free speech Dissenter - The comment section of the internet - And a severe game-changer for free speech

[Stefan Payne]

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

Do you think breitbart or alex jones would willingly host a leftist media platform? Of course not.

No, its the other way around!
The leftist don't talk with someone outside their "circle" because they'd get ousted and possibly even attacked for even talking with someone from "the right".

It doesn't even have to be a right wing person...

[Ruckus42]

13 hours ago, Sauron said:

When people write "far right" in this way they mean nazis.

These days, when a leftie says Nazi, they really just mean someone more conservative than themselves. The word has lost all meaning. If you ask someone if they're a Nazi, and they say "yes" proudly, then fair enough, it's true. But you have a slew of people today laughing and shaking their heads because they receive that accusation when it's anything but true. And now when I hear "Nazi", I have to think "Oh, here we go again". I'd really rather those waters didn't get so muddy. I don't want to have to question that, but I don't have a choice.

13 hours ago, Sauron said:

Or they just have a shouting match with name calling and only end up hating each other more. Seriously, this person sounds like they've never been on the internet - or are particularly salty that their "opinion" is considered obnoxious by the rest of civilization and are desperately looking to present this as anything other than an insufferable circlejerk.

That depends entirely on the maturity of both parties involved. I have plenty of productive conversations with people I don't agree with. I've learned to make a simple ground-rule: no anger allowed.

10 hours ago, Nicnac said:

What most people don’t get is that free speech doesn’t mean it will protect you from the consequences of what you said. Sure, go ahead, say anything you feel you have to say, but don‘t cry about it afterwards if you promoted some racist shit.

That's the beauty of it. If someone get's the 3rd degree for being a jerk, maybe they'll start to re-think things a little.

8 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

It's also a matter of time before criticism of the government is considered hate speech

Exactly. If we let this trend continue, certain political views could become outlawed. Then what? 1984?

11 hours ago, Arika S said:

Neither side of the debate is right in how they go about getting their message across, they are as bad as each other

Yeah, there's extremism on both sides. And they're both nuts in their own special ways.

 

15 hours ago, Gareque said:

For me, and I am in no way an expert on these matters, so this is going purely by what makes sense to me; Hate speech should be something considered when your words actively aim to bring about harm or to infringe on the rights of others, regardless of the underlying reason.

The trouble is defining hate speech. If you're going to enforce something by law, it has to be rather clearly written. But there's so much subjectivity involved that a judge might let a real jerk off in some situations, and punish someone innocent in another. Currently this system is based on what the victim claims they've felt in terms of offense. But if that victim is really shedding fake tears, and abusing the legal system to attack someone they don't like, that's seriously dangerous.

[mr moose]

Free speech arguments are nearly always pointless.

 

Extreme lefty tries to abolish free speech because they were offended,

Extreme right yells at them "fuck you, you don't have the right not to be offended"

Extreme lefty is even more offended now and doubles their resolve to end free speech.

 

The room for growth is in the rational middle ground, too bad the only people who reside there don't need laws to protect them or their rights.

 

 

[Master Delta Chief]

I notice that extremism from both the so called 'Left' and 'Right' are starting to grow more that it might get back to the boiling point where we were a long time ago. Free speech is important and should not be abolished by all means. However, in the case with YouTube, I can understand that they are willingly to disable the comment section on certain videos but I do not completely see what the entire point is of demonetizing the video if certain comments on it were inappropriate. The creators of the video are not responsible for what others write. Of course, there are certain videos out there that are questionable as mentioned by others and should be removed of the platform, but there's obviously going to be false alarms and it already has happened to a few videos.

 

At the end, it's not only the platform that has to change, it's also the people in general that needs to change. I see more people relying on emotions instead of rational thoughts, not only from the political spectrum. 

[Jito463]

17 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well I fully believe if the person were a non black person the level of suspicion would have been vastly different.

Except by saying such, you're attributing a motive to her actions that may not be true.  The fact is, we don't know and may never know.  To say we do know is disingenuous at best.

17 hours ago, leadeater said:

This is off topic anyway so not really going to discuss that more here.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

17 hours ago, leadeater said:

Your last bit implies a whitelist, no we have laws, like the US does, that limits very specific things, more than the US sure but it's still "Anything but" not "Only these".

Unless those restrictions are solely on calls to action, not simply speech itself, then you still have a system whereby the government gets to decide what you're allowed to say.  For example, in Canada you can get thrown in jail simply for saying that homosexuality is a sin.  Not calling for anyone's death, not riling up a mob, just acknowledging a tenet of Christianity that's existed since its inception (and in Judaism before that).

 

Want proof?  Here you go:

https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/christian-man-faces-2-years-in-jail-for-criticizing-homosexuality.html

Here's a story where it happened in the UK:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

And another instance:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/05/preacher-locked-hate-crime-quoting-bible-gay-teenager/

And yet another instance:

https://canadafreepress.com/article/preacher-arrested-for-calling-homosexuality-a-sin

 

Those are just a handful of examples, there are, sadly, many more where these came from.  This is what's meant when people say that the US has free speech while the rest of the world does not.  Now, I'm not claiming NZ does have "hate speech" laws like this (I've already admitted that I'm ignorant of your laws in this regard), that's why I prefaced my comments with "if".  If what you say is true, then more power to you, I'd be extremely grateful to hear that's the case.

 

However, only comments calling for violence are illegal in the US.  All other speech is a right, no matter how much some may abuse it.  That's the double-edged sword that is freedom, it's ripe for abuse because we're free to do so.  That's why people are drawn to services like this Dissenter, they want the freedom to express themselves as they see fit.  Whether we agree with their speech or not, I can certainly understand the desire to be free to speak your mind.

1 hour ago, Master Delta Chief said:

At the end, it's not only the platform that has to change, it's also the people in general that needs to change. I see more people relying on emotions instead of rational thoughts, not only from the political spectrum. 

Part of the issue is, colleges aren't teaching critical thinking anymore.  Too much touchy-feely garbage and not enough "this is how to think rationally".

[Stefan Payne]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Free speech arguments are nearly always pointless.

Yeah, exactly. because if you always accept other's Position, you can't ban anti-vaccers - wich will only prove them right and cause the opposite of what YOU want. And if you ban their oppinion, what's next?? Who is next??

 

Or as Jean Luc Picard once said:

Quote

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

 

But maybe you should read what Anders B. has written?
Because he said in his manifesto that discussion was pointless because certain speech/oppionion was suppressed, thus it lead to extreme measures...

 

And that is what some people don't want to understand: If you accept one's position and respect that, you can talk with them and change their mind!
 

There's a bunch of stories about black men converting KKK Members to the light.

 

Hell even Jack Dorsey knows it and talked about it on his second DIscussion on Joe Rogan! He even had an example of a woman from the Westboro Baptist Church, who was also converted because people talked to them...

 

 

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant" is what some people say. 
And that means that if talk to people, you can change their minds!
If you cast them out, you radicalize them!

 

[williamcll]

Reminds me of digg

[Master Delta Chief]

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

However, only comments calling for violence are illegal in the US.  All other speech is a right, no matter how much some may abuse it.  That's the double-edged sword that is freedom, it's ripe for abuse because we're free to do so.  That's why people are drawn to services like this Dissenter, they want the freedom to express themselves as they see fit.  Whether we agree with their speech or not, I can certainly understand the desire to be free to speak your mind.

 

Part of the issue is, colleges aren't teaching critical thinking anymore.  Too much touchy-feely garbage and not enough "this is how to think rationally".

I am a strong advocate on arresting those who call upon violence as part of their hate speech. However, if people are commenting on like for example they hate this kind of sexuality, then they shouldn't be arrested. Instead they should be receiving criticism from other people as this is a more suitable thing to do.  

 

Schools aren't the only place to teach rationality to students, but also the parents should be doing it. They're the ones that are also part of the growing up process of their children. However, the counter argument to that is that some parents aren't really suitable for teaching their children, but the same can be said sometimes for schools.

[yian88]

This is not free speech if i have to make an account to be tracked and indetified by those who disagree with the platform.

I am 100% sick of all websites everywhere requiring you to make an account for doing anything on their platform, im just done with this, i want anonymous blockchain comment app like dessenter where i dont have to indentify myself and cant be tracked but my content can be removed from the blockchain if its illegal.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Unless those restrictions are solely on calls to action, not simply speech itself, then you still have a system whereby the government gets to decide what you're allowed to say.  For example, in Canada you can get thrown in jail simply for saying that homosexuality is a sin.  Not calling for anyone's death, not riling up a mob, just acknowledging a tenet of Christianity that's existed since its inception (and in Judaism before that).

We aren't Canada, far as I know no one has been convicted under that law, it's been in place for a very long time. It's useful to have such a thing when the need comes than to have no recourse.

 

Government gets to decide nothing, the court system does which is 100%, absolutely independent of the government in applying and assessing laws passed.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

We aren't Canada, far as I know no one has been convicted under that law, it's been in place for a very long time. It's useful to have such a thing when the need comes than to have no recourse.

Seems we'll once again have to agree to disagree.  I don't accept that there's any situation whereby the government gets to decide whether speech should be permitted.  It's good to know that no one has abused the law so far, but can you say with certainty that no one would?  Ever?

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Government gets to decide nothing, the court system does which is 100%, absolutely independent of the government in applying and assessing laws passed.

At least here (and presumably there, as well), the courts are a part of the government.  They're separate from the law making branch (Congress) or the executive branch (Presidency), but it's still a pillar of government.  I find it hard to imagine that your courts are set up as completely independent functionaries outside of government.  How do judges get appointed, for example?  Even if they're voted on by the people, that's still governmental by nature.  And if they're appointed by government leadership, then that means they're a part of your government system through that process.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

It's good to know that no one has abused the law so far, but can you say with certainty that no one would?  Ever?

If history is any indicator, it will be abused.

[Anomnomnomaly]

On 3/14/2019 at 4:48 AM, Arika S said:

really wish people would stop using "far-right" as a way to discredit everything.

 I wish people would stop using 'free speech' as an excuse for being utter dickheads.

[Arika]

13 minutes ago, Anomnomnomaly said:

 I wish people would stop using 'free speech' as an excuse for being utter dickheads.

free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, no one is disputing that. people are upset that the punishment is only being applied to one side.

 

Twitter:

I hate White People - Perfectly Acceptable

I hate Black People - Racist, Banned

 

Either everything needs to be left untouched, or punishments need to be provided in equal measure regardless of content.

 

Dissenter and Gab isn't for the "right" its for everyone, if the "left" wants to start using it, they will not be censored, by no means do people expect it be a civil discussion, but both sides can say what they like. Currently mainstream social media platforms are heavily left leaning and will censor/ban the right much much more than the left, which they do have a right to

 

Twitter, Reddit, Facebook have basically forced people off their platforms telling them "well if you want somewhere to talk, make your own social platform" so they did and are now being demonized for it.

 

 

 

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Seems we'll once again have to agree to disagree.  I don't accept that there's any situation whereby the government gets to decide whether speech should be permitted.  It's good to know that no one has abused the law so far, but can you say with certainty that no one would?  Ever?

Literally every single country has limits on speech, again your own included. And again mine does not decide what is permitted, they have passed a law that places limited exclusions. That is an extremely, extremely, important distinction and should be framed correctly. In the very same way you would frame someone threatening death upon someone else being a crime in your country, that is a limit on free speech.

 

A limit on free speech is a limit on free speech irrespective on what it is and why it exists. You have accepted a limit, you do not accept one of my country's and I'm not asking you to. What I would ask however is the acknowledgement that you have limits on free speech and I have limits on free speech which is why I am pointing this out because your own point just put forward applies to you and your country, you have limits placed on you by your government. What if your law gets abused? No I'm not seriously asking, but have a think about what constitutes a threat on someones life and how not easily defined that actually is.

 

What if arguments lead nowhere unless you can link them to some evidence that would warrant the discussion, which you have in referencing Canada and the UK. What if arguments are one of the worst things to have to debate because it's a debate on something that has not happened and is typically based on a fear of something happening, rarely do they come to a mutual understanding because the person raising the what if tends to fall back on the what if.

 

Unlike Canada, for all I know but can easily be wrong because I have not checked, they do not have a Bill of Rights that explicitly protects freedom of speech. We have that, ours also does not only apply towards the government either. Here no private company can limit freedom of expression.

 

Does this type of thing come up in public conversation? No, discussing our Bill of Rights is so extremely rare I think it's only come up once briefly.

 

If anyone is to be convicted using the hate speech/crimes laws here that has to contend with our Bill of Rights, that's a very high and hard bar to get over. To give an example of what would fall under that law, sharing video footage of a hate crime or terror attack, that is illegal here. That doesn't mean police will file charges against people they know who have, the difference between a misguided mistake (because many don't know sharing it is illegal) and malicious intent is taken in to account.

 

Now to give some examples where charges were not laid, though some of our law experts say they did breach hate laws.

 

Example 1:

Quote

The substance of the speech by the Muslim cleric, who was also the secretary of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand, was anti-Semitic...[]

Quote

Mohammad Anwar Sahib told an Auckland audience in a series of lectures posted online by the blog site Whale Oil that "Jews are using everybody because their protocol is to rule the entire world". He went on to say the "Jews are the enemy of the Muslim community" and made offensive remarks about women.

 

Example 2:

Quote

In contrast to the Muslim cleric's speech, Bishop Brian Tamaki, quoting the Book of Leviticus fired his shots at gay people, sinners and murderers who he labelled as biblically responsible for the earthquakes.

 

Quote

Bishop's rant blamed gays, sinners and killers for the recent deadly and devastating earthquakes that have knocked parts of Kaikoura back to a colonial age.

 

Source: https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/news-and-communications/latest-news/news/when-is-it-hate-speech

 

So while I commend your defense of free speech and oppose limits on it I wholly disagree that limits should not be placed on it, and can be done very selectively. Laws can always be changed and amended to address issues, if hate crime laws were to be abused it would be addressed. Here under Mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system it's very easy for a minor political party campaigning on a single issue to end up as part of the ruling government with an agreement between political parties to enact what they campaigned on, it's happened every year I've been alive and the minor parties generally hold the winning card and ultimately decide who the coalition government will be.

 

I support our hate crime laws, I have seen no evidence of it being abused or trying to be so will continue to support it until I see a reason not to. I would rather my justice system have a legal avenue to call upon when the need arises than to not.

 

4 hours ago, Jito463 said:

And if they're appointed by government leadership, then that means they're a part of your government system through that process.

Not here they aren't, but this requires a bit more understanding of the process and government here to know why I can say it's not really the case. I'm also assuming you are limiting this around the highest courts because lower courts are all handled by the law profession. Only higher courts would have governmental involvement but here it's very limited.

 

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/about-the-judiciary/role-judges/appointments

https://dpmc.govt.nz/our-business-units/cabinet-office/supporting-work-cabinet/cabinet-manual/4-ministers-law-and-1

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Literally every single country has limits on speech, again your own included. And again mine does not decide what is permitted, they have passed a law that places limited exclusions.

Eh, we've moved far beyond the original topic so I'll go ahead and bow out here, but I just want to reiterate what I stated before; which is that there is a difference between speech and a call to action.  Calls to incite violence (action) are not the same thing as free speech.  You keep trying to conflate the two in your replies to me.  In any event, you're welcome to PM me if you wish to discuss it further.

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Not here they aren't, but this requires a bit more understanding of the process and government here to know why I can say it's not really the case.

Fair enough.

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Calls to incite violence (action) are not the same thing as free speech.  You keep trying to conflate the two in your replies to me.  In any event, you're welcome to PM me if you wish to discuss it further.

It's still speech though right? How do you know it's credible, who decides if it's credible? How can that not be abused? I'm saying this here not in a PM because it's important to show that both can be abused so it's not conflating. It's free speech until a law has been broken that places a limit on it, yours is threatening another's life. It's still speech and you have a law that limits that form of speech.

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's still speech though right?

It's the difference between saying:

 

"I hate you and hope you die"

 

versus saying:

 

"I hate you and I'm going to kill you"

 

That's the difference between speech and a call to action.  One is just thoughts, the other is a threat.

[leadeater]

28 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

It's the difference between saying:

 

"I hate you and hope you die"

 

versus saying:

 

"I hate you and I'm going to kill you"

 

That's the difference between speech and a call to action.  One is just thoughts, the other is a threat.

Yes I agree there is a difference, your first example is not crime here though. Secondly simply saying you are going to kill someone won't get you arrest or charged either, there is the clear and present danger requirement.

 

I however do not agree that there should be a difference between threatening someones life and an entire group of people, that's where I think the US law falls short. Both in my view should be illegal. But like there currently is, flexibility in the application of the law, which my country has demonstrated as being capable of doing so. Hate speech does incite violence, having laws flexible enough so one can not easily skirt around it by careful word construction while the intention and meaning is clear is something I support. Even in cases where the person is not fully aware of the harm their speech can cause legal punishment should be an option, unawareness of breaking the law is not a defense. Speech laws however are extremely difficult in that regard.

 

Speech assessment is not easy but it should never be reduced to a check list of key words and should be intent and meaning based irrespective of the specific words used.

 

Edit:

Being charged with a crime is not a conviction either, you still have a right to defend yourself in court.

[Drak3]

35 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's still speech though right? How do you know it's credible, who decides if it's credible? How can that not be abused? I'm saying this here not in a PM because it's important to show that both can be abused so it's not conflating. It's free speech until a law has been broken that places a limit on it, yours is threatening another's life. It's still speech and you have a law that limits that form of speech.

Every single limitation on what you conflate as speech exists only upon calls to action and credible threats. I could literally say every single one of these limited phrases, and the only potential legal consequences come from me inciting harm upon others. It's not what is said, it's explicitly how I say it and what the intentions are:

 

Shouting 'fire' in a crowded building, straight face and serious inflection, is illegal because I'm inciting panic. I'm shouting at a high volume to make sure people hear me, and my intent is to create panic as people try to escape a fictitious fire.

 

Court systems make the final decision on if it is credible, and it's an innocent until proven guilty system.

 

 

 

So no, the US does not have laws that legitimately limit free speech.

 

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Every single limitation on what you conflate as speech exists only upon calls to action and credible threats. I could literally say every single one of these limited phrases, and the only potential legal consequences come from me inciting harm upon others. It's not what is said, it's explicitly how I say it and what the intentions are:

You do know you just repeated my exact point while failing the address the point. Who decides what your intentions are? Who assess that? What stops that from being abused?

 

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

So no, the US does not have laws that legitimately limit free speech.

Oh yes you do.

 

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Shouting 'fire' in a crowded building, straight face and serious inflection, is illegal because I'm inciting panic. I'm shouting at a high volume to make sure people hear me, and my intent is to create panic as people try to escape a fictitious fire.

Here's your own example of a limit to speech.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Who decides what your intentions are? Who assess that?

The court system.

 

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

What stops that from being abused?

The various layers of our court system.

 

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Oh yes you do.

Then you genuinely understand neither free speech or US law regarding call to action.

 

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Here's your own example of a limit to speech.

It's not the speech that is illegal, it is not the speech that is limited.

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Then you genuinely understand neither free speech or US law regarding call to action.

Yes I do, I just do not ignore or not acknowledge instances where there are limits. You have them, you know you have them.

 

23 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The court system.

 

23 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The various layers of our court system.

And how is that any different to my country, or many others?

 

 

So if our hate crime laws can be abused so can your laws. This is why what if debates tend to be unproductive as I've said. If you don't want my countries hate crime laws well great, you don't have to have them and I'm not saying you should have them. I am not you, you are not me, your country is not my country, our laws are not interchangeable nor do I think they would work cross applied like that and neither do I think they should. Every country is different, laws should reflect that.

[Drak3]

Just now, leadeater said:

And how is that any different to my country, or many others?

"Hate" speech is simply speech that is outlawed because it's "offensive" and "hateful" to a "large" amount of people. There is no objective measure of hate speech. Calling a man by what he is, and can be proven to be: a man, is considered hate speech in some countries.

 

However, my speech is not outlawed in any capacity. Only action that I take to deliberately cause harm. Inciting panic has objective measure. I must explicitly do something that will have an explicit outcome that innocents are harmed. Shouting "fire" in a crowded space has the explicit outcome that those people will try to disperse and escape the fire in a state of panic; self preservation is simply part of human nature. That is an explicit action I take with the intention to achieve that outcome.

 

If I were to just calmly say "fire," there is no legal recourse. If I were giggling and yelled "fire" to my friend in a crowd with a very relaxed inflection, there is no legal recourse. My speech is not being limited. My call to action is.

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes I do

No, you've demonstrated excessively well that you do not.

 

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

nor do I think they would work cross applied like that

"Hate" speech laws do not work to their claimed goals, nor are they designed to. They're early steps to stripping away rights from ignorant masses that didn't learn from regimes/dictators like the Third Reich, USSR, Chinese communist party, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavex and Nicolas Murado, Sad-am Hussein.

[leadeater]

36 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

"Hate" speech laws do not work to their claimed goals, nor are they designed to. They're early steps to stripping away rights from ignorant masses that didn't learn from regimes/dictators like the Third Reich, USSR, Chinese communist party, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavex and Nicolas Murado, Sad-am Hussein.

And that is only your opinion.

 

36 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, you've demonstrated excessively well that you do not.

It is only your opinion that lets you say you have no valid limitations on your speech, opinions are not facts. It is my opinion not being able to say what is limited in your country is still a limit on speech, something that happens to be an acceptable limit but still one none the less.

 

There is never such a simple objective measure of speech. Intent of speech is always interpretation and therefore subjective. A person can yell fire, tell a crowd to go assault a group of people, directly threaten an individual and that person can raise a defense of "I did not mean it" or "It was not my intent". How do you evaluate that on anything but a subjective analysis.

 

You can never know what someone else is thinking, you can only make a judgement on what you think was meant, what was the intention.