Facebook, Twitter and YouTube under fire over hate speech

[MMKing]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Yes it can, and it's childishly ignorant to suggest otherwise.

Let me re-phrase that.

Speech simply cannot be punishable in a free and open society

 

So you tell me. What is hate speech? And more importantly, who decides?

[Starelementpoke]

2 minutes ago, MMKing said:

Let me re-phrase that.

Speech simply cannot be punishable in a free and open society

 

So you tell me. What is hate speech? And more importantly, who decides?

Just to clarify something, does cyber bullying count under this, or is that a different subject entirely for this?

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Yes it can, and it's childishly ignorant to suggest otherwise.

In Sweden any critique in any shape or form is treated as hate speech (Hat mot folkgrupp), and results in the police harassing ordinary people. Sweden has turned into 1984. It sounds like hyperbole and I wish it was. It's scary to see how insane Sweden has become.

 

The problem is that one persons "hate" is another persons freedom, belief, truth. You cannot define hate speech in any meaningful way in a democracy, as freedom of thought and belief (not religious per se), is the foundation of democracy. If you are not allowed your opinion, you cannot be represented, and thus you no longer have a proper democracy (or representative democracy as we have, there are no democratic countries in the world).

[positivePXL]

United States Supreme Court Case Snyder V. Phelps (can you tell I'm taking a government class?)

 

Phelps' religious establishment was protesting at the funeral of a US Marine killed in combat. The things that they were saying and doing? Definitely considered hate speech. Snyder, the father of the Marine, was present at the funeral. He is the one that took the case to the Supreme Court, but the Court ruled in favor of Phelp's church, the Westboro Baptist Church. 

 

Quote

As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v. California opinion in 1927, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

 

[ivan134]

37 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Yes it can, and it's childishly ignorant to suggest otherwise.

I am black and I will vehemently defend the rights of a racist to use the n word. No govt should ever be in the business of policing speech. 

[positivePXL]

Quote

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

-Evelyn Beatrice Hall

 

[Sakkura]

28 minutes ago, positivePXL said:

United States Supreme Court Case Snyder V. Phelps (can you tell I'm taking a government class?)

 

Phelps' religious establishment was protesting at the funeral of a US Marine killed in combat. The things that they were saying and doing? Definitely considered hate speech. Snyder, the father of the Marine, was present at the funeral. He is the one that took the case to the Supreme Court, but the Court ruled in favor of Phelp's church, the Westboro Baptist Church. 

 

 

Ah yes, 1927 Supreme Court decisions, they must show exactly how things ought to be done.

 

Quote

Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the exclusion on account of race of a child of Chinese ancestry from a state high school did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision effectively approved the exclusion of minority children from schools reserved for whites.^[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lum_v._Rice

[Sakkura]

44 minutes ago, MMKing said:

Let me re-phrase that.

Speech simply cannot be punishable in a free and open society

 

So you tell me. What is hate speech? And more importantly, who decides?

The courts decide. Here's a snippet of international law that most countries, with the exception of a handful like North Korea, Saudi Arabia etc. have ratified:

 

Quote

any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law

 

[ivan134]

4 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Ah yes, 1927 Supreme Court decisions, they must show exactly how things ought to be done.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lum_v._Rice

Wow, nice strawman. 

[positivePXL]

4 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Ah yes, 1927 Supreme Court decisions, they must show exactly how things ought to be done.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lum_v._Rice

No, the quote was from a 1927 court case, Snyder V. Phelps was just a few years ago. I just really liked the way that justice spoke about our right to free speech. That the best offense against free speech, is more free speech.

[Sakkura]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Wow, nice strawman. 

Have you heard of sarcasm?

[Sakkura]

2 minutes ago, positivePXL said:

No, the quote was from a 1927 court case, Snyder V. Phelps was just a few years ago. I just really liked the way that justice spoke about our right to free speech. That the best offense against free speech, is more free speech.

Yeah and I was referring to the 1927 case which you quoted.

[positivePXL]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

Yeah and I was referring to the 1927 case which you quoted.

I didn't qoute a 1927 case, I quoted a Justice who ruled over a 1927 court case, and quoted a case from a few years ago.

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, positivePXL said:

I didn't qoute a 1927 case, I quoted a Justice who ruled over a 1927 court case, and quoted a case from a few years ago.

Yes you did. The quote contains a quote from a Supreme Court Justice's opinion on a 1927 Supreme Court case. Nested quotes are still quotes.

[Sakkura]

17 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

I am black and I will vehemently defend the rights of a racist to use the n word. No govt should ever be in the business of policing speech. 

Every government is inherently in the business of policing speech. And using the n word in itself is not hate speech.

[positivePXL]

7 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The courts decide. Here's a snippet of international law that most countries, with the exception of a handful like North Korea, Saudi Arabia etc. have ratified:

Also, that international law only provides for speech that incites discrimination, hostility, or violence. Even if the US ever did decide to crack down on people bitching about things on the internet, unless they are rallying and making a call to arms, they are still protected.

[positivePXL]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Every government is inherently in the business of policing speech. And using the n word in itself is not hate speech.

Not according to The French Jewish Students Union, SOS Racisme, and SOS Homophobie 

 

:3

[Sakkura]

2 minutes ago, positivePXL said:

Also, that international law only provides for speech that incites discrimination, hostility, or violence. Even if the US ever did decide to crack down on people bitching about things on the internet, unless they are rallying and making a call to arms, they are still protected.

But that's the point, hate speech isn't just saying the n-word. However, you are misrepresenting what I quoted - it doesn't just refer to rallying and making a call to arms (ie. inciting violence), but also things like inciting discrimination.

[Notional]

4 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Every government is inherently in the business of policing speech. And using the n word in itself is not hate speech.

In sweden it most certainly is. Pretty sure it is in Denmark too according to §266b: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racismeparagraffen

You say it's up to the court to decide what is hate speech, but you forget that it's the politicians who define the terms that the courts rule by.

 

[annoyingmoments]

1 hour ago, Notional said:

In Sweden any critique in any shape or form is treated as hate speech (Hat mot folkgrupp), and results in the police harassing ordinary people. Sweden has turned into 1984. It sounds like hyperbole and I wish it was. It's scary to see how insane Sweden has become.

 

The problem is that one persons "hate" is another persons freedom, belief, truth. You cannot define hate speech in any meaningful way in a democracy, as freedom of thought and belief (not religious per se), is the foundation of democracy. If you are not allowed your opinion, you cannot be represented, and thus you no longer have a proper democracy (or representative democracy as we have, there are no democratic countries in the world).

 

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

Yes it can, and it's childishly ignorant to suggest otherwise.

 

26 minutes ago, Notional said:

In sweden it most certainly is. Pretty sure it is in Denmark too according to §266b: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racismeparagraffen

You say it's up to the court to decide what is hate speech, but you forget that it's the politicians who define the terms that the courts rule by.

 

2 hours ago, Raytsou said:

Nice quotes.

But on topic, I think this is insanely stupid. What's next, ISP enforced censorship of all foul language? It's place for free speech, and if you get offended by somebody else's opinion, then you need to grow up.

 

Hat mot folkgrupp sounds like the german "Hassrede" which translates to hate speech. It is not about being mean on the internet as some in this thread think but about certain statements about minorities and ethnicities. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are not under pressure by the French/Swedish/German/whatever countries law for writing "U R A SHEETHED!" or "STFU CARL" (Sry mods if this is against the guidelines) on the internet but stuff like "Lets eliminate them", "Go back to the trash you came from" etc. Hope you understand. It is about getting people with a high potential of extremist wing views and likely high potential of taking actions after writing such phrases under control and set the line where the dignity and physical wealth and health of others is endagered or where false information through racism or hate speech can lead to mass protests and social instability. It is not about "THE GOVERNMENT TAKES OUR INTERNET AWAY!".

 

Some weeks ago here in Germany the second largest minority, people with Russian origins went out on the streets to protest, because a young girl of the same ethnicity was abused. She was not and afterwards authorities had to clarify, that she made the whole story up because she was at a friends house. Fun fact for our American friends: In Europe theres currently a high amount of refugees from Syria, Irak and Afghanistan. Whereas you only have a few thousands of them, European countries took a million of them.

 

Now the European Right Wing is fishing for people with fear and those are often people who make such hate comments on the internet. We have an increase of arson on refugee camps in Germany where people were hurt.

 

Those laws are NOT to take the freedom of speech, but to show people that their freedom ends if they take it from others.

 

And no, I am against what authorities like the NSA and etc. do, but let us all calm our RAM and discuss things less in either only black or only white.

[Sakkura]

16 minutes ago, Notional said:

In sweden it most certainly is. Pretty sure it is in Denmark too according to §266b: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racismeparagraffen

You say it's up to the court to decide what is hate speech, but you forget that it's the politicians who define the terms that the courts rule by.

 

I already explained that it's perfectly fine to discuss where to draw the line, but it's ridiculous to suggest courts cannot ever punish speech.

 

I haven't forgotten that the legislature writes the law that the courts interpret. You've just forgotten to read my posts.

 

Also, your interpretation of §266b is incorrect.

[GeekJump]

Just to make things easier, FB, Twitter, YT, etc. should just add "hate speech" to their terms of service. 

 

"By agreeing to use our service, you must be prepared to see comments and content they some may deem 'offensive'. If you are easily butt hurt, please don't sign up"

 

it will make those sites better for all of us.

[InsanelySecretD]

16 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Yes you did. The quote contains a quote from a Supreme Court Justice's opinion on a 1927 Supreme Court case. Nested quotes are still quotes.

He didn't quote the ruling  from 1927, he quoted one of the Judstice's from that case in 1927 - Louis Brandeis. He was defending the freedom of speech initially, but then concurred. It was, basically, his opinion about the topic - not the ruling itself.

Quote

The Whitney case is most noted for Justice Louis Brandeis's concurrence, which many scholars have lauded as perhaps the greatest defense of freedom of speech ever written by a member of the high court.

Also, the strawman you pulled off was very good - we can quote cases from the past as long as we want. Most of them are dumb and not applicable to 2016 anyway. 

 

The feasibility of any Justice System is within its ability to adopt to changing social landscape - DMCA is one example. Another one would be any Justice System in Europe that has to be changed through legislation as propsed by the goverment.

[annoyingmoments]

4 minutes ago, GeekJump said:

Just to make things easier, FB, Twitter, YT, etc. should just add "hate speech" to their terms of service. 

 

"By agreeing to use our service, you must be prepared to see comments and content they some may deem 'offensive'. If you are easily butt hurt, please don't sign up"

 

it will make those sites better for all of us.

Thats still not the point of those actions against FB, Twitter and YT. It is about hate speech like really hating someone to the bones. See my above post.

[Notional]

7 minutes ago, annoyingmoments said:

 

Hat mot folkgrupp sounds like the german "Hassrede" which translates to hate speech. It is not about being mean on the internet as some in this thread think but about statements about certain minorities and ethnicities. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are not under pressure by the French/Swedish/German/whatever countries law for writing "U R A SHEETHED!" or "STFU CARL" (Sry mods if this is against the guidelines) on the internet but stuff like "Lets eliminate them", "Go back to the trash you came from" etc. Hope you understand. It is about getting people with a high potential of extremist wing views and likely high potential of taking actions after writing such phrases under control and set the line where the dignity and physical wealth and health of others are endagered or where false information through racism or hate speech can lead to mass protests and social instability it is not about "THE GOVERNMENT TAKES OUR INTERNET AWAY!"

 

Now the European Right Wing is fishing for people with fear and those are often people who make such hate comments on the internet. We have an increase of arson on refugee camps in Germany where people were hurt.

 

Those laws are NOT to take the freedom of speech, but to show people that their freedom ends if they take it from others.

 

And no I am against what local authorities like the NSA and etc. do, but let us all calm our RAM and think less in 0 and 1. It is much more plausible,

Hat = hate = hass.

But I was wrong, it's Hets mot folkgrupp = witch hunt against group og people.

 

What you are describing is more like personal threats towards people or groups of people. Saying things like "kill all n words" is of course illegal, but that has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is the right to criticize those in power (primarily politicians) and of course to discuss ideas and problems in society, as well as solutions to those problems. That is quintessential to any democracy. Without that a democracy cannot exist.

 

Scepticism or being against mass immigration has nothing to do with any wings. Calling that right wing is something the left wing thought up to demonize and alienate anyone with those opinions. The most anti immigration party in Denmark is left wing by Danish standards (and our political scale goes from extreme left wing to middle; we have no right wing). Look up the political compass for the best definition of politics.

6 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

I already explained that it's perfectly fine to discuss where to draw the line, but it's ridiculous to suggest courts cannot ever punish speech.

 

I haven't forgotten that the legislature writes the law that the courts interpret. You've just forgotten to read my posts.

 

Also, your interpretation of §266b is incorrect.

How have i misinterpreted §266b? When people can be convicted based on it, from criticising Islam, an ideology, then there really isn't much free speech left.

 

---

I will just quote George Orwell, author of 1984:

Quote

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”