You have to teach the kids in school critical thinking instead of teaching them to think with their feelings. Then they learn to eliminate bias in their thinking so they don't become racists, bigots, and homophobes.
I might be more inclined to agree with the pro-censorship ideas you are promoting if you didn't use such ill-defined and nonsensical terminology as "hate speech".
Because what does that term even define? If I write about hating Nazis, hating some guy that raped me, and so on, should I not be allowed to do that? Heck, even hating pollution or hating bananas would be included in a general ban on "hate speech".
Now of course I have some idea about the kind of speech you actually want to prohibit, so why on earth are you being so non-descript?
What I suppose you want to censor is the advocacy of ethnonationalism, right? Just say it then! "I do not want people to promote these ideas because they are hostile to my own set of beliefs, so I propose that we censor such speech".
That could actually be put into sensible laws whereas a ban on "hate speech" in general has enormous potential for arbitrary rulings and general confusion.
If you consider anyone's speech "hate speech", you are totally unequipped to eliminate negative emotions in other humans.
"Hate speech" automatically presumes irrationality on the part of the other party. This is the first step on the road to war; painting your adversary as The Other.
Regardless whom you're talking about, whether it's Black Lives Matter, Nazis, Antifa, Islamists, Salafists, or anyone. The moment you say, "That person's positions are hate speech," you have just announced dialogue between you and him are impossible. How can you dialogue with hate?
You're not going to label this person "hateful" and have that convince him he's got it all wrong and he needs to come over to your way of seeing things. Nor are you going to pick his brain and understand him better. And if you try to censor him he will become more certain of the righteousness of his cause. He will fight harder, with more ferocity, and others will come to see him as the underdog fighting against the system.
The only thing calling something "hate speech" does is to announce "I am not willing to talk to you." And when you aren't willing to talk to someone, yet set yourself firmly against him, there is only one option left on the table: one party must totally subdue the other.
Every time I hear the phrase "hate speech", I hear someone who bangs the drums for war.
Gab is an Austin, Texas-based[1] social networking service that allows its users, called "Gabbers," to read and write short messages of up to 300 characters called "gabs". The site also offers limited multimedia functionality. Gab describes its mission as "to put people and free speech first" by limiting censorship to filtering options made available to Gabbers.[5]
What an odd service offering - it sounds very much like "Twitter except we don't ban anyone". If that's the main differentiator, wouldn't one expect all their early adopters to be people who are either banned from twitter or want to follow people banned from twitter?
I don't like the idea that so much of our communication is under the centralized control of social network sites like Twitter and Facebook. I would prefer if the gab enthusiasts had adopted gnu social, but as things are I am glad that SN sites are being made which are committed to the moral principle of free speech.
It's possible that gab's early adopters include people who value free speech as a principle.
Witness the death of free speech and watch democracy die.
Or let's all celebrate that Domain Registrars are now performing ideological checks on string/number mappings!
Next they start banning the "wrong" side of politics and you start to feel a little uneasy.
Then strange markings appear on doors. The next day certain families are sent away on "holidays".
We have seen it all before.
It's interesting that the context to all this is a group of people peacefully protesting the removal of a statue of a historical figure who is generally viewed with respect.
OTOH domain registration is a walled garden - I can't go to ICANN and get myself a domain. Part of the deal of these service providers is they should not be imposing their ideology on string/number mappings. Where does it end?
That's a bit dramatic, but censoring any speech can be a slippery slope. I believe that the courts may eventually test if the 1st Amendment can apply to large publicly traded companies like Facebook, but that too can become a slippery slope... I guess we'll just have to see what happens.
Replying to myself, but it looks like they've transferred the registration to Google and now have Cloudflare in front of their site. Hard telling where it's actually being hosted now.
I've never heard of Daily Stormer before now. I have no idea who they are, what their beliefs are (although I can fathom a guess), or anything else about them. As someone who supports "online rights", however, I certainly believe that this web site should have equal access to publish content online. To believe otherwise -- regardless of the content -- is censorship and I am 100% against that. It is a very slippery slope.
For anyone looking for a host, you might consider NearlyFreeSpeech.NET [0]. Their Terms and Conditions of Service ("TACOS") [1] are pretty basic and straightforward.
'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 “the thought that we hate.”' - SCOTUS opinion for Matal v Tam, June 2017
There's no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. GoDaddy here, however, is probably free to deny service but not free to take their US TLD away from them.
There is probably an interesting discussion about US TLD's here, though, and property rights inherent to them. On any other TLD, the domain would have probably been seized long ago. But, given the climate, it's clear that this discussion is not going to happen.
It's a US-based TLD, the authority being Verisign. The point is that GoDaddy can tell them to take it elsewhere, but as far as the registry is concerned it's not going to be seized and it's not going to be revoked. Not unless you have a court order. And, lacking any real criminality, there's really shaky first amendment/jurisdiction issues. Not even getting into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
In the US, hate speech is free speech. Other countries ,especially those in the EU, have different definitions; individuals are also free to form their own definitions.
However, it is very dangerous for government to suppress speech, especially if it's speech that the majority of people find distasteful. Let the court of public opinion try those who speech hateful speech, but not the court of law. Certainly, some speech is unlawful, namely incitement to criminal actions, specific threats, and copyright infringement.
White supremacists without a doubt are terrorists. Do terrorist organizations deserve a place on the internet where like-minded people can communicate and meet each other?
Of all terrorist organizations, Nazis should not have any platform to organize at all. They've demonstrated what their goals are, and my family has suffered greatly because of them.
Sure, but no one is required to give them that platform. They can provide it themselves if they like, but no one can be forced to give them a platform. That would be just ripe for abuse if that were the case.
You're seemingly implying that GoDaddy should be legally forced to host any client they get and that is simply not the case. They are not beholden to the first amendment in the same was that the government is, and they are not in any way obligated to host things they disagree with or things that violate their TOS. For example, 1&1 bans pictures of celebrities from being hosted on their service (or did at once point, maybe they don't know, I can't say for certain). This street works two ways, whether we like it or not.
I am no fan of GoDaddy at all, but unless they're outright lying about their TOS, they are not overstepping any boundaries. Having a view does not grant you a right to a platform.
It allows them to look good and not be roped into an ICANN/property dispute shitstorm inherent to .com and related US TLD's, I imagine. They're just going to transfer the domain. Weev probably has something to say about it.
I guess Net Neutrality dying in few weeks will send controversial content into darknets.
If you wonder why ISP/Registrars/Clouds/Hosters weren't capable of "moderating/filter" content before, its because Net Neutrality regulations restricting them to something like a road owner.
A road owner can't inspect trucks and demand certain cars off the road, only collect tolls. Without Net Neutrality this concept goes out the window.
In my opinion they can't refuse to serve people because of their sexual orientation, but they can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding (which was the case in the example you refer to). There is a subtle difference between the two.
What does free speech mean outside of the context of law? You don't have free speech in my house, your free speech doesn't mean I have to broadcast it. That doesn't mean I'm violating some ethical concept.
The moral principle of free speech existed before any supporting law existed, otherwise the law couldn't have been created.
I respect your legal and moral property rights, but I might think someone is a bad person for censoring speech within their own house (for example, a Christian household in which a curious skeptic teen is denied access to secular literature).
You and I can disagree with the importance or applicability of any ethical principle, it doesn't negate the nature of the principle. Recognizing an ethical principle as such (don't harm animals) doesn't require we adhere to all of it's possible consequences (eating vegan, maybe).
Free speech is not a "moral principal". Who deemed it such? With what authority was your idea of free speech deemed a "moral principal"? There is a reason why free speech is in the constitution... and it has everything to do with the "government", whatever form that may be, and their handling of their citizens. It says nothing of how the private citizens handle such speech within their own liberty and private spaces.
Sure, this might be a private business and they might be free not to deliver certain content but this does not exempt them from criticism. Just like they are free not to map the address to the ip of that site so are people free to criticise them for this kind of censorship.
They were kicked off for calling a murder victim "a 32-year old, fat, childless slut" after she was run down by a car at one of their rallies this weekend.
64 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 118 ms ] threadEdit: i don't support people who pass hate as free speech. Which makes me wonder how to eliminate hate.
In response to:
" Facebook for Nazis. Because free speech?
Edit: i don't support people who pass hate as free speech. Which makes me wonder how to eliminate hate. "
Because what does that term even define? If I write about hating Nazis, hating some guy that raped me, and so on, should I not be allowed to do that? Heck, even hating pollution or hating bananas would be included in a general ban on "hate speech".
Now of course I have some idea about the kind of speech you actually want to prohibit, so why on earth are you being so non-descript?
What I suppose you want to censor is the advocacy of ethnonationalism, right? Just say it then! "I do not want people to promote these ideas because they are hostile to my own set of beliefs, so I propose that we censor such speech".
That could actually be put into sensible laws whereas a ban on "hate speech" in general has enormous potential for arbitrary rulings and general confusion.
If you consider anyone's speech "hate speech", you are totally unequipped to eliminate negative emotions in other humans.
"Hate speech" automatically presumes irrationality on the part of the other party. This is the first step on the road to war; painting your adversary as The Other.
Regardless whom you're talking about, whether it's Black Lives Matter, Nazis, Antifa, Islamists, Salafists, or anyone. The moment you say, "That person's positions are hate speech," you have just announced dialogue between you and him are impossible. How can you dialogue with hate?
You're not going to label this person "hateful" and have that convince him he's got it all wrong and he needs to come over to your way of seeing things. Nor are you going to pick his brain and understand him better. And if you try to censor him he will become more certain of the righteousness of his cause. He will fight harder, with more ferocity, and others will come to see him as the underdog fighting against the system.
The only thing calling something "hate speech" does is to announce "I am not willing to talk to you." And when you aren't willing to talk to someone, yet set yourself firmly against him, there is only one option left on the table: one party must totally subdue the other.
Every time I hear the phrase "hate speech", I hear someone who bangs the drums for war.
Gab is an Austin, Texas-based[1] social networking service that allows its users, called "Gabbers," to read and write short messages of up to 300 characters called "gabs". The site also offers limited multimedia functionality. Gab describes its mission as "to put people and free speech first" by limiting censorship to filtering options made available to Gabbers.[5]
It's possible that gab's early adopters include people who value free speech as a principle.
Or let's all celebrate that Domain Registrars are now performing ideological checks on string/number mappings!
Next they start banning the "wrong" side of politics and you start to feel a little uneasy.
Then strange markings appear on doors. The next day certain families are sent away on "holidays".
We have seen it all before.
It's interesting that the context to all this is a group of people peacefully protesting the removal of a statue of a historical figure who is generally viewed with respect.
No one has to serve these Nazi scum in a free society and in a healthy society no one would want to.
Edit: the above is what the first article I read said, but other articles say the reverse, and that GoDaddy doesn't host the site at all.
Godaddy has full rights to refuse service based on their client's opinions.
Try running a bakery. Suddenly you are forced to serve people you disagree with.
I see lots of anger/disgust towards Cloudflare on the twitters too. In the past, they've refused to do any censoring. Will this change their minds?
What, they did other things in the past, so this thing they did is also wrong? Weird logic.
(Former GoDaddy employee)
Of course not, but in the not-so-distant past, there were widespread calls to boycott GoDaddy (as I'm sure you're aware).
(Former GoDaddy customer)
For anyone looking for a host, you might consider NearlyFreeSpeech.NET [0]. Their Terms and Conditions of Service ("TACOS") [1] are pretty basic and straightforward.
[0]: https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net
[1]: https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/terms
There is probably an interesting discussion about US TLD's here, though, and property rights inherent to them. On any other TLD, the domain would have probably been seized long ago. But, given the climate, it's clear that this discussion is not going to happen.
It's a US-based TLD, the authority being Verisign. The point is that GoDaddy can tell them to take it elsewhere, but as far as the registry is concerned it's not going to be seized and it's not going to be revoked. Not unless you have a court order. And, lacking any real criminality, there's really shaky first amendment/jurisdiction issues. Not even getting into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
However, it is very dangerous for government to suppress speech, especially if it's speech that the majority of people find distasteful. Let the court of public opinion try those who speech hateful speech, but not the court of law. Certainly, some speech is unlawful, namely incitement to criminal actions, specific threats, and copyright infringement.
Of all terrorist organizations, Nazis should not have any platform to organize at all. They've demonstrated what their goals are, and my family has suffered greatly because of them.
Everyone does.
I am no fan of GoDaddy at all, but unless they're outright lying about their TOS, they are not overstepping any boundaries. Having a view does not grant you a right to a platform.
Sites don't want to be responsible for content uploaded by users because of the manpower involved. Net neutrality has nothing to do with this, at all.
This is a private business who reserves the right not to serve anyone.
A hypothetical christian registrar might refuse to do business with an abortion clinic. Many refuse to do business with ISIS.
You're allowed to say whatever you want, but you don't have a right to do it on my privately-held platform.
Did you mean to refer to some law, or maybe a constitutional amendment?
I respect your legal and moral property rights, but I might think someone is a bad person for censoring speech within their own house (for example, a Christian household in which a curious skeptic teen is denied access to secular literature).
You and I can disagree with the importance or applicability of any ethical principle, it doesn't negate the nature of the principle. Recognizing an ethical principle as such (don't harm animals) doesn't require we adhere to all of it's possible consequences (eating vegan, maybe).
It certainly has a lot to do with that.
And it is important to oppose censorship no matter who is doing it.