6 ms·

Not an Infowars fan, but I see "hate speech" being used as a reason to ban alternative views a lot lately. Let's say he was indeed engaging in hate speech (I ha

Not an Infowars fan, but I see "hate speech" being used as a reason to ban alternative views a lot lately. Let's say he was indeed engaging in hate speech (I haven't verified this): hate speech is still speech, no? Edit: thanks for the downvotes, can we not have a discussion about this? Should we ban hateful books too? I happen to have learned a lot from historically hateful books.

ianleeclark 8y ago
There's no reason to pander to anti-semites like Jones and his ilk.
- HyperTalk2 8y ago
  He's only ever married Jews... all of his children are Jews.
jedberg 8y ago
The best analogy I've seen is this: You have the right to say what you want, but I don't have to invite you into my living room to say it. These aren't public spaces -- they are private spaces that are available to the public.
- aylmao 8y ago
  I think the ban is legal, yes, and in this case I also think it's correct. But correct on what terms? I'm not really sure where I draw the line between "hate speech" and not.
  - sgarman 8y ago
    The good news then is that you don't have to, each service has done so for you in the TOS that users sign.
bobthepanda 8y ago
Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech anywhere you'd like, nor is it freedom from consequences of speech. The notion that a private company has some obligation to uphold First Amendment rights at its own expense is ridiculous.
- bcheung 8y ago
  So you're against net neutrality?
sp332 8y ago
Hate speech doesn't have a legal definition in the USA (that I know of). It's defined in each service's ToS if they choose to restrict it. Facebook is pretty clear about what qualifies. https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech/ https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/06/hard-questions-hate-speech/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/06/hard-questions-hate-spe...
jhayward 8y ago
No, we don't need any further discussion about hate speech, any more than we need further discussion on whether murder is bad, or torture is acceptable. We need swift and clear action to remove it from the commons.

ianleeclark 8y ago

There's no reason to pander to anti-semites like Jones and his ilk.

HyperTalk2 8y ago
He's only ever married Jews... all of his children are Jews.

jedberg 8y ago

The best analogy I've seen is this: You have the right to say what you want, but I don't have to invite you into my living room to say it. These aren't public spaces -- they are private spaces that are available to the public.

aylmao 8y ago
I think the ban is legal, yes, and in this case I also think it's correct. But correct on what terms? I'm not really sure where I draw the line between "hate speech" and not.
- sgarman 8y ago
  The good news then is that you don't have to, each service has done so for you in the TOS that users sign.

bobthepanda 8y ago

Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech anywhere you'd like, nor is it freedom from consequences of speech. The notion that a private company has some obligation to uphold First Amendment rights at its own expense is ridiculous.

bcheung 8y ago
So you're against net neutrality?

sp332 8y ago

Hate speech doesn't have a legal definition in the USA (that I know of). It's defined in each service's ToS if they choose to restrict it. Facebook is pretty clear about what qualifies. https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech/ https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/06/hard-questions-hate-speech/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/06/hard-questions-hate-spe...

jhayward 8y ago

No, we don't need any further discussion about hate speech, any more than we need further discussion on whether murder is bad, or torture is acceptable. We need swift and clear action to remove it from the commons.