French Hate Speech Law Declared Unconstitutional

[MagicalAzareal]

Victory! French High Court Rules That Most of Hate Speech Bill Would Undermine Free Expression

Paris, France—In a victory for the free speech rights of French citizens, France’s highest court today struck down core provisions of a bill meant to curb hate speech, holding they would unconstitutionally sweep up legal speech.The decision comes as some governments across the globe, in seeking...

www.eff.org

A lot of these laws have been popping up lately. It is good to see the EFF pushing back on them, they wrote a letter to the court which helped to get it ruled unconstitutional.

 

[frm]

Good.

I've pushed back to the owners of this forum ("Threadloom") for implementing hate speech into their ToS.

Suffice to say, as hate speech doesn't exist (and still not tolerated on my platform unless in an indirect way and context is also applied), I will opt out of their services until the email sent is responded to and it's addressed as I, for any reason, could find this OP hurtful, and as a protected class (identity politics) report it in an attempt to nuke you from the platform too.

As September 8 was my last correspondence from Chris that he'll bring it up to the team, I suppose I can make my grievance public, and hopefully without being banned.

I read your ToS regarding a recent spat that came about on TAZ and carried over to XF.com, wholeheartedly agreeing with it.

However, it would be great if you could add "political affiliation" to your hate speech section.

This is because, in the US at least, hate speech is generally targeted from the left, but when the right engages in this sort of activity, they are typically hit with harassment while it's not perceived this way the other way around.

I'm unsure because of my new Constitutional forum, which supports the 1st Amendment—and doesn't include "hate speech"—that I may be targeted if there is hate speech in the community towards the left, while at the same time not censoring from the left.

Thanks!

My goal was expanding their definition of "hate speech" so that it can't be used in the way that I provided as an example to nuke you, cause God knows they won't remove hate speech from the ToS without push back. That said, adding "political affiliation" would go over people's head where the objection that they didn't break the policy is because the investigation was launched on the premise of attacking someone that has a different view of the world—essentially nullifying the "hate speech" rule without removing it completely that would open Threadloom to scrutiny.

 

[Pete]

If you're invoking the First Amendment as a defence against 'hate speech' I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the point of the amendment.

The problem is that hate speech tends to be rooted in racism, sexism or religious intolerance where it's very quite clear what is OK and what isn't - because it's quite easy to point out that intolerance is wrong when it's critical of someone's skin colour, place of being born or what their belief structure might espouse.

But such things when applied to politics is a whole lot more complex because you're no longer talking about ideological positions that are polarising but ultimately objectively resolvable, but about ideological positions that are fundamentally more nuanced and complex - and because they're deeply rooted, it can very quickly become toxic.

For example the debate over coronavirus and the wearing of masks is a highly debatable situation - where you have a group of people who staunchly believe that wearing a mask is a restriction of freedom, in spite of what objective evidence might argue otherwise. And because these are deeply held beliefs, trying to argue against them quickly ends up descending into ad hominem attacks because both sides have a habit of not being able to reach across the aisle, so to speak.

The problem with wielding 'political affiliation' as a mention, it will no doubt swing both ways: if you include 'political affiliation' as a definition of hate speech, some will argue it's unfairly censoring, if you don't however it will be weaponised by people who have no interest in discussion and simply use it as legitimatised abuse.

 

[Oh!]

Good.

I've pushed back to the owners of this forum ("Threadloom") for implementing hate speech into their ToS.

Suffice to say, as hate speech doesn't exist (and still not tolerated on my platform unless in an indirect way and context is also applied), I will opt out of their services until the email sent is responded to and it's addressed as I, for any reason, could find this OP hurtful, and as a protected class (identity politics) report it in an attempt to nuke you from the platform too.

As September 8 was my last correspondence from Chris that he'll bring it up to the team, I suppose I can make my grievance public, and hopefully without being banned.

My goal was expanding their definition of "hate speech" so that it can't be used in the way that I provided as an example to nuke you, cause God knows they won't remove hate speech from the ToS without push back. That said, adding "political affiliation" would go over people's head where the objection that they didn't break the policy is because the investigation was launched on the premise of attacking someone that has a different view of the world—essentially nullifying the "hate speech" rule without removing it completely that would open Threadloom to scrutiny.

Hi. I just took a look at the TAZ TOS - no use of the word 'hate' within the document. What should I be looking for?

Terms and rules

 

[frm]

Hi. I just took a look at the TAZ TOS - no use of the word 'hate' within the document. What should I be looking for?

Thanks for pointing this out. It's in their Community Standards, not in their Terms of Service which led to the cancellation of this person's account.

To ensure a positive experience for your visitors, we also want to make sure that the content we display is legal and helpful. As a result, we do not allow forums that promote or endorse the following:

...

Hate speech - Promoting or condoning violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity.

As it's hidden, Sections 2.1, 2.3, and 8.2 of their ToS allows them to terminate without cause to something not really agreed upon, except the ability to cancel the agreement at any time for no reason.

So, that's kind of unethical of them to do so as they get someone into a license that they will provide a service where the customer is thinking it's all good as they are agreeing to basic terms (I'm positive even G-Mail has these termination terms) without agreeing to Community Guidelines, nor referencing it as a base.

But, you break something they don't like not explicitly visible in the ToS (case in point you not being able to find this), they throw out Community Standards for cancellation later?

I'd add that to the ToS... but that's just me. However, 8.2 (and other sections) still protect Threadloom if someone does want to lawyer up.

What I do find interesting is Section 9.2 stating that they operate under California law, as hate speech doesn't exist in the US, but the company will still terminate a license if you violate the Community Standards. Pretty contradictory, unless California passed some legislation that I don't know about regarding this (though I'm sure it'd quickly go to SCOTUS by then).

 

[frm]

If you're invoking the First Amendment as a defence against 'hate speech' I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the point of the amendment.

I'd love to hear your interpretation on 1A as hate speech is not a crime and will never be a crime... You may be conflating hate speech with speech that incites violence, which is a crime.

The problem is that hate speech tends to be rooted in racism, sexism or religious intolerance where it's very quite clear what is OK and what isn't - because it's quite easy to point out that intolerance is wrong when it's critical of someone's skin colour, place of being born or what their belief structure might espouse.

What's "wrong" is not necessarily against the law. I agree that it's morally wrong to do but would never hold anyone legally accountable for it as mob rule dictates how minority can play the game: Put yourself in the shoes of minority and let the majority decide you can no longer play.

But such things when applied to politics is a whole lot more complex because you're no longer talking about ideological positions that are polarising but ultimately objectively resolvable, but about ideological positions that are fundamentally more nuanced and complex - and because they're deeply rooted, it can very quickly become toxic.

Politics today are more than left, right, up, down, center: Politics have included identity for a while too, which is more like a totem pole and hiarchy of those that rank above certain other classes solely based upon how they were born. You can be a Black person and be affiliated with the right, but to Black people on the left, you are words that I cannot say here without being accused of hate speech to even make an example of. Even though these words are hateful in nature, it's not hate speech as they're openly aired on CNN, et al. when describing Black people on the right side of the spectrum (even left-moderates).

The problem with wielding 'political affiliation' as a mention, it will no doubt swing both ways: if you include 'political affiliation' as a definition of hate speech, some will argue it's unfairly censoring, if you don't however it will be weaponised by people who have no interest in discussion and simply use it as legitimatised abuse.

It would essentially nullify hate speech while still having hate speech as a community standard so nobody can complain and it can be applied in the manner of context alone.

Either way, I think we need to treat people with respect.

But, is Threadloom going to be like Mailchimp and censor conservative voices now? I would like that answer before I proceed to use their services (other than TAZ, unless speaking against Threadloom is against the ToS here) as opposed to having a 1st-party add on done that can control my suite of sites as I fundamentally disagree with their community standards and wouldn't support a company that chooses to enforce an unconstitutional rule, even though not all my forums are political.

It would've been nice for them to respond after a month and a half now...

 

[Pete]

I'd love to hear your interpretation on 1A as hate speech is not a crime and will never be a crime... You may be conflating hate speech with speech that incites violence, which is a crime.

It's really quite straightforward.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress is not allowed to:
* make a religion illegal
* make practising a given religion illegal
* write a law that restricts people from saying what they want
* write a law that restricts the press from reporting things
* write a law that prevents peaceful protest
* write a law preventing people from asking the government to look into its concerns

The first amendment simply says the government isn't allowed to make laws preventing it. It says nothing about what free speech is, it certainly says nothing about freedom of speech being free from consequence, and it has no basis for stating or even implying that certain kinds of speech are hate speech.

People wield the 1A as if it's carte blanche to say what they want; that's not what it means. 1A is no defence preventing censorship on any forum in the land; if I make a forum and prevent you saying things on it, you can't invoke 1A to override me. Moreover, if I make some hate speech on it, you still can't use 1A to take it down - the first amendment says nothing of what private individuals or corporations do in their own space, it simply outlines the restrictions on executive power.

Politics today are more than left, right, up, down, center: Politics have included identity for a while too, which is more like a totem pole and hiarchy of those that rank above certain other classes solely based upon how they were born. You can be a Black person and be affiliated with the right, but to Black people on the left, you are words that I cannot say here without being accused of hate speech to even make an example of. Even though these words are hateful in nature, it's not hate speech as they're openly aired on CNN, et al. when describing Black people on the right side of the spectrum (even left-moderates).

Politics today have always been more than that - though it tends to polarise along the left/right axis far more than it has any right to (and this is true far beyond the borders of the US). And yes, individuals may align to one dimension of the axis where they would not normally be expected to, but that doesn't change things.

The thing about 'black people being affiliated with the right' is that there is a perception - whether true or not - that this is 'betraying their fellow people'. When you get to a place where a group of disenfranchised people are being undermined by notional members of the same group who run to the opposite end of the spectrum and side with those there... it's awkward.

To completely change the context but replicate the relationship, it's like that one nerdy kid who befriends the bullies so they don't bully him and he even joins in from the sidelines when the bullies beat up the other nerdy kids. (Disclosure: I was a nerdy kid.) If you are notionally part of a group that is collectively disenfranchised and yet somehow undermine the group to which you notionally belong, it will be assumed to be betrayal and launch into a very deep well of resentment - because there are few so hated in a group as those who actively undermine the group, when the group is in that position.

It would essentially nullify hate speech while still having hate speech as a community standard so nobody can complain and it can be applied in the manner of context alone.

The last few years has seen a lot of very polarised debates - Trump in the US, Brexit plus the Labour vs Conservative party here in the UK - and most of the debates disappear down 'political affiliation' lines, which often start out as thinly veiled hate speech until it just becomes pure hate speech on all sides. Trying to define the line between political affiliation and hate speech is difficult enough when you can be reasonably objective about it - but people in general are not objective about it. Meaning that to me, what you call hate speech might be somewhat reasonable, and vice versa.

But, is Threadloom going to be like Mailchimp and censor conservative voices now?

See, here's where it's complicated. What I find interesting is that after a number of searches, the only sources I can find talking about this are right-leaning sources that are talking about 'deplatforming'. There's no left-leaning celebration of it.

Putting aside the specifics of the case for a moment, whether the material being shared by the Northern Virginia Tea Party is propaganda or lies, or the honest truth wrapped up in spin (don't know haven't looked, but could make some reasonable guesses)... there's a bigger question.

Platforms like Mailchimp, or Facebook, have no legal standing in as far as the likes of the 1A; they can refuse to cooperate as they see fit. They're private enterprises, they can refuse to do business. Is it appropriate to not enable communications for an entity if you as the platform believes the material is misrepresentative or even harmful?

It's like your forum: as long as the material in it is not falling afoul of any law, you can choose what is posted and what isn't, because it's your house and you decide.

In Mailchimp's case, this is primarily about protecting their legal liability. If you send a newsletter via Mailchimp that incites violence, who is responsible? You for writing the content, or Mailchimp for enabling you to send it? Mailchimp, then, takes the view that content likely to be inflammatory and overtly misleading is not permitted because they're the ones who will have to deal with the consequences of the messages, they're the ones who will be bombarded with trouble for being the distributors.

I would imagine that Threadloom take a similar view, that if you're using their platform to spread what they would argue is misrepresentation (which, btw, can be litigious depending on the content being represented; slander and libel etc. very much are alive and well, let alone defamation), they reserve the right to not get involved.

Especially at the moment where things politically are pretty toxic everywhere, in the wake of an election that is still being called by one of its participants as not legal/fraudulent/etc. - political affiliation is basically the same as hate speech if you don't want to get into trouble with lawyers. And remember, as an email distribution service, it's hard enough to get your content out to inboxes without mass campaigns being orchestrated to sandbag you because you dared to try to not get political.

That's just my take, I'm not a rep for Threadloom, but that would be my answer if I were. Maybe this is a sign they should not ever want to hire me. I'm just trying to look at the situation from all the sides and try to understand that both sides have valid points, both sides have factions that descend way beyond what is appropriate, and that I can understand why different groups would behave as I do. To me, that's being respectful.

My $0.02 on changes to TOSes though: someone trying to get a super specific exemption in for a given purpose, it's usually with the intent to abuse that exemption for all its worth, while trying to claim it is above board. Seen it many times in other contexts, and that's kind of what it looks like here. Threadloom hasn't shown any signs of trying to 'deplatform conservatives', but simply 'avoid being the target of hassle by way of propaganda and misinformation campaigns'. The two are not equivalent, no matter how many try to claim they are - and there is a strong correlation (though not 100% so at all) that it is one group of people more than another making the claims.

 

[NYCGuy76]

I'd love to hear your interpretation on 1A as hate speech is not a crime and will never be a crime... You may be conflating hate speech with speech that incites violence, which is a crime.

What's "wrong" is not necessarily against the law. I agree that it's morally wrong to do but would never hold anyone legally accountable for it as mob rule dictates how minority can play the game: Put yourself in the shoes of minority and let the majority decide you can no longer play.

Politics today are more than left, right, up, down, center: Politics have included identity for a while too, which is more like a totem pole and hiarchy of those that rank above certain other classes solely based upon how they were born. You can be a Black person and be affiliated with the right, but to Black people on the left, you are words that I cannot say here without being accused of hate speech to even make an example of. Even though these words are hateful in nature, it's not hate speech as they're openly aired on CNN, et al. when describing Black people on the right side of the spectrum (even left-moderates).

It would essentially nullify hate speech while still having hate speech as a community standard so nobody can complain and it can be applied in the manner of context alone.

Either way, I think we need to treat people with respect.

But, is Threadloom going to be like Mailchimp and censor conservative voices now? I would like that answer before I proceed to use their services (other than TAZ, unless speaking against Threadloom is against the ToS here) as opposed to having a 1st-party add on done that can control my suite of sites as I fundamentally disagree with their community standards and wouldn't support a company that chooses to enforce an unconstitutional rule, even though not all my forums are political.

It would've been nice for them to respond after a month and a half now...

I was considering using thread loom but after reading all this I'm staying away. I'm a conservative and my forum is caters conservatives and republicans. I won't give them the satisfaction of using my forum as an example. Screw that.

 

[Oh!]

Genuine question: What do you ( frm and NYCGuy76 ) feel the TOS of Threadloom (or TAZ) prevents you from doing which you would like to do?

 

[frm]

There's no left-leaning celebration of it.

Without this coming off as an insult, you must be living under a rock. Please turn on your news to any "balanced" network and see that they celebrate this all the time.

CNN even has a tattletale segment where they cheer when people are banned from platforms because they, as news anchors, go through feeds that violate any terms that can be misconstrued as "hate speech" (or other terms) for the sole purpose of de-platforming them on the basis of political affiliation alone ("independent" media such as TYT have done the same).

I don't want to walk the thin line of doxing (as hate speech often is, even giving you this can be a violation of terms, even though they are a public figure), but to narrow your search down, the first name starts with O and last name D. Good luck on unlocking the truth for once, but you don't seem open to that anyway.

Platforms like Mailchimp, or Facebook, have no legal standing in as far as the likes of the 1A

Under 230, how it was intended (and why it's so important to reform), yes they do. Because as soon as they start censoring posts, they change from a platform to a publisher which means they take all legal standing in everything a user puts out there. Is Threadloom a publisher of our content or are they a platform that merely grabs our content and distributes it?

If you send a newsletter via Mailchimp that incites violence, who is responsible?

Nice, you completely skim over this sentence that already covered my stance on it. It would be the user's legal responsibility, but I think Mailchimp would be absolved of any legal wrongdoing if they could in good faith prove that they couldn't stop it on time or had no system in place to monitor and eventually catch it. Not a lawyer, but, seems like this would hold up in court...

Show me the instance where Mailchimp banned someone recently for inciting violence. I'll help you out here again, and you can take my word for it or do some research, they didn't. They merely banned people to try and peacefully organize, which you said was okay to do under your interpretation of 1A. So what is it? Is Mailchimp in the wrong?

Congress is not allowed to:
...
* write a law that prevents peaceful protest

Because...

You may be conflating hate speech with speech that incites violence, which is a crime.

Genuine question: What do you ( @frm and @NYCGuy76 ) feel the TOS of Threadloom (or TAZ) prevents you from doing which you would like to do?

You are probably thinking at this point that my boards are for KKK chapters (but to be honest here it would be completely okay to run a black supremacist, Antifa, or BLM group which openly promotes the idea of skin color/identity politics, "our" as being Black, as the best and spreading hate based upon white skin color as it's not a race or ethnicity thus not protected by hate speech as written (as much so Black isn't, but you better not go that far) and thus wouldn't be against the Community Standards at Threadloom [would it?--as it surely isn't on social media platforms]). But, you again would be full of assumptions and I would expect nothing less than an ad hominem from you at this point.

It's that hate speech is not a law in the United States where they operate (ToS Section 9.2), and there are more than him and I out there that will not support companies that promote this type of censorship as we live in a society of free speech, however, Pete wants to interpret. I'm glad that I publicly brought this to light so NYCGuy76 (and others, as it is hidden) can see that Threadloom is just as bad as social media in censorship and are acting as a publisher as if it's their own content and not a platform, which would give them legal protection if the latter.

However, SCOTUS would see otherwise and repeal any legislation that did not incite violence as you have in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom due to Brandenburg v. Ohio. Two conservative Justices stand by stare decisis which means, even though Judge Barret was confirmed, nobody had to be fearful of Roe v. Wade being overturned as much as the liberal media wanted them to be (as to why they made up fictitious stories about Kavanaugh that were disproven in all ways [in front of his family nonetheless] and going as far as stating Barret stole children and it was because of her white privilege that she was able to get away with it).

Quite odd how support never got back to me about their Community Standards for a month and a half, either... it's almost as if any answer they provide regarding hate speech backs them into a corner now. Might be consulting with a legal team before an answer is provided; who knows?

I'm fine with Threadloom stating they won't have it in their ToS and freely choose not to use them just as much as the left will boycott New Balance, Goya, or the Pillow Guy, etc. ... but it makes me question why they haven't put it in their ToS and feel the need to essentially hide it, but make users agree to a license to later find out they can be in violation of it because their "forever reason" is in print, but just not in the print you agree to.

 

[Pete]

OK, nice talking to you.

 

[mysiteguy]

I was considering using thread loom but after reading all this I'm staying away. I'm a conservative and my forum is caters conservatives and republicans. I won't give them the satisfaction of using my forum as an example. Screw that.

Why would you worry your forum might be an example of catering to hate speech?

 

[NYCGuy76]

Why would you worry your forum might be an example of catering to hate speech?

Don’t you have anything better to do than post stupid comments like that? In this day in age anything that’s associated with Trump supporters can be considered hate and my forum is definitely 100% pro Trump.

 

[frm]

Why would you worry your forum might be an example of catering to hate speech?

I don't want to speak for him as I'm sure he's more than capable enough to speak for himself. But as a forum, he has every right to run it as a platform as much as the next guy. If progressive-lefts can overstep the boundaries and push actually threatening physical bodily harm on a public square (one would call this a forum) to their audience (Maxine Waters is a good example here) while conservatives would never be extended that courtesy (as if they would in the first place since they have class and if they do are easily disowned instead of embraced)...

...but maybe, he's operating his forum as a public square and anything any member says can be interpreted as hate speech, even if it's leftist talking points. However, leftist talking points are not censored as hate speech, most likely under Threadloom's Community Standards (as they've yet to come out to define that and I surely won't take my time to pick their member's sites apart to prove it as leftists would).

So, maybe, just maybe, he's actively allowing both to engage in "hate speech", or what used to be called "debates", where one side is actually doing "hate speech" while the other is perfectly fine because they fall into a protected class so they can say what they want and win.

 

[frm]

Don’t you have anything better to do than post stupid comments like that? In this day in age anything that’s associated with Trump supporters can be considered hate and my forum is definitely 100% pro Trump.

Off-topic, you can go ahead and PM me that (as it looks like I can't PM you) and I'll join as another name so I'm not followed from here on over there (as you and I both know that's likely).

Sounds like a great place to have intellectual discussions.

 

[NYCGuy76]

I don't want to speak for him as I'm sure he's more than capable enough to speak for himself. But as a forum, he has every right to run it as a platform as much as the next guy. If progressive-lefts can overstep the boundaries and push actually threatening physical bodily harm on a public square (one would call this a forum) to their audience (Maxine Waters is a good example here) while conservatives would never be extended that courtesy (as if they would in the first place since they have class and if they do are easily disowned instead of embraced)...

...but maybe, he's operating his forum as a public square and anything any member says can be interpreted as hate speech, even if it's leftist talking points. However, leftist talking points are not censored as hate speech, most likely under Threadloom's Community Standards (as they've yet to come out to define that and I surely won't take my time to pick their member's sites apart to prove it as leftists would).

So, maybe, just maybe, he's actively allowing both to engage in "hate speech", or what used to be called "debates", where one side is actually doing "hate speech" while the other is perfectly fine because they fall into a protected class so they can say what they want and win.

There’s none of that on my forum but there’s a lot of progressive left bashing which I actually enjoy doing myself too. When it comes to hate for someone’s skin color or religion that is not tolerated at all. That’s where I draw the line.

 

[frm]

There’s none of that on my forum but there’s a lot of progressive left bashing which I actually enjoy doing myself too. When it comes to hate for someone’s skin color or religion that is not tolerated at all. That’s where I draw the line.

That's why I put it in quotations as hate speech can't truly be defined, only made up how the owners want it to... which will always exclude political affiliation, which would protect your forum as even though there is no "hate speech" (based upon color and religion), you allow the feelings of others to get hurt ("hate speech").

They clearly don't get what hate speech is intended to do (silence the opposition) as they are disguising it to be something else.

 

[NYCGuy76]

That's why I put it in quotations as hate speech can't truly be defined, only made up how the owners want it to... which will always exclude political affiliation, which would protect your forum as even though there is no "hate speech" (based upon color and religion), you allow the feelings of others to get hurt ("hate speech").

They clearly don't get what hate speech is intended to do (silence the opposition) as they are disguising it to be something else.

In today’s world hate speech has been used for almost anything thats against the left. You can thank the major media outlets including social media like Twitter and Facebook for that.

 

[MagicalAzareal]

I'd love to hear your interpretation on 1A as hate speech is not a crime and will never be a crime... You may be conflating hate speech with speech that incites violence, which is a crime.

There is a very fuzzy line between hate speech and incitement. One man's hate speech is another man's incitement, and the Supreme Court errs on the side of free speech in this case. This is important when you're at risk of being thrown in prison for having the wrong opinion, but not every site may want to carry this speech.

What's "wrong" is not necessarily against the law. I agree that it's morally wrong to do but would never hold anyone legally accountable for it as mob rule dictates how minority can play the game: Put yourself in the shoes of minority and let the majority decide you can no longer play.

People wield the 1A as if it's carte blanche to say what they want; that's not what it means. 1A is no defence preventing censorship on any forum in the land; if I make a forum and prevent you saying things on it, you can't invoke 1A to override me.

Telling you you must carry certain speech would be a violation of your own First Amendment rights, as it would be compelling speech from you. The First Amendment applies largely to the government. The First Amendment goes a lot further than the literal text, it has been expanded over a century by case law.

I am of the opinion that CDNs, ISPs, DDoS Shields, DNS providers, and other criticial infrastructure should be regulated such that they can't arbitrarily decide who "lives and who dies". A search service isn't critical infrastructure per say, but it's usually better to learn towards more speech, than less.

Unfortunately, we're currently in a political climate, where everyone is stepping on eggshells. I hope things can calm down and calmer heads can prevail, and ideally, we won't end up with so called "thought crimes".

I am more of a centrist, so I have little interesting in promoting "one camp" over "another", but I tire of the conspiracy theories, thinly veiled hate, and the political theater. I am open to mature discussions regarding policy, although I won't do any of this here to avoid making things overly heated.

For the progressive left, I will avoid the contentious issue of race, and focus on their thoughts on handling crime. They believe they can demolish all the prisons and handle it purely with social programs, however this is based of their flawed impression of Scandinavian countries, which have a very different culture, and which tend to ignore a lot of crime.

Crime has been going down regardless of any policy over the past few decades, and I'm not big on "tough on crime" policies, but the progressive left has a very hard time understanding why people don't like their policies.

 

[frm]

There is a very fuzzy line between hate speech and incitement.

While I agree with everything else you said, there is no fuzzy line between hate speech and incitement.

For one, we've already established that hate speech doesn't exist because it's speech that basically offends people and can be interpreted in more ways than written as anyone could be excluded and thus, it needs to be revisited, with the "victim" ultimately winning (strictly speaking policy, not overseas legislation that has made it clear).

Forgetting that, however, where is the line between hate speech and incitement? I can call you bad names all day long, but it's ultimately your actions that take physical harm out on me (assault/battery or worse). That's on you how to react to words, not me; you should've learned how to control your emotions from K-12.

There is absolutely no line between the two. Incitement is explicitly calling for the action of anyone willing to listen and participate to take place in an actual crime towards a protected class, other than calling them more naughty words, such as physically going after them to even doxing them (which the left does, and is doing with a "list" [AOC for example] of those that support Trump--where have we heard of lists before...?).

Threadloom needs to have an open position on hate speech and apply their community guidelines clearly in their ToS. Otherwise, people are unwittingly agreeing to a standard license that doesn't have provisions of hate speech included, which can later be used against them under pressure. For example, you could run a GOP/Trump forum and as Trump is "racist" (pending evidence), your forum essentially supports racism. Due to this, someone could report you with a well-crafted argument that XYZ is a place for alt-right/racist discussion and get them kicked off Threadloom's "platform" because of the unknown Community Standards policy that is somehow attached to the ToS. The webmaster now has to go out of their way to problem solve and find an alternative, costing time and money, because the ToS is ambiguous.

To end this here, hate speech was only brought up as it's in relation to the OP. If you delve into the Community Standards, everyone of any political affiliation can be affected and I'm certain there are many forums that cannot use (or unknowingly using) Threadloom due to the other policies. The left likes to record police interaction (I am completely fine with that and believe that it should be released uncensored anyway). But, what if a member, that is against the police, publishes an unedited clip of a police shooting that becomes popular content? Does this not violate the "violence/depictions of graphic or gratuitous violence" clause?

Then, there's a harassment clause. If a member feels harassed on your forum but doesn't feel you are taking the appropriate steps and finds out that you are using Threadloom... is Threadloom going to moderate for you or determine if you can still use their services?

And lastly, the catch 22 of commercial promotion of eBay restricted items. Own a microbrewing blog? Better not allow members to promote their beers for sale. A wine forum? That's good to go though. Own a firearms forum? Better not promote Smith & Wesson, unless you plan on using something other than Threadloom. Coin collectors? Pretty stringent policy there too. And the last example that I care to cover is if you are running a local geo-forum, you better ensure you're not allowing the sale of food items from neighbor to neighbor.

tl;dr: I am opposed to hate speech being included the most. However, I find it very unethical to make a license that possibly purposefully hides what they are looking for in sites to terminate relationships without notice. You may think hate speech is it, but it's far more reaching than that. If anyone uses Threadloom, they should be weary and have a backup plan because I will guarantee that your site has postings on it that break the other policies or eBay's rules in your classifieds (if you have them).