Page 2 of 2

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:40 pm UTC
by Xeio
sardia wrote:Facebook doesn't have a real policy, they mostly muddle through with a team of "Deciders", just a bunch of young people staring at porn. Those few people in the ethics department look at the offensive material and judge whether or not to censor it. Currently it allows it within limits of public backlash. I was bringing attention to the push to enshrine free speech like net neutrality. Currently net neutrality is merely a nicety that corporations give us, not a right that they can't take away. Free speech is in the same precarious position, a nicety that corporations give us. While this is unlikely to affect an US citizen posting on facebook, it does pertain to other countries since they don't look as kindly on offensive language.

There is a major difference between a privilege granted by a corporation and an inalienable right. It is possible to have free speech without having a right to it. Does that clear things up a bit?
I don't think free speech needs to be protected like net neutrality. For example I'm ok with the xkcd forum being allowed to ban people for hate speech...

Even physical private places of business have that ability. Why would the internet be different?

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:47 pm UTC
by wumpus
Internetmeme wrote:This is wrong, and I hope Facebook stands up to this group. Instead of wasting time attacking a website for little to no benefit (other than an annoyed userbase), they should put their resources to something better, and try to fix actual problems.


Are you remotely familiar with facebook's management? Their entire company is based on grabbing private data and selling it to any bidder. Why in the world are you expecting them to even consider fixing actual problems.

Facebook is going to aggressively remove anything that looks like hatespeech, largely because advertisers don't want their ads next to it, and Facebook could care less about serving a page they can't cover with ads.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:18 pm UTC
by HungryHobo
wumpus wrote:Facebook is going to aggressively remove anything that looks like hatespeech, largely because advertisers don't want their ads next to it, and Facebook could care less about serving a page they can't cover with ads.


Yep, the most effective way to make it go away as an individual is to sit on some of the pages with unpleasant content and refresh for a few hours while taking screenshots.

then email every advertiser with pictures of their brand getting associated with that and copy in facebook PR and sales.

repeat a few times, several weeks apart until facebook cracks down on that sort of thing. (long enough for someone to reassure the advertisers that of course their ads won't end up in that context again)

The sad thing is that the same tactic would probably have an effect if you sat on gay rights pages watching out for ads from conservative and christian groups.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:53 am UTC
by styrofoam
sardia wrote:For example, during the 1960s, you can run choose to run your private business any way you want. You decide to hire black people on equal terms with white people. You get run out of town by angry white townsfolk.

Arrest the mob. (the reason that didn't happen in the 1960's is corrupt state judges; the federal government could pass laws to "regulate commerce" and try them in federal court, but murder is a state crime)

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:32 am UTC
by AYC
As long as they aren't advocating violence against specific women or posting home addresses/phone numbers, I don't see what the problem is.

As was said earlier in this thread: people are free to be douchebags, and we're free to call them out on their douchebaggery.

The tumblr-fueled crusade aimed at censoring anything remotely offensive is pretty damn stupid. People are going to say things you don't like; that's the price you pay for living in a society that values free expression.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:48 am UTC
by Telchar
Right, and people are also free to express to Facebook's advertisers how much this disturbs them. Those advertisers, and consequently Facebook, are then free to act or not act on this information.

Can we quit acting like this is about freedom? Of course everyone is free to do or not do things. Don't get pissed off about freedom of expression when these people are also just expressing themselves.

Also, can we stop trying to shield videos of actual rape behind the "freedom of expression" meme?

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:37 am UTC
by AYC
Telchar wrote:Right, and people are also free to express to Facebook's advertisers how much this disturbs them. Those advertisers, and consequently Facebook, are then free to act or not act on this information.

Yep. FB and the advertisers, as private entities, can regulate their sites how they please, provided it doesn't devolve into harassment or the like (as I outlined above).

Also, can we stop trying to shield videos of actual rape behind the "freedom of expression" meme?

Agreed. Freedom implies consent, after all.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:16 am UTC
by yurell
From here:

Free speech entitles you to:

1. Say what you want to without fear of government censorship or retribution.

Free speech does not entitle you to:

1. An audience. You can say what you want, but people are not actually required to listen to you spew. So, contrary to many, many claims otherwise, your free speech rights are not trampled if someone ignores you, blocks you on Twitter, or refuses to give you a job as a writer or communicator for their organization. National Review isn’t stepping on my free speech rights because they don’t hire me. If your sexism stops you from getting a prominent job in media, that is also not a violation of your rights.

2. To have others host your speech. This is a corollary to the first one. Facebook, blog comment sections, online forums, etc. are just like TV shows, radio shows, and magazines: Their house, their rules. They have built up an audience and they are not obligated to turn around and give you that audience to spew your garbage. Start your own damn website/magazine/forum.

3. To be protected from criticism. I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but free speech protects your right to celebrate rape with your “jokes”, and it also protects my right to call you an asshole for it. Daniel Tosh can think it would be hilarious to watch someone get raped and say so, and I say that makes him a moral monster and a piece of shit. It is not censorship to hurt the tender feelings of people who think rape is hilarious.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:27 am UTC
by ManaUser
In my opinion, "hate speech" an extremely slippery concept and should not be the basis of either political or business policy. It's particularly ironic because the term "hate speech", along with its friends "hate group", "hate crime" etc are themselves used to inspire hatred against certain groups of people.

I'm one of those liberterian types they warn you about Image so I would prefer no censorship at all. But Facebook would do well to avoid this type of censorship in particular. Stupid as their current rules are (e.g. no bare breasts, ever) and least they're simple and definable. So for example, if they just made a rule against all graphic crime scene type picture that would probably fine, lots of people would prefer not to see that. But as soon as they care whether the text under the picture is "This girl was raped, isn't there terrible?" or "She should have stayed in the kitchen!" they've assigned themselves an hopeless task. I mean which side of the line does the ubiquitous "she shouldn't have dressed like that" comment fall on? Similarly if they prohibited certain words, such as racial slurs (I have no idea if they do) that's one thing, but if they try to ban derogatory comments in general they risk being drawn into endless petty fighting.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:07 am UTC
by rieschen
"She shouldn't have dressed like that" easily and obviously falls on the same side of that line as "she should have stayed in the kitchen". Also on that side of the line are "she shouldn't have been drinking," "she shouldn't have invited him back to hers" and "she shouldn't have been such a tease".

I think you should read up on how, why and when rape happens (hint: It has very, very little to do with victim behaviour).

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:00 am UTC
by yurell
ManaUser wrote:But Facebook would do well to avoid this type of censorship in particular.


Censorship? To describe an organisation refusing to publish ideas it finds untenable in places it owns as 'censorship' sounds like ridiculous rhetoric taken to insane extremes.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 12:34 pm UTC
by Vash
I choose women and the first amendment, because I don't believe that restricting hate speech stops hate.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 12:44 pm UTC
by yurell
What does the first amendment (presumably to the United States' constitution, although if I'm wrong correct me) have to do with this?

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:01 pm UTC
by Vash
I was taking OP's wording, and anyway, it's basically now shorthand for "freedom of speech." Though yes, also technically irrelevant.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:24 pm UTC
by Telchar
Vash wrote:I was taking OP's wording, and anyway, it's basically now shorthand for "freedom of speech." Though yes, also technically irrelevant.



Freedom of speech is shorthand for "The government shall pass no law restricting your speech" which has nothing to do with what is happening here.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:31 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
Ormurinn wrote:Facebook is a privately run space, they can have whatever policy they want on whatever kind of speech they want, it's within their rights to ban the letter "Y" if they want to.


This is it really. The US Government is not really involved in this case at all. Facebook is free to do what it pleases with its servers. Much like how moderators on these forums are free to moderate how they please... the owners of Facebook are free to censor or moderate as they please. If you don't like it, go get your own servers and stop expecting free hosting space to be given to you.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:23 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Vash wrote:I choose women and the first amendment, because I don't believe that restricting hate speech stops hate.
I don't disagree with the literal words you posted here, but I strongly disagree with what you intend them to imply.

1) The first amendment has exactly fuckall to do with this case, because no one anywhere is talking about government censorship.
2) Even in situations where the government is involved (which, as has been pointed out repeatedly, this particular situation isn't), there are limits to what speech is actually protected.
3) Hate speech restrictions are not meant to stop hate, and I doubt any proponents of hate speech restrictions believes that they will stop hate. What they are meant to do is inhibit the ability to easily spread that hate, and also perhaps to protect the targets of hate speech from the direct harm it causes (usually in a mental or emotional form).

Personally, I am not in favor of legal restrictions on hate speech, but I am totally okay with private businesses refusing to host your hate speech or to provide you with an audience for it.

Hell, I'm not even sure I'm okay with hate crimes legislation. I think it would instead be better to simply admit that a lot of "hate crimes" already fall comfortably under the (US's) legal definition of terrorism, and that yes, white racists and fundamentalists are sometimes terrorists, too.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:49 pm UTC
by sardia
gmalivuk wrote:
Vash wrote:I choose women and the first amendment, because I don't believe that restricting hate speech stops hate.
I don't disagree with the literal words you posted here, but I strongly disagree with what you intend them to imply.

1) The first amendment has exactly fuckall to do with this case, because no one anywhere is talking about government censorship.
2) Even in situations where the government is involved (which, as has been pointed out repeatedly, this particular situation isn't), there are limits to what speech is actually protected.
3) Hate speech restrictions are not meant to stop hate, and I doubt any proponents of hate speech restrictions believes that they will stop hate. What they are meant to do is inhibit the ability to easily spread that hate, and also perhaps to protect the targets of hate speech from the direct harm it causes (usually in a mental or emotional form).

Personally, I am not in favor of legal restrictions on hate speech, but I am totally okay with private businesses refusing to host your hate speech or to provide you with an audience for it.

Hell, I'm not even sure I'm okay with hate crimes legislation. I think it would instead be better to simply admit that a lot of "hate crimes" already fall comfortably under the (US's) legal definition of terrorism, and that yes, white racists and fundamentalists are sometimes terrorists, too.

Those are all good points. This isn't a first amendment issue, it's more a general free speech issue. Do you believe this should hold true as the market share of the company increases? In addition, the topic is violence against women is defensible either way or any compromise on such is applicable. Does this basis hold true for any and all topics like say, parodies of the prophet Muhammad or criticism of authoritarian regimes?
Honestly, I'm for free speech in general, but when the price is dead young people who died meaninglessly, I am troubled by it. The way I'm arguing is pointing to "the price we pay for freedom" and "there are other tools to fix this besides censorship" but that's pretty callous to thoughtlessly call for.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:11 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
sardia wrote:In addition, the topic is violence against women is defensible either way or any compromise on such is applicable.
Try as I might, I can't this sentence.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:41 pm UTC
by sardia
gmalivuk wrote:In addition, the topic is violence against women is defensible either way or any compromise on such is applicable.
Try as I might, I can't this sentence.[/quote]
I'm against violence against women, but when you leave regulation out of it, it's entirely up to the businesses to decide if they wish to censor it or not. It's the other side of the coin that is "They are private businesses free to censor anything they want." Web hosting companies could easily say it's too costly to censor such things, or it's not in their policy to do it. Or they could pick out of the many reasons why we shouldn't tolerate this, and censor these terrible people. The only incentives they are under is PR and profit, so they have a pretty wide range of actions to take.

"Arrest the mob. (the reason that didn't happen in the 1960's is corrupt state judges; the federal government could pass laws to "regulate commerce" and try them in federal court, but murder is a state crime)"
Styrofoam, in 1960, it's not a crime to discriminate against black people. Jim crow laws, institutionalized racism, segregation, etc etc. The charges would be thrown out by the 12 white jurors, and that's if you find a cop and prosecutor sympathetic to your cause. If you pushed it to the federal level, it would just be a repeat of either A pre 1960s civil rights act of "don't want poke a hornet's nest" or B 1960s post civil rights act "lets push this issue now".

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:07 pm UTC
by Vash
Telchar wrote:Freedom of speech is shorthand for "The government shall pass no law restricting your speech" which has nothing to do with what is happening here.


Freedom of speech is a broader concept, too. There's nothing really particular about it that says it cannot apply to something private. Just the legal principle of freedom of speech is not required to apply to private entities. IIRC there are cases where it does, though.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:29 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Don't use "the first amendment" as a shorthand for non-governmental freedom of speech, though.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:57 pm UTC
by Vash
I have to admit, I'm not really into starting a huge argument, but I think it was easy enough to glean what I meant even if the wording was technically incorrect. I just don't like to worry that much. That's all. Peace.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:59 pm UTC
by Vash
Sorry to double-post (I can't edit), but basically, sometimes the brain farts.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:19 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
You were called out on saying the wrong thing because it's impossible for the rest of us to distinguish between brain farts and people who actually believe this is a first amendment issue.

(See, for example, every angry PM we mods have ever gotten for being fascists and having actual rules of conduct on our forum.)

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:03 pm UTC
by sam_i_am
Technically speaking, an argument could be made that the first amendment actually allows for Facebook to regulate it's content as it pleases.(freedom of press)

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:22 am UTC
by elasto
sam_i_am wrote:Technically speaking, an argument could be made that the first amendment actually allows for Facebook to regulate it's content as it pleases.(freedom of press)

In some ways it's entangled with the issue of whether a platform is to be held responsible for content its users post. eg.
- If someone posts something libellous on Facebook is Facebook liable if they don't take it down?
- If someone posts something infringing IP on Facebook is Facebook liable if they don't take it down?

The answer to the first is probably almost always no, but the answer to the second is getting dangerously close to yes...

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:35 am UTC
by Sizik
Mostly because there are far more laws and corporations with money in the US with preference toward the latter.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:25 am UTC
by HungryHobo
gmalivuk wrote:Don't use "the first amendment" as a shorthand for non-governmental freedom of speech, though.


The problem is that there genuinely are a lot of people who don't just believe that Facebook should ban this but also that if facebook doesn't the government should make them.

It's depressing any time anything about facebook comes up in the english newspapers, you get an endless string of middle class soccer moms raging that the government should force facebook to be how they want it.

It's not even unique to the UK, you see it on american sites regularly enough as well.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:52 am UTC
by Tyndmyr
HungryHobo wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Don't use "the first amendment" as a shorthand for non-governmental freedom of speech, though.


The problem is that there genuinely are a lot of people who don't just believe that Facebook should ban this but also that if facebook doesn't the government should make them.

It's depressing any time anything about facebook comes up in the english newspapers, you get an endless string of middle class soccer moms raging that the government should force facebook to be how they want it.

It's not even unique to the UK, you see it on american sites regularly enough as well.


I suspect that most folks' understanding of freedom of speech is "I get to say anything I want wherever I want". It's kind of sad, because our bill of rights isn't that long, or written in particularly dense legalese, but it's quite common for people to give out shortened, dumbed down versions of the list. I suppose this level of education is better than nothing, but it's a wee bit frustrating to see the same silly misconceptions come up over and over again when the whole thing would be solved by a minor bit of reading and thinking about it.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 12:31 am UTC
by addams
Hate Speech may be what The Government wants to get through.
See other Threads on NSA and what they want.

We don't know what 'they' want.
Hate Speech may be the desired end result.

What kind of people want all other people to talk and get along?
Peacenicks? We don't want That! Not Peacenicks!

Better snarky people with No common interests.
EasIer to understand and control? Maybe.

People that are kind and caring are dull.
Soccer Moms are experts at Our Team vs Their Team.

Soccer Moms the Cultural Vanguards?

jeeze. Everyone else had better toughen up.
Have you ever met any Soccer Moms?

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:08 pm UTC
by Vash
gmalivuk wrote:You were called out on saying the wrong thing because it's impossible for the rest of us to distinguish between brain farts and people who actually believe this is a first amendment issue.

(See, for example, every angry PM we mods have ever gotten for being fascists and having actual rules of conduct on our forum.)


It's not impossible. The real meaning of a statement is up to judgment. I think it's actually easy if you are considering multiple interpretations, including generous ones, to get at the real meaning of what someone meant. (or at least to acknowledge the uncertainty)

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:37 pm UTC
by JainBug
What IS hate speech? I mean, there is no precise definition. Is it simply something that is taboo? Heresy? Blasphemy?

Wikipedia says: "Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group"
--That statement is confused and makes no sense at all.

The Free Dictionary says: "Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group"
--So if I say "capitalists are greedy", then that is "hate speech"? (Capitalists qualify as a "social group".)

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:33 pm UTC
by addams
Facebook?
Excuse me.
I don't know how To Use.
It is Used to?

It is Of The People.
It is By The People.
It is For The People.

What do The People want?
Spoiler:
Desiderata
Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be critical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be Cheerful. Strive to be happy.

© Max Ehrmann 1927


That is what I want.
That man was an American.
The Author. The words seem so Timeless.

It was easy to Believe the Rumor of it being an Old Text from a Long Forgotten book of Long Forgotten Lore.


It was. It was found and published after The Author died?
It was Published in an Audio version. It filled the Air.

Some people memorized it. I did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_F3KRPM ... 8F2C2BEAC8
It's not that hard. I forget it, if I don't use it. Like the Periodic Table.
I hope the link works for you. Boring? oh. Facebook is Exciting?

What did 'They' say on Facebook?
Did 'They' say The Desiderata was Found in St. Jhon's Church?
Year? 1570 A.D.? Copied and Edited by Scribes in Ireland?

Is it a Conspiracy? To be Nice? To Memorize a few lines of Poetry?
Who has The Time?! We are BUSY! Facebook is Business Connections and Personal Connections?

Is it a Hateful place to be? excuse me. I do not have Facebook experience.

Rumor of Facebook? yes. I am willing to try nearly Anything.
I tried Facebook. It frightened me.
Spoiler:
Not a good scientist.
Unwilling to Wallow in a Frightening Truth.


Oh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_F3KRPM ... 8F2C2BEAC8

If you memorize it or Read it aloud;
It will sound a little different from when The Famous Amos did it.

I Dare Ya'. Memorize it.
Then take a test and forget it.
On Facebook?

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 6:09 pm UTC
by Cleverbeans
JainBug wrote:What IS hate speech?


The definition varies from country to country, in Canada for example hate propaganda is defined as ""any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide." Also, these are not blanket protections for all people, in general it requires a group to be based on "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted." So again, this excludes demographics like "capitalist", and generally people making these laws have worked hard to answer your question in a meaningful way. Personally, I believe promoting genocide should be a criminal offense, since historically the propaganda comes before the slaughter.

Re: Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech on Facebook

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:59 am UTC
by BattleMoose
Legally hate speech varies from country to country but the wikipedia description is good.

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

The issue regarding hate speech usually focuses on, what should be protected groups. For the most part, if its some nature of your person that you were born with, then it is usually protected, eg skin colour, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation and more. Sometimes religion is included. Sometimes political affiliation is also included.

I haven't come across any definition that would include capitalists as a protected group.

The issue that started this thread was whether or not, soldiers should be considered a protected group.

Regardless, disparaging a group, in my opinion, is highly morally questionable.