First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Hate speech & Free Speech !
5274 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24
Offline
Posted 7/4/17 , edited 7/6/17
1196 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / F / Haymarket, VA
Offline
Posted 7/4/17 , edited 7/6/17
Am I the only person who thinks this law sounds like a good idea?
1795 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Valhalla
Offline
Posted 7/4/17 , edited 7/6/17
Already watched a video on this earlier.It's pretty stupid.
9753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 7/4/17 , edited 7/12/17
hate speech is free speech, so long as it stays speech.

I think that facebook (not so much google as it's a search engine and should populate results based on what the terms put in are), and other social media/"news" platforms should be fined for fake news, but not under the guise of "hate speech".

The news should always be trustworthy and unbiased, and unfortunately, lately, the news has been neither.

Misinformation charges, maybe slander or libel or misrepresentation charges instead.
6386 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 7/4/17 , edited 7/12/17
Free speech means free speech, no matter how vile/fake/stupid/wrong it is. That's just a side affect of democracy. Worth the price.
14880 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/4/17 , edited 7/4/17
The question here isn't so much about free speech but instead about how lawmakers enforce the removal of criminal activity from social media. I think that is an interesting and difficult conundrum, involving the balance between enforcement and rights.
10849 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 7/4/17 , edited 7/6/17
The problem with it is, any form of free speech could be considered hate speech to someone. What is considered hate speech is often in the eye of the beholder.
11419 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 7/4/17
The OP is extremely misrepresentative of the actual situation. This has barely anything at all to do with freedom of speech, it's really about standards for websites.
10849 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 7/4/17 , edited 7/4/17

sundin13 wrote:

The question here isn't so much about free speech but instead about how lawmakers enforce the removal of criminal activity from social media. I think that is an interesting and difficult conundrum, involving the balance between enforcement and rights.


It's a tough situation.
You often see right wing videos targetd on you tube or right wingers banned from facebook but you dont seem to see any laws enforced on left wing videos/opinions/new/fake news or for actual jihadists calling for others to join the cause.
Always seemed odd to me that they leave videos of actual terrorist on social media but target someone offending Islam. As an example.
Even on the main stream media here last night they played a video from a Muslim man who used to live in my city and was a doctor and he left to join Isis in Syria and his video is calling for more Muslims to join the cause.
They play that on the main stram news and spread his message but then target someone on facebook or you tube for saying something bad about immigration or terrorisim/Muslims...
But playing an Isis members hate speech video is ok? yeah ok...

1795 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Valhalla
Offline
Posted 7/4/17

HayateGekkou wrote:

Free speech means free speech, no matter how vile/fake/stupid/wrong it is. That's just a side affect of democracy. Worth the price.


^^^
10849 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 7/4/17

octorockandroll wrote:

The OP is extremely misrepresentative of the actual situation. This has barely anything at all to do with freedom of speech, it's really about standards for websites.


True. And yes i did read the article before my first post
14880 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/4/17

MrAnimeSK wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

The question here isn't so much about free speech but instead about how lawmakers enforce the removal of criminal activity from social media. I think that is an interesting and difficult conundrum, involving the balance between enforcement and rights.


It's a tough situation.
You often see right wing videos targetd on you tube or right wingers banned from facebook but you dont seem to see any laws enforced on left wing videos/opinions/new/fake news or for actual jihadists calling for others to join the cause.
Always seemed odd to me that they leave videos of actual terrorist on social media but target someone offending Islam. As an example.
Even on the main stream media here last night they played a video from a Muslim man who used to live in my city and was a doctor and he left to join Isis in Syria and his video is calling for more Muslims to join the cause.
They play that on the main stram news and spread his message but then target someone on facebook or you tube for saying something bad about immigration or terrorisim/Muslims...
But playing an Isis members hate speech video is ok? yeah ok...



Two things:
1) You see left-wing videos "targeted" on Youtube just as you see right-wing videos "targeted". Generally, controversial content gets demonetized and that is true for both ends of the political spectrum.
2) Reporting on hate speech is distinctly different territory than hate speech itself. One is for the purpose of social discussion and generally condemnation or rebuttal of hate speech, while the other seeks to promote hatred.
10849 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 7/4/17

sundin13 wrote:



Two things:
1) You see left-wing videos "targeted" on Youtube just as you see right-wing videos "targeted". Generally, controversial content gets demonetized and that is true for both ends of the political spectrum.
2) Reporting on hate speech is distinctly different territory than hate speech itself. One is for the purpose of social discussion and generally condemnation or rebuttal of hate speech, while the other seeks to promote hatred.


Maybe you're right but i only ever seen right wingers targetd as far as actually being shut down or banned or videos deleted or facing criminal charges.
Maybe iam one eyed but i'll look into it.

Yes i hear what you're saying but dont you think its funny that the mainstream news is actually promoting and spreading the hate speech by reporting on it?
It's great promotion and spreads the messege/hate speech further than it would have if they had not reported on it.
Spreads the fear and hatred of Muslims to everyone else also. (tarnishes Muslism repuations further).
7227 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / CA
Offline
Posted 7/4/17
I'd be happier if it was the US passing this law, better yet reintroduce the Fairness doctrine and create enforceable standards for news agency's who want to classify themselves as such and let obviously biased new agencies like CNN, FOX & MSNBC fix their act or face reclassification.
29093 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 7/4/17 , edited 7/5/17
Free speech has always had limits the thing is most laws people try to put forth these days go past the limits of what is acceptable.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.