French Hate Speech Law Declared Unconstitutional

[MagicalAzareal]

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

What if someone talks about how great it is that someone got shot and killed? Or they proclaim how great it is that a massacre happened? That was the case which got a chan in a lot of trouble with the media. Encouraging speech could be construed to be light incitement.

Facebook got into trouble a couple of years ago because their platform was used to promote an active genocide, although this could be considered to be more of a moderation flaw, and claims that Facebook facilitated the genocide might be exaggerated.

 

[frm]

What if someone talks about how great it is that someone got shot and killed? Or they proclaim how great it is that a massacre happened?

This, along with wishful violence against the right, in particular, the President in the case below, is celebrated amongst the left without any penalty at all.

Case in point, a murder, that in your words pretty much says it's okay (along with VICE) to kill pro-Trumpers.

Too graphic to show the image here, and sure she got "punishment" the first time, but she re-tweeted it a second time just a couple of weeks ago which garnered 58,000 likes and 6000 retweets:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...oversial-Donald-Trump-severed-head-photo.html

So who do these rules apply to?

 

[frm]

I think these are fair and valid questions to be asked and addressed, whether they uphold their decision or not. I just want more transparency before investing money into a platform that I can be kicked off of because I genuinely support the idea that a forum is a public square (platform) and do little-to-no moderation besides cleaning up spam (I will deindex threads that cross the line as I know Big Tech might otherwise bury other pages, but I don't find that to be censorship as they are still accessible).

 

[Oh!]

I have little more to write here. I will just add that incitement to commit a crime surely includes language designed to (or with the reasonable expectation of) inciting some people into violent actions. 'Hate speech' undoubtedly promotes discrimination and violence because it implies that that the target are less worthy of protection (or less human) than 'good people'. Why should anyone expect any platform (or any business) to help facilitate this?

If you cannot discuss issues around race, immigration, gender, sex, religion, etc., without injecting vile words or language with the propensity to cause further prejudice or incite violence, that's a problem for all of society. Society might reasonably create laws to curtail such behavior (just as it enacts many laws to protect people/society from the actions of others). And if Threadloom, TAZ, Facebook, or any other platform/forum chooses to restrict content further than legal obligations require, and you are a supporter of freedom of expression principles, you should support their right to determine the limits they apply to the spaces they operate. If you do not like it: start your own spaces; create your own software/services. But drop the hypocrisy of expecting others to facilitate your efforts and desires. To do so is antithetical to freedom of expression doctrines. Something about which you claim to care passionately.

 

[frm]

I will just add that incitement to commit a crime surely includes language designed to (or with the reasonable expectation of) inciting some people into violent actions.

Completely disagree here. If this were true, GTA would entice people to carjack and LARP in real-life committing horrendous acts.

a supporter of freedom of expression principles, you should support their right to determine the limits they apply to the spaces they operate

I do support it; I just want transparency.

Are they applying to some or all? Can I report the left for the same policies broken and will they take the same action they would against the right? I would assume, by your second sentence (which I disagree with), that you would. Otherwise talk about hating the President would lead to division and maybe even attempts, as we've seen, of real-life violence and murder against his followers. Right?

 

[NYCGuy76]

In the US the definition of a hate speech is as follows: 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".

Incitement to violence: is a term that refers to speech that creates an immediate risk of harm to another person. Basically when one encourages another person to commit a crime.

Each state obviously dictates it's own version to their laws and definitions but that is the basis of what those two terms are defined as. The left has manipulated both those terms to promote their agenda and clearly it has worked. The problem is that people from both sides of the spectrum are easily manipulated by the establishment but it was far more effective on the left. Don't agree with their ideology you're a "racist". Oppose free speech. Perfect example are universities and social media giants like Facebook and Twitter. I know I'm going a bit off topic so I'll just keep it at that.

 

[Oh!]

Completely disagree here. If this were true, GTA would entice people to carjack and LARP in real-life committing horrendous acts.

Could Grand Theft Auto be fiction? Does it target minorities? There might be criticism which could be reasonably targeted towards GTA (not that I've made it), but clearly it is not 'hate speech'; nor is it targeting minorities. Yours is a non sequitur argument.

Are they applying to some or all? Can I report the left for the same policies broken and will they take the same action they would against the right? I would assume, by your second sentence (which I disagree with), that you would. Otherwise talk about hating the President would lead to division and maybe even attempts, as we've seen, of real-life violence and murder against his followers. Right?

A (simple) loathing of an individual is not 'hate speech' in the legal or generally accepted use of the term. 'Hate speech' refers to the apparent targeting of minority groups or individuals based upon their minority status. Irrespective, inciting violence upon an individual remains a crime in of itself too.

It seems quite clear that you wish to be allowed post any type of content you wish (maybe even illegal content), anywhere you wish, and that you take great exception with anyone or company who will not assist you in this endeavor. So, like another member earlier in this thread, I too will now take my leave.

 

[frm]

'Hate speech' refers to the apparent targeting of minority groups or individuals based upon their minority status.

You said it yourself. Are political ideas not minority/majority? What happens when your political faction becomes the minority? Are you willing to be listed? Seems familiar.

It seems quite clear that you wish to be allowed post any type of content you wish (maybe even illegal content), anywhere you wish

Way to call me a racist and paint the picture that I would do anything illegal when all I am asking for is transparency, their ToS which you openly agree to, and the Community Standards to be combined so you know what type of relationship you are getting into before getting into it. This is why people boycott, believe it or not.

with anyone or company who will not assist you in this endeavor

I do not support companies that support political ideology like this as identity politics is more divisive and racism than racism actually is, unless you redefine the word itself, which has been as you can be Black, but still be words I cannot say, if you have a conservative viewpoint or are a police officer in a heavily Democrat area.

So, like another member earlier in this thread, I too will now take my leave.

Now wasn't that easier than making a rule or a license agreement?

Stay completely out of politics before it ruins you.

Parler is making great strides because the echo chamber on Twitter is telling the woke corporations how to react to what they believe the majority want when that's not necessarily true. Sure, they might've done good in Q3 and my Twitter portfolio grew because of it (yeah, shocking... I'm a conservative, but I'm also a capitalist). That said, the numbers Parler has been pulling in over Twitter should be a rude awakening come mid-next-year if there is a purge of ideas.

 

[NYCGuy76]

You said it yourself. Are political ideas not minority/majority? What happens when your political faction becomes the minority? Are you willing to be listed? Seems familiar.

Way to call me a racist and paint the picture that I would do anything illegal when all I am asking for is transparency, their ToS which you openly agree to, and the Community Standards to be combined so you know what type of relationship you are getting into before getting into it. This is why people boycott, believe it or not.

I do not support companies that support political ideology like this as identity politics is more divisive and racism than racism actually is, unless you redefine the word itself, which has been as you can be Black, but still be words I cannot say, if you have a conservative viewpoint or are a police officer in a heavily Democrat area.

Now wasn't that easier than making a rule or a license agreement?

Stay completely out of politics before it ruins you.

Parler is making great strides because the echo chamber on Twitter is telling the woke corporations how to react to what they believe the majority want when that's not necessarily true. Sure, they might've done good in Q3 and my Twitter portfolio grew because of it (yeah, shocking... I'm a conservative, but I'm also a capitalist). That said, the numbers Parler has been pulling in over Twitter should be a rude awakening come mid-next-year if there is a purge of ideas.

I use Parler. No censorship on there thankfully.

 

[mysiteguy]

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.

I see you're doing your best to emulate his tweet style.

 

[mysiteguy]

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)...

While he has every right as a forum to operate it as he sees fit within the boundaries of the law, he doesn't have every right to use software in violation of its license agreements. They (Threadloom) have every right to have whatever limitations they see fit. He doesn't own the software --- they do.

Nobody is forcing him to use their software, he can choose to use another software package. The free market ultimately decides if Threadloom made the right business decision with their policies. You are free market, right?

 

[mysiteguy]

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...?).

Question - where does someone with many highly fanatical followers fall into this when they...
... direct people in a crowd to knock the #*)$%@ out of someone.
... hint police should deliberately knock someone's head into the roof of a car (assault by any other name).
... praise those who shoot protesters.
... praise people who use their vehicles to chase down and try to slow down buses on Interstate highways.

 

[mysiteguy]

Completely disagree here. If this were true, GTA would entice people to carjack and LARP in real-life committing horrendous acts.

While it true within the context of a gaming community, it's different than when aimed at someone directly in person when "those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction." That's the ruling of SCOTUS concerning fighting words.

 

[NYCGuy76]

I see you're doing your best to emulate his tweet style.

I'm doing my best to respond to a typical leftist response in a level that you can relate to.

 

[NYCGuy76]

Question - where does someone with many highly fanatical followers fall into this when they...
... direct people in a crowd to knock the #*)$%@ out of someone.
... hint police should deliberately knock someone's head into the roof of a car (assault by any other name).
... praise those who shoot protesters.
... praise people who use their vehicles to chase down and try to slow down buses on Interstate highways.

You just described the left and the politicians that support them in blue states. They encourage leftist protesters to attack Trump supporters and when they do they turn a blind eye to it. Too funny...

 

[Jeremy8]

Governments shouldn't limit speech, but forums should if they think it helps them run a better community. A website is private property and the forum owner is perfectly within their rights to enforce site rules that prohibit certain types of speech in any way they choose. That's true whether it's a social media giant such as Facebook or a small independent forum.

 

[Oh!]

Governments shouldn't limit speech, but forums should if they think it helps them run a better community. A website is private property and the forum owner is perfectly within their rights to enforce site rules that prohibit certain types of speech in any way they choose. That's true whether it's a social media giant such as Facebook or a small independent forum.

To be frank, I have no idea why this is even a discussion. The idea that any platform/forum should be expected/forced to carry particular types of content is completely contrary to freedom of speech/expression doctrines.

 

[NYCGuy76]

Governments shouldn't limit speech, but forums should if they think it helps them run a better community. A website is private property and the forum owner is perfectly within their rights to enforce site rules that prohibit certain types of speech in any way they choose. That's true whether it's a social media giant such as Facebook or a small independent forum.

As much as I don't agree with censorship you're absolutely correct. Any privately owned company like Facebook, Twitter, google, TAZ or whatever can choose to decide what to allow.

 

[Jeremy8]

To be frank, I have no idea why this is even a discussion. The idea that any platform/forum should be expected/forced to carry particular types of content is completely contrary to freedom of speech/expression doctrines.

I think the original post started as a victory against government trying to limit speech, but then the thread turned into something else.

 

[mysiteguy]

I'm doing my best to respond to a typical leftist response in a level that you can relate to.

You're not doing conservatives any favors by name calling.

My political views aren't leftist, they more centrist, and economically conservative with a somewhat libertarian bent with marketplaces and some social issues. I've voted primarily Republican and Libertarian all my life, and some Democrats because I vote by candidate, not party.

My initial question was valid. If you are that concerned about Threadloom's policies, I have to wonder what that says about what is acceptable for your user base? I believe Threadloom is acting in a reasonable manner... in their shoes I would not want my products associated with the likes of Storm Front, for example, and would want those bases covered in the TOS/AUP.