"Wrong" vs "Censorship"

[@Li3n]

I think you really need more evidence that he was trying to silence you. The disagree button simply isn't enough to go on for that.

I wasn't trying to prove that he was trying to full on silence me. It's the knee jerk reaction that i was talking about.

It's like when someone has an annoying voice or something and you get this urge to punch them... it doesn't mean you're a violent person, but it does show there's a violent streak in humans, as with most animals.

To put it in Denbrought's terms, i wasn't 5 Sigma'ing it as 90% sure proof, i was just mentioning it as another generalization, in line with the one i made about groups of people (see my last reponse to Bubble).

 

[MindDetective]

I wasn't trying to prove that he was trying to full on silence me. It's the knee jerk reaction that i was talking about.

It's like when someone has an annoying voice or something and you get this urge to punch them... it doesn't mean you're a violent person, but it does show there's a violent streak in humans, as with most animals.

To put it in Denbrought's terms, i wasn't 5 Sigma'ing it as 90% sure proof, i was just mentioning it as another generalization, in line with the one i made about groups of people (see my last reponse to Bubble).

Sorry, let me rephrase: I think you really need a lot more evidence that he was demonstrating a momentary impulse to silence you. The disagree button simply isn't enough to go on for that.

 

[@Li3n]

There are many reasons why censorship is a tempting tool at every level of power, and reducing it to a single root urge/behavior (that you then identify in fellow commentators) seems akin to saying that defective punctuation is indicative of the same behavior that leads to rape (both are about ignoring boundaries and rules, after all).

Like i pointed out to Bubble, i take it as implied that it's not that simple while observing the trends existence. No generalization works without ignoring the exceptions. And sometimes generalizations are useful.

Can't help but notice that you put your parentheses after your periods pretty often.

Well that's because i tend to end the sentence then think of the stuff i put in ().[DOUBLEPOST=1480958105,1480958047][/DOUBLEPOST]

Sorry, let me rephrase: I think you really need a lot more evidence that he was demonstrating a momentary impulse to silence you. The disagree button simply isn't enough to go on for that.

You hold him, i'll insert the electrodes.

 

[Denbrought]

Sorry, let me rephrase: I think you really need a lot more evidence that he was demonstrating a momentary impulse to silence you. The disagree button simply isn't enough to go on for that.

I would click the 'Like' button here, but I'm worried this would demonstrate a momentary impulse to elect you as tribal leader so that you may protect me in exchange for additional nutrition and more mates.

Like i pointed out to Bubble, i take it as implied that it's not that simple while observing the trends existence. No generalization works without ignoring the exceptions. And sometimes generalizations are useful.

You should take the rating buttons as generalizatons themselves, so your confidence about your behavioral assessment should be doubly docked in confidence.

Well that's because i tend to end the sentence then think of the stuff i put in ().

I like minimalist keyboards myself, but I always make sure they have arrow keys.

 

[MindDetective]

I would click the 'Like' button here, but I'm worried this would demonstrate a momentary impulse to elect you as tribal leader so that you may protect me in exchange for additional nutrition and more mates.


You should take the rating buttons as generalizatons themselves, so your confidence about your behavioral assessment should be doubly docked in confidence.


I like minimalist keyboards myself, but I always make sure they have arrow keys.

I'm not clarifying the funny response. Take it for what it obviously must be.

 

[Hailey Knight]

I'm not clarifying the funny response. Take it for what it obviously must be.

I'm not clarifying my hugs response. Take it for the hug that's not long enough to be comforting, yet still appreciate my putting in the effort like it obviously must be.

 

[Gruebeard]

How meta.

 

[GasBandit]

 

[CrimsonSoul]

Everyone in here is WRONG

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Eriol]

If it's already here I apologize a bit, but still, even once a page is worth saying in this thread:

 

[@Li3n]

I would click the 'Like' button here, but I'm worried this would demonstrate a momentary impulse to elect you as tribal leader so that you may protect me in exchange for additional nutrition and more mates.

And that's how Trump won the election...

You should take the rating buttons as generalizatons themselves, so your confidence about your behavioral assessment should be doubly docked in confidence.

Well of course they are... luckily disagreement is a general feeling.

I like minimalist keyboards myself, but I always make sure they have arrow keys.

Are you implying i should push even more buttons... you monster!

 

[Eriol]

There isn't a perfect thread for this (that I could find in the first 3 pages, barring blindness on my part of course), but this has to do with censorship: Facebook Must Delete Hate Postings Worldwide, Rules Austrian Court

So ya, any government saying "we have jurisdiction over what you do, everywhere, not just in our country" seems bad. Wait for China to do the same on anything related to Falun Gong.

 

[Covar]

Germany basically already does that with Nazism.

 

[Bubble181]

There isn't a perfect thread for this (that I could find in the first 3 pages, barring blindness on my part of course), but this has to do with censorship: Facebook Must Delete Hate Postings Worldwide, Rules Austrian Court

So ya, any government saying "we have jurisdiction over what you do, everywhere, not just in our country" seems bad. Wait for China to do the same on anything related to Falun Gong.

Yeah, we've had the same sort of thing when Belgium (ohohoh) invented a genocide law which said anyone commiting war crimes or human rights violations could be charged in a Belgian court. Let's say it didn't work allthat well. The intent may be noble and all that, but in practice it's completely bonkers.

Germany only says you can't be a Nazi in Germany.

 

[Eriol]

Germany basically already does that with Nazism.

Germany only says you can't be a Nazi in Germany.

What Bubble said. It's a lot different saying "when you operate here, you can't have X, Y, Z content on your stuff accessible from here" which is what Google and such has had to do with removing search results from certain countries' specific engines (google.fr for France for example), but saying "this content which is legal elsewhere, but we've ruled as illegal here, you have to remove everywhere now."

As I said above, what's to stop China from doing this for anybody operating there? Or Myanmar for anything against their King? This precedent is really bad if adhered to. More likely the company itself will just withdraw from the country. If its citizens still use it through the internet, that's not Facebook's problem unless the country starts then trying to block it, which then has other interesting legal paths.

 

[Covar]

I'm sorry I just don't see how it's significantly different. Scale? They're asking for the exact same thing, the only difference is with something like Facebook the company being charged to enforce government censorship could possibly geo-fence it.

 

[Eriol]

I'm sorry I just don't see how it's significantly different. Scale? They're asking for the exact same thing, the only difference is with something like Facebook the company being charged to enforce government censorship could possibly geo-fence it.

Covar, that's why this one is different, in that the court is explicitly ruling that Facebook is not allowed to "geo-fence" it but that it must be removed worldwide. That's the difference I'm raising.

 

[Eriol]

And in a loss for free speech literally everywhere, Canada's "if we say the constitution says it, it does" Supreme Court, says they can tell Google to remove something from everywhere on the Internet, not just Canada!

EFF link: Top Canadian Court Permits Worldwide Internet Censorship
Globe and Mail link: Canada’s top court upholds worldwide injunction against Google
From the EFF article:

Issuing an order that would cut off access to information for U.S. users would set a dangerous precedent for online speech. In essence, it would expand the power of any court in the world to edit the entire Internet, whether or not the targeted material or site is lawful in another country. That, we warned, is likely to result in a race to the bottom, as well-resourced individuals engage in international forum-shopping to impose the one country’s restrictive laws regarding free expression on the rest of the world.

From the Globe article:

The Supreme Court majority did not agree with civil liberties and media organizations that argued freedom of speech was at risk in the case.

“This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders. We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods,” Justice Abella wrote.

Remember, in Canada, it's not free speech unless the Court SAYS it is.

Beyond that, the EFF argument is correct. It's illegal to criticize the monarch of... I can't remember, somewhere in SE Asia. People imprisoned for such. So now those courts can say "google, remove all references everywhere to criticizing us!" And China, "remove all references to an 'event' that happened in the 1980s in Tienanmen Square." And so on... and so on... The "race to the bottom" that the EFF mentions will no doubt be occurring soon.

Fucking idiotic Supreme Court of Canada. Fucking things up for the WORLD now, not just Canada.

 

[blotsfan]

The court has made its ruling. Now let's see them enforce it.

 

[sixpackshaker]

And China, "remove all references to an 'event' that DID NOT happened in the 1980s in Tienanmen Square." And so on... and so on... The "race to the bottom" that the EFF mentions will no doubt be occurring soon.

I did not want to wait for the Chinese Government to request the change.

 

[Denbrought]

Beyond that, the EFF argument is correct. It's illegal to criticize the monarch of... I can't remember, somewhere in SE Asia. People imprisoned for such.

You're probably thinking of Thailand. Lèse-majesté laws exist in many countries, though, Spain among them (e.g. a week ago two separatists were arrested for burning pictures of the king).

The Amos Yee incident also comes to mind, though not quite the same thing.

 

[Eriol]

The court has made its ruling. Now let's see them enforce it.

That's one of the things I'm afraid of really. Is Google going to pull out of Canada like they did China a few years ago?

 

[blotsfan]

That's one of the things I'm afraid of really. Is Google going to pull out of Canada like they did China a few years ago?

I'd say Canada needs Google more than Google needs Canada.

 

[Eriol]

I'd say Canada needs Google more than Google needs Canada.

I agree, but do our politicians?

 

[blotsfan]

Imagine running for election when your opponent can say "he's the reason you can't go on Google anymore."

 

[Thread Necromancer]

Ok, I was wrong. I don't want to read this thread.

 

[Eriol]

We DO actually have a free speech thread other than the Trump one above, so I'm continuing elements of that here.

The EFF has weighed in on banning websites, free speech, censorship, etc: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

 

[DarkAudit]

We DO actually have a free speech thread other than the Trump one above, so I'm continuing elements of that here.

The EFF has weighed in on banning websites, free speech, censorship, etc: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

Will we eventually see a case similar to the gay wedding cake case where someone like the Daily Stormer sues to force a hosting site to take them on? Who would be willing to come to their defense when the only argument for them is "it's not illegal"? Would the big names on the right risk further alienating their advertisers in order to take up such a cause?

In related news, Breitbart is hemorrhaging advertisers. Over 90% have left since January. And now there's mounting pressure on Amazon to drop them as well. As much as I'd like Breitbart and everyone associated with it to DIAF, those advertisers should have been aware of who they were dealing with when they signed the deal. They deserve to go down with this ship just the same.

 

[Eriol]

Seems like the right thread for this one: Pelosi condemns ‘violent actions’ of antifa protesters

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi condemned the “violent actions of people calling themselves antifa” after violence led to arrests at Bay Area protests, in the strongest criticism of left-wing protesters that any Democratic leader has made.

“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts,” Pelosi said in a statement released late Tuesday. “The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.”

Direct link to entire press release rather than just reporting on such.

 

[DarkAudit]

Minneapolis bar shut down after owner outed for giving cash to David Duke.

First the events canceled, then the regulars abandoned ship, and when the nazis shows up to show support for the owner, the staff all quit.

 

[Eriol]

Minneapolis bar shut down after owner outed for giving cash to David Duke.

First the events canceled, then the regulars abandoned ship, and when the nazis shows up to show support for the owner, the staff all quit.

It's private business, no link to government (funding, etc), so seems fine to me. Free where to spend your dollar (and by extension, where NOT to) is another form of free speech IMO. So patrons are exercising that just fine by leaving. No reports (in what you linked, no reason to disbelieve) of vandalism, arson, etc, so no muddling of the issues that way either.

I'm interested in other opinions on the rest of this though:

Other local businesses, including an improv theater and a used clothing store, found themselves caught up in the headlines because the bar owner also owns the properties where they operate. Both have publicly come out against their landlord’s political donation and stressed that he is not involved in their businesses in any way beyond collecting their rent payments.

How far does it go? You're indirectly supporting the owner, through rent. But the businesses there would be harmed by boycotting them, as the snippet above shows that they publicly denounce the practices of the owner, but of course they have to still pay rent, or move.

Boycott the tenants, or no?

 

[mikerc]

Boycott the tenants, or no?

Personally, I would say no. While the businesses could move they may be tied into a contract requiring them to continue paying rent for the next x amount of time. Even if not first these businesses would have to find somewhere to move to and then pay the costs of that move which could require access to liquid cash that they just don't have right now.

Although that's just me, if you feel you don't want to spend money at any business even tangentially related to a Nazi POS...well, like you said where you spend (or don't spend) your money is entirely up to you.

 

[PatrThom]

Boycott the tenants, or no?

Ultimately becomes a question for me of how I feel about the tenants. I mean, I expect they didn't know what they were signing up for.

--Patrick

 

[DarkAudit]

We've already heard about the "Irma is a liberal hoax" crap Rush Limbaugh has been spewing. But now we've got the real possibility that people in harms way are going to take him at his word and wind up dead as a result.

He'd probably already be under criminal investigation in many other countries, but what about here? Does this rise to the level of "f'ire' in a crowded theater"? Where's the liability?

And if stations and/or advertisers refused to be party to such irresponsibility and dropped the show, are they in the right? I mean, contracts be damned, he's dragging them down with him.

 

[Eriol]

More this than the terrorism thread. Criminalization of thought? New terror laws 'would criminalise thought', watchdog warns

Ministers should not "criminalise thought" with plans to prosecute people who view extremist content online, the UK's terror watchdog has said.

Max Hill QC became the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in March 2017

"Whilst we can all agree that there should be nowhere for real terrorists to hide, we should also agree that legislating in the name of terrorism when the targeted activity is not actually terrorism would be quite wrong," he said.

"We do not, and should not criminalise thought without action or preparation for action.

"Thought with steps towards action can be terrorism. Thought without action or preparation for action may be extremism, but it is not terrorism."

He argued that government should not be "rushing to add yet more offences to the already long list".

Gotta love the UK. 1984 being set there seems more and more "on the nose" over time.