of the CDA that actually tried to restrict indecent speech were unanimously struck down by the supreme court [cybertelecom.org] as was it's successor the COPA. The only law that they have managed to get past the courts is is the CIPA, which merely limits funding to libraries if they don't install their own filters. And the law doesn't even say that the feds can audit the libraries anyway, so the law does nothing.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Internet should be in a burka (Score:2)
Interesting how "liberals" seem to have a serious problem with concepts like "freedom of speech"... and "free association"... and "due process".
Why is that? Because they're not liberals. They're illiberals. They don't advocate for freedom but rather against freedom.
They do not idealize freedom but rather are threatened by it.
Real liberals value freedom... liberty... hence "liberal". These people are ideological skinwalkers that ripped the flesh off some classical liberals and have been wearing their rotting
There is absolutely no such thing as hate speech. (Score:3)
Even the US Supreme Court reaffirmed that hate speech doesn't exist and censoring someone using the term "hate speech" violates the first amendment. You have a freedom of speech, you do NOT have freedom from being offended, see Supreme Court outcome of the Larry Flynt case.
From the US Supreme Court case "Matal vs Tam" aka "the slants case" the Justices verdict:
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend ⦠strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express âoethe thought that we hate.â
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an âoeegregious form of content discrimination,â which is âoepresumptively unconstitutional.â ⦠A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the governmentâ(TM)s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
So it doesn't matter what media says or state morons try to pass laws... Anyone taking it to court would automatically win as the Supreme Court has ruled more than once like over 20 times that there is no such thing as hate speech and any laws enacted would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is "hate speech"? Who defines it?
How is calling someone a nagger hate speech?
Are we really that far removed from common sense?
*facepalm*
Re: (Score:2)
[edit]
Re: To be offended or to offend (Score:5, Insightful)
It's stupid. I can call you a dick, a cunt, an asshole, a fuckwit, a retard, a moron, an imbecile, a douchebag, a jackass, or a buffoon, and that's all perfectly acceptable and not hate speech. But I can't call you a n*gger or a f*ggot, because hate speech. But you can call me a cracker or a breeder, because hand waving.
Who the fuck makes up this bullshit? Idiots with too much time on their hands and an IQ smaller than their waist band.
Re: To be offended or to offend (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It was good while it lasted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, its almost as if they dont already have plenty of existing laws that can be applied for anything that is ACTUALLY ILLEGAL.
What this is pushing for is government oversight on the morality of discussions, and anyone who doesn't understand that deserves to suffer the consequences.
Someone online engaging in actual slander, actual threats, actual hate speech (already getting blurry there) already has LAWS THAT CAN BE APPLIED.
'On the internet' is not some kind of magic legal umbrella.
The larger concern here is farcebook et.al. acting like they have common-carrier like protections and yet ALSO engaging in selective removal of content.
They cannot have it both ways.. Or at least they should not be able to.
Re:It was good while it lasted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but Senator Wyden doesn't like that the meanies get to spew their ignorant crap, so instead of punishing the people that are "editorializing" he's going after the publishers.
Because clearly Mark Zuckerberg needs a few more congressional subpoenas because people are mean on the Internet.
How is this not a clear violation of the First Amendment again? Sure sounds like he's trying to get Congress to make a law abridging free speech, and it won't hold up to the so-called "yelling fire in a theater" test as it's not endangering public safety or willful negligence. In the best case, it's trolling or extreme ignorance - worst case is this is a back door for government abuse of power to go after political enemies and malcontents because you don't like what they're saying.
Who is the arbiter of what's "decent" under this law anyway?
Oh, Senator Wyden. I voted for you once upon a time when you hadn't gone full idiot...
Re: (Score:3)
In the past, Ron Wyden has defended constitutional rights. It is sad to see him now supporting censorship.
He is up for reelection in 2020.
Re:It was good while it lasted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is the arbiter of what's "decent" under this law anyway?
Allow me to condense Sen, Wyden's remarks;
"We must infringe upon your freedom to prevent those we deem Nazis from infringing upon your freedom." -- Sen. Ron Wyden (D) 2018
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
How is this not a clear violation of the First Amendment again? Sure sounds like he's trying to get Congress to make a law abridging free speech, and it won't hold up to the so-called "yelling fire in a theater" test as it's not endangering public safety or willful negligence. In the best case, it's trolling or extreme ignorance - worst case is this is a back door for government abuse of power to go after political enemies and malcontents because you don't like what they're saying.
Oh, that's just it though - it's not the government censoring your speech, it's the government forcing a third party to censor your speech. Totally different. /sarcasm
And as long as FOSTA-SESTA stands, they already have their foot in the door.
Re: (Score:2)
If all you have is the power to write new laws, every problem looks like a nail.
Consequences to personal reputation (Score:2, Insightful)
Really struggling to find something substantive in that comment that might have justified the "Insightful" mod. You're sort of in the neighborhood of the Paradox of Tolerance, but not that it shows in your comment.
I think the consequences should be to your personal reputation, and the largest problem of the Internet is that there are too many people who don't care about their personal reputation or who feel no accountability for saying negative and destructive things. In the case of trolls, I'm not sure "pe
Re:Alex Jones (Score:5, Insightful)
I would rather not. There have been conspiracy groups forever. JFK assasinations, moon landings, UFOs, con-trails, you name it. It was _never_ a real threat until they started banning it. By banning it they have given more credibility to this guy than anything they could have ever done by just letting him get on his soap box weekly.
Re:Alex Jones (Score:5, Insightful)
It was _never_ a real threat until they started banning it.
I would say they were never a threat until POTUS started spreading them. These conspiracy theories have become a strategy to hold on to power when the shit hits the fan, and at the expense of the mental health of his base.
Conspiracy speech - or campaign contribution (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, now that we know the National Enquirer disguised a $100K+ campaign contribution as a purchase of rights to publish a Playboy bunny's story, how about the rest of their 'journalism' throughout the election.
The Rachel Maddow segment linked below lists a bunch of blatantly false cover stories that ran throughout the 2016 election season. Now, even if you hate Maddow, and think she's a 'left-wing version of Fox' (she isn't, but hey...), you can't argue with her interpretation of what was on the covers of
Re:Alex Jones (Score:5, Funny)
moon landings, UFOs, con-trails, you name it
You misspelled CHEMtrails. I see you're just another stoge of the deep state trying to spread misinformation: downplaying it by changing its name. We're on to you. and I'm safe protected from my tinfoil hat AND tinfoil breathing mask. Sure that make it a little hard to breathe and
Re:Alex Jones (Score:5, Insightful)
What's made conspiracy theories and Alex Jones in particular "a real threat" recently is their widespread harassment of the families of mass shooting victims, driven by the relatively recent rise of false flag conspiracy theories around mass shootings (the shooting was a false flag, therefore the families of the fake people who didn't die are "crisis actors," therefore let's harass the shit out of them until they admit their ties to the Illuminati!).
Alex Jones in particular has driven many targeted harassment campaigns against these family members.
Re:Alex Jones (Score:5, Insightful)
If you get banned from every restaurant in town, you need to admit that you have a problem.
Pretty sure that was the message some certain southerners wanted a certain other group to learn.
Facebook, et al. are losing more users by not banning Infowars than by banning them.
Do you have any reason to believe that or are you just making it up? These groups have been on those platforms since the beginning and it has never been a problem until we got onto this new censorship push.
Re:Alex Jones (Score:4, Insightful)
If you get banned from every restaurant in town, you need to admit that you have a problem.
Pretty sure that was the message some certain southerners wanted a certain other group to learn.
Race is a protected class. Gullibility is not.
Re: (Score:3)
Race is a protected class. Gullibility is not.
Which "Race" is protected? And, why only the one you name?
"Protected class" doesn't refer to any one race. It refers to categories which cannot be used as a basis for discrimination. Race is one of those categories.
IF ALL of them are protected then the "protection" is meaningless.
Huh? It means your race (or whichever class you are looking at) cannot be used as a basis to refuse service, be it African American, Caucasian, Pacific Islander, etc. That's pretty fucking meaningful in my book.